Did the DNC Chair Discouraged Support for ENDA Execurive Order?

If new allegations are true,, it looks like it's not only the powers that be in the Democratic Party of Virginia who are trying to alienate the LGBT vote in the lead up to the 2014 mid-term elections.  How else to explain claims that Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz discouraged U.S. House members from pressuring Barack Obama to sign an executive order to ban discrimination against LGBT employees.  Currently, in 29 states LGBT workers can be fired at will based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.  Having been fired for being gay myself, I know first hand just how devastating this experience can be both emotionally and financially.  As to why more LGBT activist haven't spoken out, one need only look at how Equality Virginia handled the controversy over anti-gay marriage DPVA chair Dwight Jones: hand wringing and little else out of fear of losing :access" and "burning bridges" even as LGBT Virginians were thrown under the bus. The Washington Blade looks at the controversy.  Here are excerpts:

A gay Democratic activist claims that Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) has discouraged House members from asking President Obama to take administrative action to protect LGBT workers, an assertion her office calls a “bald-faced lie.”

Paul Yandura, political director for gay philanthropist Jonathan Lewis, made the allegation when speaking with the Washington Blade from his home in West Virginia on Thursday regarding a 2013 missive that was circulated among House members by Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Lois Capps (D-Calif.).

“I was told personally by two members that she was tamping down on public calls for the president to make good on his promise — this was last year when the issue was really getting hot,” Yandura said. “She is most likely doing the same still.”

Yandura’s allegation comes as lawmakers — led by the LGBT Equality Caucus and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) — are circulating a new missive among members of Congress calling on Obama to sign an executive order barring federal contractors from engaging in anti-LGBT workplace discrimination.

Two sources familiar with the 2013 letter told the Washington Blade that Wasserman Schultz discouraged members of Congress from signing it, but Yandura was the only source willing to go on the record. The other source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Wasserman Schultz, who represents Florida’s 23rd congressional district in the U.S. House, dissuaded Democrats from signing the letter in private conversations on the House floor.

“I’m sure she’ll come with something that sounds like a good excuse, but it’s about time,” Yandura said. “It’s time that she not only signs it, but tells people that they should publicly, and that it’s OK and that there’s no pressure not to sign it.”

Mara Sloan, a Wasserman Schultz spokesperson, disputed the allegations made by Yandura, saying any assertion that she discouraged members from signing the letter “is a bald-faced lie.”

“The congresswoman believes the most effective way to ensure equal rights for LGBT Americans in the workplace is through passing comprehensive non-discrimination legislation,” Sloan said. “The congresswoman regularly speaks to the administration about issues important to the LGBT community, and will continue to be a fierce advocate for full equality.”

Despite her record of support for the LGBT community, Wasserman Schultz has never explicitly called on Obama to sign an executive order barring LGBT discrimination among federal contractors. Asked about the issue in January by The Huffington Post, Wasserman Schultz said she supports the idea of Obama using his executive authority in “as broad a way as he can to ensure that we can move this country forward.”

Yandura said he thinks Wasserman Schultz refuses to express support for the executive order and has discouraged House members from speaking out in favor of it for political reasons.

“I think she doesn’t want to embarrass the president, and still doesn’t want to embarrass the president, because it is an embarrassment that he still hasn’t done it,” Yandura said. “We’re now coming down to the end of the second term, and if they don’t get moving on it, it’ll never even get implemented.”

Sadly, the take away for LGBT citizens is that we cannot take Democratic Party support for granted.  In the final analysis, all they want is our votes and our money and we need to constantly remind them that we attach conditions to both our monetary support and our votes.  The Dems cannot take our votes for granted.  Of course, if the GOP had any sense, it would kick the Christofascists to the curb and embrace the gays.  In close elections, the gay vote does make the difference.  Just ask Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring - although he seems to be quickly forgetting that reality notwithstanding his refusal to support Virginia's ban on gay marriage.

Employee Reprimanded For Facebook Post

The question has been posed as to where exactly do our personal social media rights stand in light of our employer’s right and/or desire to know and their ability to dictate what goes on our personal Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, or YouTube accounts accessed on our own private personal time. The question is relevant because many employers – particularly in states like Virginia which is an employment at will state where employees can be fired for no reason at all – need little or no justification to fire an employee as long as it doesn’t run afoul of prohibitions against discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other statutory protected class. A recent event brings this issue into focus. In this instance an Associated Press reporter was reprimanded over an innocuous comment on his Facebook page. Fortunately, as a union member, his union has come to his defense. Most of us do not have that luxury in an increasingly non-unionized work force.
*
True, all of us as American citizens have our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This protection does not, however, extend to private employers where contract rights govern relationships as opposed to prohibitions against government actions to restrict speech. While censoring employees’ rights to freedom of speech is in my view morally wrong, the reality is that this type of behavior happens virtually every day. In my own case, a letter to the editor in opposition to anti-gay legislation in 2004 likely set the stage for my being forced out of a law firm where the powers that be were more worried about not offending ultra conservative clients than the rights of their employees as citizens of an allegedly free country. Or the rights of LGBT citizens.
*
The consequence is that employees need to use caution in what they post and how much they reveal. Unless you are self-employed or own your own business, it’s important to know the mindset of your employer and act accordingly assuming that anything you write may well be seen by your employer. I am not arguing that any of this is right, but it is a legal reality. Here are some highlights from Wired.com on the AP reporter case and others like it:
*
Richard Richtmyer, a Philadelphia-based newsman, set off Tuesday’s tempest with a seemingly harmless comment posted to his Facebook profile late last month criticizing the executive management of newspaper publisher McClatchy, whose stock plummeted following a 2006 acquisition of San Jose-based Knight Ridder. “It seems like the ones who orchestrated the whole mess should be losing their jobs or getting pushed into smaller quarters,” Richtmyer wrote on May 28. “But they aren’t.”
*
McClatchy, like countless other newspaper publishers, happens to be a member of the AP’s newsgathering cooperative. Had the comment been uttered in real life, it likely would have dissipated into the rank air of a Philly journo bar. But Richtmyer had some 51 AP colleagues as Facebook friends, some of them higher up in the AP food chain. One turned out to be a “mole” — Richtmyer’s description — and the reporter was given a firm talking-to by AP management, who put a reprimand letter in his employment file.
*
The minidrama is an increasingly familiar one as companies and workers navigate the landscape defined by sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. Firings and reprimands over postings to social networking sites have become commonplace over the last year.
*
A stadium employee with the Philadelphia Eagles was fired in March after a Facebook post calling the team “retarded” for trading a star player. A North Carolina teacher was suspended in November for posting on Facebook, “I hate my students.” Three Harrison, New York, police officers were suspended in February after making untoward Facebook comments about their mayor.
*
And two New Jersey restaurant workers are now suing their former boss after they were fired for their rumblings about the restaurant management on MySpace. The federal suit accuses the manager of logging onto the online discussion using another employee’s credentials.
*

Private-sector workers have little, if any, protection from being fired or reprimanded for what they say online or off, said Wendy Seltzer, a First Amendment lawyer at American University. “If you put it onto a Twitter stream or a Facebook page, if they get word of that, they can fire you,” Seltzer said. “Electronic communications are more persistent, and more likely to find their way into the boss’ hands.”

*
Federal employees, she said, generally have a First Amendment protection against being fired for their speech, unless it “impedes the ability to do the job,” Seltzer said.

*

As is often the case with the law, what is legally permissible and what is morally right are two different things. Employees need to remember this unfortunate reality.