Chipotle apologizes for N.Y. worker's police protest

[NaturalHigh]

NEW YORK — Two Chipotle CEOs have apologized to New York City police officers who were greeted by a restaurant employee making the "Hands up, don't shoot" gesture popular with protesters.

Co-CEOs Steve Ells and Monty Moran said in a statement Monday that the employee's action appeared to be spontaneous. They said it happened at one of their Brooklyn restaurants Dec. 16 when a group of nine police officers entered. They said the officers were not refused service but chose to leave after encountering the gesture while in line.

The CEOs said appropriate actions had been taken toward the crew member after the Denver-based Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. reviewed video footage from security cameras, but they would not say what actions were taken.



http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_27228463/chipotle-apologizes-ny-workers-police-protest?source=most_viewed

[Cha]

1. Kick

[Downwinder]

2. Added to my boycott list.

[KingCharlemagne]

3. I know one Mexican chain that won't be getting any of my business for the

foreseeable future. Fuck Chipotle's management and shareholders.

[Scootaloo]

54. Chipotle's is "Mexican" like Olive Garden is "Italian"

oh shit I said Olive Garden!

[KingCharlemagne]

56. True dat! Thanks for the gracious nudge - never hurts to be

reminded of one's faux pas!

Of all people, I should know better, since I live in Los Angeles, home to many fine truly Mexican restaurants specializing in various regional cuisines like Oaxacan and Guadalajaran, to name only a couple off the top of my head!

[mythology]

4. My job wouldn't tolerate protesting while at work or using work resources

I imagine most companies have that policy as it's just asking for trouble.

[Trillo]

6. You're probably right. The Bill of Rights is a "myth" for employees.

The First Amendment does not protect "workers" speech. Perhaps a more accurate term is "slave." Slaves must never be allowed spontaneous speech when the Slave Patrol, aka "law enforcement", walks in the door.

It's not like police are a matter of public concern, or the employees were expressing a non-personal concern for Micheal Brown or Eric Garner. The employees were probably only selfishly interested in not being shot or choked themselves.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

7. You're absolutely right

Because the Bill of Rights applies to governments, not individuals or companies.

[Trillo]

8. I'm not certain it's absolute.

The Declaration of Independence says governments are created to insure certain rights. That's why I wondered about the employees' motive. The give their time and labor to the employer voluntarily, in exchange they're paid money (typically). Thus, they have sacrificed their selfish rights. However, I wonder if they have sacrificed their unselfish rights? The right to protest for the benefit of another?

I doubt the employer would have objected had an employee, seeing a woman on the street getting beaten, if the employees had gone outside to chase off the assailant. The CEO would probably desire to use that for its good press, and the employees would probably be at the least given some warm fuzzies.

[KingCharlemagne]

9. Brilliant stuff. Reminds me of La Rochefoucauld's observation that "hypocrisy

is the tribute vice pays to virtue."

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. But none of that has anything to do with free speech

The First Amendment protects us from the government impinging on our free speech rights; it has no force when it comes to individuals or private businesses. Employers absolutely have the right to tell their employees what they can or can't say during work.

[NewDeal_Dem]

50. The Bottom Line

Even though the First Amendment free speech criteria do not apply to private employers, determine if there is some other interest that governs the employee’s ability top speak freely.

The following are some examples:Is this employee’s speech being restricted or punished because the employee is expressing religious or other beliefs that are different from the employer’s or from co-workers?

Are employees of some religions or national origins allowed to express themselves regarding religion or national origin, but not others?

Is the employee being punished for speaking a different language during lunch or breaks?

Are the employee’s rights to share information protected by some other right, e.g. union regulations under the NLRB or PERC that allow employees to share salary information?

Additionally, determine whether the employer has a duty to restrict the employee’s speech. For example:

Does the employee’s speech violate the anti-harassment or anti-discrimination laws, including local ordinances?

Are other employees using speech or expression to retaliate against an employee for exercising his or her legal rights?

Is the employee entitled to whistleblower protection?

By addressing the above questions, you should begin to develop a sense of whether the employee’s freedom of speech has been violated.

. - See more at: http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/freedom-of-speech-in-the-workplace-the-first-amendment-revisited.html#sthash.hfQ1LYLd.dpuf

[NewDeal_Dem]

38. It's not absolute. At all. For example:

I. What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?
•Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
•the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
•the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
•Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
•Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government;
•Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; and
•the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces all of these laws. EEOC also provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html


If we don't have free speech rights in the workplace, it's by design.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

42. You don't have free speech rights here

So why do you stay?

[NewDeal_Dem]

48. Guess I didn't realize you were the new boss of DU. You don't even have a star showing you

paid for the privilege.

[uppityperson]

53. a starless 3 wk old duer calls out a 3 yr duer on their starlessness?

[NewDeal_Dem]

55. I didn't ask the poster why he was here as though I had some say in the matter.

[uppityperson]

60. I see him asking why you stay since we have no free speech rights, nothing about them

having any say in the matter. You seem to be reading more into that question than it is asking.

[Trillo]

51. I agree particularly so with your last sentence.

There seems to be some disconnect between the language in the Bill of Rights and the stated purpose of government in the Declaration of Independence.

