The one that wasn't on regulation gear, the one he'd been ordered not to wear. It's absolutely irrelevant what its text was/is.What "slogan" didn't the "employer" like?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The one that wasn't on regulation gear, the one he'd been ordered not to wear. It's absolutely irrelevant what its text was/is.What "slogan" didn't the "employer" like?
GMB againIt's prettey obvious that nobody participating in this thread is intimidated by you.
So why don't you just STFU?
Are you a SADFI?
Can you quote the alleged slogan or are you simply full of shit?The one that wasn't on regulation gear, the one he'd been ordered not to wear. It's absolutely irrelevant what its text was/is.What "slogan" didn't the "employer" like?
I agree that you are a SADFI.GMB againIt's prettey obvious that nobody participating in this thread is intimidated by you.
So why don't you just STFU?
Are you a SADFI?
Yes I can. It's obvious you cannot get it through the faeces you call your brain that it doesn't matter what the slogan is.Can you quote the alleged slogan or are you simply full of shit?
Yet this isn't about aa, it's about non-regulation gear being worn to work contrary to the employer's orders.aa does NOT belong in America, especially when we are talking about people that may save our lives.
No. But it matters if they aren't wearing their approved clothing.Dayum. Does it matter what color one's skin is to fight a fire?
I would've punched him in the face if he tried to rub that in mine
In other words, no. You cannot quote the alleged "slogan". Correct?Yes I can. It's obvious you cannot get it through the faeces you call your brain that it doesn't matter what the slogan is.Can you quote the alleged slogan or are you simply full of shit?
If the employer doesn't like it the employee has no right to wear it.
Only a total shit for brains cannot understand that if an employer finds a slogan provocative and non-regulation it is provocative and non-regulation.
It takes a judge to demonstrate the total shit for brains' error of his ways. Invincible ignorance truly is invincible.
I would agree.... I would bet though he's not only one not in official FD garb.I thought employers had the right to set pretty much any conditions.
I mean if he doesn't like them he doesn't have to work there, right?
"She found Buttaro, a 17-year FDNY veteran who earned $111,209 in 2013, disobeyed orders after May 2012 to wear regulation gear and not T-shirts with provocative slogans."
See the 1st amendment.Yes I can. It's obvious you cannot get it through the faeces you call your brain that it doesn't matter what the slogan is.Can you quote the alleged slogan or are you simply full of shit?
If the employer doesn't like it the employee has no right to wear it.
Only a total shit for brains cannot understand that if an employer finds a slogan provocative and non-regulation it is provocative and non-regulation.
It takes a judge to demonstrate the total shit for brains' error of his ways. Invincible ignorance truly is invincible.
See the 1st amendment.Yes I can. It's obvious you cannot get it through the faeces you call your brain that it doesn't matter what the slogan is.Can you quote the alleged slogan or are you simply full of shit?
If the employer doesn't like it the employee has no right to wear it.
Only a total shit for brains cannot understand that if an employer finds a slogan provocative and non-regulation it is provocative and non-regulation.
It takes a judge to demonstrate the total shit for brains' error of his ways. Invincible ignorance truly is invincible.
sure it's not, you just keep telling yourself that.Yet this isn't about aa, it's about non-regulation gear being worn to work contrary to the employer's orders.aa does NOT belong in America, especially when we are talking about people that may save our lives.
Government can impose clothing regulations on its employees. The 1st Amendment has nothing to say in that.See the 1st amendment.
Possibly true, but irrelevant. I would assume that others have not provoked their employer with their choice of clothing and have not been ordered not to wear it while on duty.I would agree.... I would bet though he's not only one not in official FD garb.