Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
That is precisely where the thought experiment parts from the real example. What harm does MLSE suffer from allowing its employees to express their own views on their own time? It is merely asserted, without proof, evidence, or argument, that it is somehow detrimental to a company to have employees whose political beliefs do not align with those of senior management. And it is further assumed that the company ought to have the power to punish any employee who expresses such a belief.
|
There's a few things to unpack here. We have exactly zero evidence of what the political beliefs of any of MLSE's senior management are. I literally have zero idea.
We also have exactly zero evidence that Mr. Imoo was terminated because his political views are inconsistent with the political views of any of MLSE's senior management.
Further, MLSE clearly has a policy to foster and encourage an inclusive workplace, to develop its reputation for inclusivity, and to support inclusivity among hockey fans, hockey players, and hockey in general. For example, see:
https://dailyhive.com/toronto/leafs-...sity-inclusion.
I don't know all of the reasons for these policies, but for a team in one of the most diverse markets (both labour markets and customer markets) in the world, some of the reasons seem self-evident (from a business perspective).
In the absence of any other evidence, the only reasonable conclusion appears to be that MLSE determined that Mr. Imoo's employment caused more damage to its reputation/brand and to is efforts to foster inclusivity in the workplace than his continued employment was worth.... or, as you call it, "appeasing the mob".