[brooklynite]

10. The Bill of Rights SHOULDN'T protect employees...

You, as an individual have civil rights, and on your own time should be able to express yourself as you see fit. However, WHEN you are working, you are a representative of your employer. Suppose the same employer had disparaged a gay couple because of his religious beliefs. Would you have been equally supportive?

[Trillo]

12. I'm curious. Where in the founding documents does it say that?

Where specifically does it say the Bill of Rights doesn't apply when you're employed?

As far as your example is concerned, we already know similar situations have occurred. I think the dividing line may have to do with selfish versus unselfish concerns. Is the religious concern a selfish or unselfish one? It can be argued without coming to any definite conclusion (that's why DU has a religion forum), and I would argue that your example is a selfish concern.

Why were the employees putting the "hands up" gesture? Were they personally scared for their own lives, and showing the cops they weren't armed? Were they protesting for Micheal Brown et al. and others' personal safety and serenity?

[brooklynite]

13. "CONGRESS shall make no Law"...

...it says nothing about your employer. You enter into a consensual contract with your employer which, most often, includes a code of conduct. You may fully assert your civil rights by ending your employment relationship.

And who gets to decided what concerns are "selfish"?

[NewDeal_Dem]

24. So laws made by congress don't apply to businesses? good to know, explains a lot.

it's slaves who don't have rights while working or in their workplaces.

[tammywammy]

27. Are you really this obtuse?

Do you really not understand that the First Amendment applies to government and not businesses? Have you never had a basic civics class?

[NewDeal_Dem]

28. corporations are people, my friend.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

30. Well, the First Amendment doesn't apply to people either

unless those people are acting as employees/agents of the government.

I can infringe anyone's free speech in my home, as can you. Just like the owners of this board can infringe on our free speech because it's their board.

[NewDeal_Dem]

35. i thought people were the ones deemed to have the right to free speech; but you tell me it's only

employees or agents of the government who do...

so not newspaper corporations then? or are they government agents too (wouldn't surprise me)

not TV stations?

not students?

not housewives?

not people?

not corporations ( thought citizens united had decided that one...)

[SickOfTheOnePct]

36. Nice try but no cigar

I'm clearing talking about who has the right to infringe on our free speech rights.

Government or agents of government can't.

Individuals or employers can.

It really isn't all that difficult to understand, unless one is choosing to not understand.

[NewDeal_Dem]

37. You're clearing talking are you? Sorry, usually when we talk about our first amendment rights,

we're talking about the rights of citizens.

And those who infringe on our first amendment rights aren't just governments, but the entities on behalf of whom and in whose favor governments make law.

For example: for a long time business was free to discriminate by race, etc. Now it's not. Now you can say the root of this was government, but government was acting on behalf of business.

Just as it is today when it tells you your Constitutional rights are mostly suspended in the workplace where you spend most of your days and hours.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

40. Ah, calling out typos

The last refuge of someone without a valid argument.

[NewDeal_Dem]

43. I thought avoiding engaging the discussant's argument through diversion was that.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

44. But no one has done that

You don't understand what the First Amendment does and doesn't do, and that's fine. What's sad is that you refuse to learn.

[NewDeal_Dem]

49. "Well, the First Amendment doesn't apply to people either"

"unless they're agents of the government"

but whatever...

[tammywammy]

31. I thought about a long response to you

Then realized that you'd probably just spurt out more ridiculous phrases to seem smart and in the know, but really just showing you have no clue.

I'm embarrassed for your lack of knowledge on how the First Amendment applies to citizens.

[NewDeal_Dem]

32. yes, i'm sure you're terribly embarrassed for me, yes indeedy.

but you don't refute my point; we are slaves. we spend a great deal more time at our workplaces than anywhere else, and as you yourself agree, we have no substantial free speech rights there.

though the folks who own the corporations also own our government.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

39. No reason why we should have free speech rights at work n/t

[NewDeal_Dem]

46. Barf. What a load.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion n/t

[dilby]

58. First you are completely wrong on the Constitution.

The Constitution does not provide us with rights, it limits the rights of Government on what they can and can't do to the citizens.

Second we are not slaves, we are closer to serfs. Slaves are clothed, fed, housed and provided moderate healthcare, serfs not so much.

[NewDeal_Dem]

62. Whether or not the constitution "grants" the people rights, by limiting the power of government it

does so in effect.

As for serfs v. slaves, it's you laboring under a misapprehension. Slave owners may have provided clothing, food and housing -- but they had no obligation to. They did so, for the most part, for the same reasons they provided these things to their cattle -- a slave was a significant investment, and working it to death would be a money-loser. But slaves had no rights to anything, not even to food, should the master not choose to provide it.

Serfs, on the other hand, did have certain 'rights'. In fact, feudal society by definition was a system of mutual rights and obligations between peasants and nobility.

Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the Lord of the Manor who owned that land, and in return were entitled to protection, justice and the right to exploit certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence...

Serfs had a specific place in feudal society, as did barons and knights: in return for protection, a serf would reside upon and work a parcel of land within the manor of his lord. Thus the manorial system exhibited a degree of reciprocity.

