The hirsute and muy macho Brent Bozell, whose whining scolds (or scolding whines) are warmly received on Fox News, recently discovered that the health insurance plan, which covers his employees at the Media Research Center, includes coverage for birth control and OHMAGAWD abortion . Bozell, a devout Catholic who obviously believes that every sperm is sacred, was horrified and immediately told the saintly handmaidens on his payroll to "not avail yourselves to these contraception/abortifacient/abortion services, not through the MRC. They are evil, and I am unequivocal about this." Of course, the question arises as to whether these women have been engaging in evil non-procreative sex for pleasure while taking advantage of the MRC's birth control coverage. And if so, does that mean that his single ladies weren't waiting to put a ring on it? If Brent gets his way, they'll need to stock up on the aspirin which, of course, isn't covered under health care . Oh, well...
After checking a bit more, I found this information from a Virginia law firm (Frith & Ellerman) which might put a damper on any lawsuit a fired MRC employee might seek.
—Yes Virginians, you live and work in a âRight to Workâ State, but what does that really mean?We receive calls frequently from Virginia employees who want to know what their rights are if Virginia is a Right to Workâ State. Right to Work came about from the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), through which Congress, for the first time, gave Organized Labor the ability to fire workers for refusing to pay union dues and join a union.
Clearly, many states, Virginia included, did not like any federal law that required employees to join unions. So, in the mid 1940âs, numerous states enacted Right to Work laws prohibiting forced union membership and payment of forced union dues as a condition of employment.
That is all âRight to Workâ means. Simply states, you cannot lose your job for refusing to pay union dues or join the Union.
Unfortunately, over the years, the phrase has been misused and many Virginians incorrectly believe the protection provides various rights related to keeping their jobs.
In Virginia, you have very little protection when it comes to your job. Unless you have an employment contract that defines how you can be fired, under Virginia law, you can be fired for any reason other than your race, age, gender or religious beliefs.
Virginia is also an âat willâ employment state which means employers (unless you have a contract that states otherwise) can let go of employees at will, without reason or notice.
If your boss doesnât like your socks, they can fire you. If your boss is having a bad day, she can fire you. You have almost no legal protection or rights to your current job.
So, what does that mean for our clients who have non-compete agreements or employment agreements? It means, that likely even if you are fired, your employment agreement still stands.—-
So, it seems that, unfortunately, an MRC employee might not be able to sue if terminated.
I used to work for an inventory service that instituted—after I’d been employed for about 5 years—a policy mandating that male employees could not have hair that extended below the top of their shirt collars. (Male employees were also prohibited from wearing earrings—even something as minimal as studs—but earrings and studs are easily removed and replaced.) Even though the company was a nationwide company, my state (Alabama) is a “right-to-work” state. I was given two options—get my hair cut or quit. This job was a PART-TIME job, and my regular, full-time job had no problem with my hair length—so I quit. I enjoyed the job, but during the last 3 or 4 months I worked there, I felt I was being harassed. If I’d wanted, I probably could have consulted an attorney and fought but, of course, in order to keep working, I’d have to abide by the employer’s rules until a court ruled in my favor (which could potentially take years to settle—and let’s face it, by cutting my hair while the case made its way through court, it would seem to be a bit of a Pyrrhic victory) so, I simply gave my notice—finished out the last couple of weeks of the heavy inventory period and quit.
And since there’s no national policy that guarantees any employer provide health insurance to its employees, I’m not seeing where an MRC employee would be able to sue under the prohibited “race, age, gender or religious beliefs” limitations.
“Brent- sit down and shut your mouth. I talk, you listen. I don’t even want to hear you breathing loud right now.
You know that shit you spewed out there about birth control? No one else out there was amused. I’m not amused- look at me, do I look amused?
Here’s how it’s going down- Tomorrow, you’re going to apologize for the parts that have our email flooded with angry women. Not a written apology read by someone else- an apology made by you. Then you’re going to retract the parts that both you and I know are complete BS.
After that, it’s up to you- I don’t give a fuck if you talking like that is ratings central, when and if you’re welcome back is up to how much I believe you. You impress me, maybe a couple weeks… you don’t, you’ll be sitting by that phone so long you’ll wish you’d bought stock in vasoline.
This is not subject to negotiation- now get out of here, and make sure I know your answer before you leave."
Or do you have other people who do such menial grunt work? Maybe folks who think they should have that type of coverage regardless of what the boss thinks they should have?
I’m sure, Mr Bozo—I mean, Bozell—that you’re familiar with the phrase “caveat emptor.” That means “let the buyer beware” and is frequently used by conservatives to cover businesses that like to screw over consumers (for example, check to see if your state has a “lemon law”—if it doesn’t, thank a conservative who firmly believes in the principle of caveat emptor). The basic principle, of course, is a sound one—that any buyer/consumer should read all the fine print and look over the nitpicky details before handing over his/her money for a product. The reality, of course, is that most people simply don’t take the time to do so (often because all that fine print and all those nitpicky details are simply overwhelming—kind of like most computer software user agreements).
So, in short Mr Bozell, why do I get the feeling that you would be the first to tell someone who felt they’d signed on for something without thoroughly checking out the fine print that they got what they deserved but when YOU feel you’ve been misled or cheated that it’s the other guy’s fault for taking advantage of you? Oh. I know why. You’re a right-wing conservative. The world’s supposed to work for YOU, not the other way around.