Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday August 08 2016, @08:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-kick-me-when-i'm-down dept.

[Update. It appears the original submission was skewing the facts. From the What You Should Know about EEOC and Shelton D. v. U.S. Postal Service (Gadsden Flag case) on the EEOC (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commision) web site:

What You Should Know about EEOC and Shelton D. v. U.S. Postal Service (Gadsden Flag case)

  • This decision addressed only the procedural issue of whether the Complainant's allegations of discrimination should be dismissed or investigated. This decision was not on the merits, did not determine that the Gadsden Flag was racist or discriminatory, and did not ban it.
  • Given the procedural nature of this appeal and the fact that no investigative record or evidence had been developed yet, it would have been premature and inappropriate for EEOC to determine, one way or the other, the merits of the U.S. Postal Service's argument that the Gadsden Flag and its slogan do not have any racial connotations whatsoever.
  • EEOC's decision simply ordered the agency - the U.S. Postal Service - to investigate the allegations. EEOC's decision made no factual or legal determination on whether discrimination actually occurred.

The original story follows. --martyb]

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined in a preliminary ruling that wearing clothing featuring the Gadsden Flag constitutes legally actionable racial harassment in the workplace. In short, wearing the Gadsden flag while at work can earn you the title of "racist", earn you harassment charges, and cost you your job. The ideological witch hunt started back in 2014 when a black employee at a privately owned company filed a complaint with the EEOC when he saw a co-worker wearing a hat featuring the Gadsden flag and the words "Don't tread on me." The EEOC has decided to side with the over-sensitive employee, despite already admitting that the flag originated in a non-racial context and has been adopted by multiple non-racial political groups, countless companies and more, since it was created.

The ruling is a preliminary ruling and has not yet been made "official" but the preliminary ruling says that you can be charged with "racial harassment." They have not indicated when an "official" ruling will be made and it is ongoing.

Source: American Military News

Better Source: Washington Post

Facts: EEOC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:12PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:12PM (#385727)

    So please explain this to me, because I really really don't get it: How are symbols used by a group of people that committed treason seen as a sign of patriotism for the country they committed treason against?

    As for them being symbols of resistance, I'll just point out that what they were resisting, and what South Carolina started that whole dust-up in 1861 over, was not a policy that Lincoln had mentioned in his election speeches, nor a law that Lincoln had signed, but their fears about what laws and policies Lincoln might come up with sometime in the future. Lincoln wasn't even president yet when they decided to revolt. It is entirely possible that slavery would have lasted for decades in what became the Confederacy had South Carolina let Lincoln go forward with his stated plan of ending the expansion of slavery westward but leaving it alone where it already existed.

    The southerners were very poorly served by their leadership, who convinced them to jump at an imagined threat, commandeered almost everything they had for the war effort including drafting pretty much any man they could get their hands on, picked a hopeless fight against a vastly superior force, and in the end lost far more than they would have had they kept their cool. I am at a loss as to how any of that is cause for celebration.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 09 2016, @02:46PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 09 2016, @02:46PM (#385776) Journal

    "picked a hopeless fight against a vastly superior force,"

    Note 1: The South took with them much of the competent military leadership, primarily in the person of Robert E. Lee. The Grand Old Army repeatedly shot itself in the foot, and damned near gave the South it's victory on several occassions. It wasn't until Grant turned Sherman loose on the South that things started favoring the North.

    Note 2: The South was hoping for some aid from overseas. Had the recieved military and/or economic aid from France, the war may have ended quite differently. Of course, the Northern navy was busy blockading the South's ports, for that very reason.

    Note 3: Man for man, the rebels outfought the Union, until near the end of the war, when everyone was demoralized.

    • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday August 09 2016, @03:07PM

      by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @03:07PM (#385784)

      The South took with them much of the competent military leadership, primarily in the person of Robert E. Lee. The Grand Old Army repeatedly shot itself in the foot, and damned near gave the South it's victory on several occasions. It wasn't until Grant turned Sherman loose on the South that things started favoring the North.

      The South was on the run long before then. Their leadership hoped to drag things out long enough for the North to get tired of the war and settle for peace, but once Grant took Vicksburg and Lee lost his last gasp effort at Gettysburg it was all but over. By then the North's competent generals had risen to the top (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Meade, Thomas, etc.) and the resource advantage of the North made it a foregone conclusion. Any hope a European power would intervene disappeared for good after Gettysburg. The Confederates never advanced much or at all in the West, and had Lincoln fired that idiot McClellan from leading the Army Of The Potomac for good as soon as he screwed up the first time the war might have ended a year or two sooner.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 09 2016, @04:17PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @04:17PM (#385820)

      Note 1: The South took with them much of the competent military leadership, primarily in the person of Robert E. Lee.

      That helped the South survive in the East. However, they began losing in the west almost immediately, in Missouri, Kentucky, and the Gulf Coast. Lee, for all his skill, could only command one army at a time.

      In addition, Lee had numerous flaws as a commander that in the long run spelled doom for the Confederacy. Those flaws were exposed once Stonewall Jackson was killed, because one of Jackson's roles in the Army of Northern Virginia was saving Lee's butt on many occasions. For example, Lee was reluctant to fight defensively even though everything he should have learned early on in the war suggested that defenders had a huge advantage over attackers.

      Note 2: The South was hoping for some aid from overseas.

      They weren't likely to get it. For example, France had renounced slavery, which would have made supporting the Confederacy really difficult politically. The Brits in particular had internal reasons to oppose the Confederacy, and it didn't help that the Confederates never had the diplomatic infrastructure the Union had throughout the war.

      Note 3: Man for man, the rebels outfought the Union

      1. Even if that were true, that didn't matter much when the Union could field many more troops.
      2. The Union troops were consistently better fed and better equipped than the Confederates, because they had approximately twice the civilian resources to work with and almost all the industrial capacity at the start of the war. For example, USA fairly early on issued repeating rifles to their cavalry and mounted infantry that could fire 20 rounds per minute to the Confederate's 3, giving their units a distinct advantage.

      Another major advantage the Union had, which did not go completely unnoticed by the Confederacy, was that throughout much of the south the Union Army had a ready-made spy network in the form of the slaves. Sherman in particular routinely received detailed information on where he could find supplies and Confederate forces from the slaves who of course knew their own plantations perfectly well and had also managed to establish networks of information transfer between plantations right under their masters' noses.

      -------------------
      The Confederates had a chance of winning battles in the Eastern Theater, mainly due to Union general's incompetence, but not much chance of winning the war.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.