One rationale held that a serf "worked for all" while a knight or baron "fought for all" and a churchman "prayed for all"; thus everyone had a place. The serf was the worst fed and rewarded, but at least he had his place and, unlike slaves, had certain rights in land and property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom


Todays' working class, otoh, has no right to anything, not even an income for their labor that would keep them from penury and homelessness. In that sense, they're closer to slaves than serfs.

[NewDeal_Dem]

41. There are multiple laws which employers are obliged to follow so as not to violate employees' rights

III. What Other Practices Are Discriminatory Under These Laws?

Title VII

Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.

National Origin Discrimination

•It is illegal to discriminate against an individual because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group.
•A rule requiring that employees speak only English on the job may violate Title VII unless an employer shows that the requirement is necessary for conducting business. If the employer believes such a rule is necessary, employees must be informed when English is required and the consequences for violating the rule.



Religious Accommodation

•An employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.


http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

[joeglow3]

16. Exactly. Look at all the people here advocating firing officers for speech

While OFF the clock.

[NaturalHigh]

63. I noticed that too.

What hypocrisy. Apparently police officers don't deserve the same First Amendment protections as Chipotle employees.

[uppityperson]

5. The cops were insulted by "hands up" pose? How do they think the public feels when they

stop and frisk people walking, or pull a car over flashing lights and make a public spectacle of our humiliation?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. I've never met a bigger bunch of whinny babies than the Chicago cops I've met.

I'm sure NY cops are no different. This confirms it.

[joeglow3]

17. Wow. You have a low threshold for proof

Please don't enter an academic setting.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. Yeah, because a bunch of cops with guns getting their panties in a twist over....

..... some guy putting their hands up disproves my take on the matter. Not to mention all the whinny titty baby tantrums the NY cops have been throwing lately.

Wanna see NY cops pitch a fit? Tell them fixing parking tickets is against the law. Whinny titty babies:

[joeglow3]

20. You said the behavior of 9 officers in a news story confirmed a view

Of EVERY New York officer. If you think that is rational, nothing anyone says will change that.

Thanks.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

23. Nowhere did I say "EVERY". Perhaps you need a little remedial academic work.

[Logical]

11. I bet they get free food also. Which always amazes me. Well paid cops don't need free food. nt

[Throd]

21. The employee put Chipotle in a difficult situation.

Chipotle just wants to sell burritos.

The employee's actions were guaranteed to create controversy that management doesn't want or need. People on this thread are saying "fuck Chipotle" and that they will boycott their business. Had they acted the other way, an equal number of people would have the same sentiment.

[tritsofme]

22. Taunting/harassing customers is probably not a good way to keep a job.

[Ramses]

25. the cops who turned their backs in a mass act

Of insubordination wont have anything done to them.

Two sets of rules in America

One for lowly workers who actually work for a living
One for the taker cops who like to abuse and murder citizens while collection a taxpayer funded paycheck

Some country America is.

[mountain grammy]

26. Once again, the thin blue skin..

that said, if the guy worked for me I'd have a chat with him, but wouldn't fire him.

[lame54]

29. I love Chipotle - but I'm taking a break

[JI7]

33. chiopotle workers dealing with shitty customers are probably required to deal with worse

than the cops .

[daleanime]

34. I want to know what action was taken....

if the employee was talked to, please don't put us in that situation, that's one thing.


If the lost days or job, that's a whole different picture.

[Trillo]

45. Tanget: "slave owners" versus "Modern Management"

I was looking around, trying to wrap my mind around the idea that the Declaration of Independence says governments are instituted to insure rights, while the Bill of Rights carefully avoids regulating business owners who remove the speech rights of their workers, and found this:

"

The most interesting point, to me, "Rewards workers honesty so they will police each other."

[NewDeal_Dem]

57. Not a tangent at all. Very real similarities. As we see from all the posters who are so gleeful

about workers' lack of free speech rights in the workplace. Gleeful enough to claim we don't even need any such rights.


Thanks for this. I've always thought that the workplace relationship was just another kind of slavery.

The big banks made their nut on slavery. Some slaveowners/slave traders did as well. And those profits allowed them to control society for generations, even to the present day.

Most americans didn't own any slaves. Of those who did, most owned just a couple.

A tiny elite owned a whole hell of a lot. Or controlled them indirectly (for example, banks and lenders).

for example, Teddy Roosevelt's family, a couple of branches of the Bush family, and the business writer for the Houston Chronicle, Chris Tomlinson...


http://www.npr.org/2014/07/21/332607060/on-tomlinson-hill-journalist-seeks-truth-and-reconciliation

&feature=player_embedded#t=0

[LiberalElite]

52. While I sympathize with the employee -

when you're serving the public you have to stuff the personal feelings till your shift ends.

[99Forever]

59. If co-assholes Steve Ells and Monty Moran think the "appropriate actions...

...had been taken toward the crew member," why are they embarrassed to say publically what those actions were? Oh well, then I'll just assume the worst and stay the fuck out of their places of business.

No problem, consider it done, corporate swine.

[Dont call me Shirley]

61. Their food sucks anyway. I make way better burritos at home from scratch.