Ten Things to Consider about the Business of Duck Dynasty

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

I don't think that's right Gary, I didn't start the thread.

Thanks for keeping it going and at the top of page 1

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

OMG - caught a Fox News Analysis about this fracas -

synopsis:

The head of the network at A&E got some complaints from 2 groups of homosexual workers at A&E -

one group was anonymous and

another group listed their names in the complaint .

So, it was the head of the network that made a decision to start that convo with Phil, in the first place. Had he/she not start that convo, made the decision NOT to have that convo, and (IMO) somehow placated the homosexual employees at A&E instead,

this never would have been an issue. Duck Dynasty is a cash cow for the network, and IMO that 'head of the network' person made the wrong decision, early on. I question that person's decision-making-process, as they already had the demographics and 'the $$ numbers' in front of them prior to making any decision. Also IMO, it would have been cheaper just to placate the homosexual employees at A&E. Now he/she's done something that's going to directly affect everyone's paycheck, not just the Duck Dynasty talent/crew.

That was a dumb@ss move, IMO, as the group to placate is small and money could have made it go away. Forgetting one's demographics is also a dumb@ss move, as well. But that's just extra sauce, to be honest, that other level of forgetting.

Ya, I did say Fox News. I rarely watch it, but when I do, i watch it for the comedic-bend..

Hmmm, start a fire so you can put it out and be a hero?

Anyway, I find it funny that FOX news blows away anyone else in ratings for News Channels but no one watches it. Must be for the comedy. I'm laughing.

The "other" classic New England saying (besides "you can't get there from here") is "No one goes there anymore...it's too crowded"

And now I see that the Reverend Jackson has weighed in...it was an excuse to get in front of a microphone, haven't seen him since TM was found to be a vicious predator who finally got capped trying to brutally murder a neighbor

Look for A&E to cave in and make a weasling excuse. Like ay other show, "Duck Dynasty" is a passing fad but no reason to let a few dozen million $$$ pass by.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you're a fan of the show Gary, you should just come out and say so. In fact duck dynasty going down the swanny (if that happens) might be a good thing - since they'll have a gap in the schedule to fill.

Want some help writing a pilot for 'The Gary Show'?

Edited December 26, 2013 by Papa Lazarou

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

If you're a fan of the show Gary, you should just come out and say so. In fact duck dynasty going down the swanny (if that happens) might be a good thing - since they'll have a gap in the schedule to fill.

Want some help writing a pilot for 'The Gary Show'?

Thanks agaon. your contributions keep the thread active.

I would have to buy a TV to be a fan of the show and since I have not yet done so, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

I did notice that the Reverend Jackson says Rosertson is "more offensive than the Rosa Parks bus driver" which is ludicrous.

It was AGAINST THE LAW for Rosa Parks to sit in that seat...and that's wrong. Phil Robertson is entitled to an opinion that homosexuality is wrong and should no more be fired for that than for someone expressing their opinion that assault rifles should be banned. Robertson has no ability to enforce his opinion with LAW, unlike the situation in Rosa Park's case. His opinion is nothing more than that.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Thanks agaon. your contributions keep the thread active.

I would have to buy a TV to be a fan of the show and since I have not yet done so, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

I did notice that the Reverend Jackson says Rosertson is "more offensive than the Rosa Parks bus driver" which is ludicrous.

It was AGAINST THE LAW for Rosa Parks to sit in that seat...and that's wrong. Phil Robertson is entitled to an opinion that homosexuality is wrong and should no more be fired for that than for someone expressing their opinion that assault rifles should be banned. Robertson has no ability to enforce his opinion with LAW, unlike the situation in Rosa Park's case. His opinion is nothing more than that.

The black grievance industry is running in full force, Maybe the reverend Jackson should have paid more attention to raising his son rather than shaking down hard working businesses . Taught him some right from wrong ,,, Prayed around the supper table once in a while. Thieves and more thieves in that family. People turn to him for advice...... We will take the Ducks any day as a good moral compass than the ole REV.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thanks agaon. your contributions keep the thread active.

I would have to buy a TV to be a fan of the show and since I have not yet done so, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

I did notice that the Reverend Jackson says Rosertson is "more offensive than the Rosa Parks bus driver" which is ludicrous.

It was AGAINST THE LAW for Rosa Parks to sit in that seat...and that's wrong. Phil Robertson is entitled to an opinion that homosexuality is wrong and should no more be fired for that than for someone expressing their opinion that assault rifles should be banned. Robertson has no ability to enforce his opinion with LAW, unlike the situation in Rosa Park's case. His opinion is nothing more than that.

If your employer doesn't like what you say they can fire you. End of.

That doesn't mean you don't have the right to offer an opinion, just that opinions come with consequences.

For someone who harps on about FREEDOM you really don't seem to understand the concept.

Maybe you should buy a TV - keep yourself in the loop a bit better.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

If your employer doesn't like what you say they can fire you. End of.

They were wrong in firing him not because they don't have the right, but because it was a financially stupid thing to do. A&E ran for cover with one group trying to strong-arm them and pissed off the another... Somewhere there is a group of execs wringing their hands trying to figure out how to just make it all go away.

Some of the whining about this is pretty amazing.. The man was asked a question in an article and he answered and gave his personal opinion. He's not a activist out there trying to change the system or turn public sentiment.

The quotes were not just about gay people but on all sin (he singles them all out in different quotes).. He is a religious christian and he takes his moral queues and teachings from the bible.. There are pages of his quotes.. Here are a couple:

Jesus will take sins away, if you're a homosexual he'll take it away, if you're an adulterer, if you're a liar, what's the difference? If you break one sin you may as well break them all.

Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right.

If you are a Christian and the bible is your guide.. these are your beliefs as well or you are deluding yourself. This man is an honest christian that does not let PC influence how he interprets his religious teachings.

Edited December 26, 2013 by OnMyWayID

[JohnR! 5,495]

I'm continually amazed at how little people know about the actual business of television, yet feel free to opine on it as if they were industry insiders.

A&E wouldn't be doing this unless they stood to lose more from keeping the show on the air with Phil a part of it.

Everyone is replaceable on TV. Every show is replaceable. Networks plan for these things. A&E is not going under and Duck Dynasty will soon be forgotten, another briefly popular show.

It is obvious by now that some have trouble understanding the concept of free market and the fact that one can be fired or laid off without any specific reason.

A&E could have fired anyone for any reason - as companies often do - if they see fit. That they chose to fire someone of limited intellect is just another day in show biz.

Come spring with the new show line up this person will be just another also ran to join the ranks of former reality TV discards.

They were wrong in firing him not because they don't have the right, but because it was a financially stupid thing to do.

Had it been financially stupid, A&E would not have done it. If they did it is because they stand to gain more by letting him go, than otherwise.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Had it been financially stupid, A&E would not have done it. If they did it is because they stand to gain more by letting him go, than otherwise.

I would argue that they did not see the backlash coming.. They only knew it was financially stupid in hindsight.

...and I should have put an asterisk with that.. it may not be financially stupid, they may be in a position where they knew they were going to lose one group of viewers or the other and had to make a lose-lose choice... But my bet would be somebody up high panicked when the first group made noise.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I would argue that they did not see the backlash coming.. They only knew it was financially stupid in hindsight.

...and I should have put an asterisk with that.. it may not be financially stupid, they may be in a position where they knew they were going to lose one group of viewers or the other and had to make a lose-lose choice... But my bet would be somebody up high panicked when the first group made noise.

If it were financially stupid, he would have retracted and got his job back. Trust me, it made perfect sense for A&E to let him go. These decisions are not made in haste by one individual, nor are they made lightly.

I am sure some other cable channel may pick him up and he may have another life left as a talk show host or spokesperson for inbreeding.com, the Klan, the ANP, or something else. I have no doubt there is a market for him. Even Tonya Harding got a second chance on TV!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They were wrong in firing him not because they don't have the right, but because it was a financially stupid thing to do. A&E ran for cover with one group trying to strong-arm them and pissed off the another... Somewhere there is a group of execs wringing their hands trying to figure out how to just make it all go away.

Some of the whining about this is pretty amazing.. The man was asked a question in an article and he answered and gave his personal opinion. He's not a activist out there trying to change the system or turn public sentiment.

The quotes were not just about gay people but on all sin (he singles them all out in different quotes).. He is a religious christian and he takes his moral queues and teachings from the bible.. There are pages of his quotes.. Here are a couple:

Jesus will take sins away, if you're a homosexual he'll take it away, if you're an adulterer, if you're a liar, what's the difference? If you break one sin you may as well break them all.

Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlersthey won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right.

If you are a Christian and the bible is your guide.. these are your beliefs as well or you are deluding yourself. This man is an honest christian that does not let PC influence how he interprets his religious teachings.

Why don't they have the right?

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

If your employer doesn't like what you say they can fire you. End of.

That doesn't mean you don't have the right to offer an opinion, just that opinions come with consequences.

For someone who harps on about FREEDOM you really don't seem to understand the concept.

Maybe you should buy a TV - keep yourself in the loop a bit better.

Great, you finally agree with me. You're getting smarter all the time. Keep reading...particularly post 5, page 1 of this thread. Stating my opinion that I think someone should not be fired for something does not mean the employer does not have that RIGHT. If I believed they did not have that RIGHT, I would say so. I will not defend positions assigned to me by others.

My most recent comparison was that of Reverend Jackson saying that Robertson is "more offensive than Rosa Parks bus driver" It had nothing to do with employment or freedom. Only that comparing an opinion of one person is nothing like a LAW discrimnating against people. But keep reading.

Maybe I should start a new thread about Jesse Jackson to keep people from getting confused. Some people get confused easily

Edited December 26, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Why don't they have the right?

One could say that it would be discrimination based on religion.

I'M not saying that...but someone could.

I doubt anyone will. If A&E stands their ground, which they have a RIGHT to do, then the Robertson's can take their show and the millions it generates somewhere else. Everyone will be happy.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Why don't they have the right?

They do...

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Public/Pamphlets/Employee.aspx#1

3. Does my employer need a good reason to discipline or fire me?

Normally, no. There is no legal right to be treated "fairly" in the workplace. In California, as in almost all other states, the law permits employers to discipline (suspend or demote, for example) or fire their workers at will or, in other words, without needing or providing a reason. However, there are some significant exceptions to the rule. For example, your employer generally cannot discipline or fire you because of your age, race or certain other personal characteristics (see #4). Such actions would be considered illegal discrimination. And, in most instances, you cannot be fired or disciplined for reporting or complaining to law enforcement, a government agency, or your own employer about your employer's illegal activities or safety violations. Nor can you be retaliated against for missing work to serve as a juror. Such terminations would be considered violations of public policy.

Another exception to the at will rule might apply if you are fired from a job shortly after quitting another job or relocating based on the new employer's job offer. Such an exception could apply if the new employer knew or should have known that the job offer wasn't serious-or "real"-at the time it was made.

Or, you may have a contract stating that you can only be fired for just or good cause. If your job classification is covered by a union-employer contract (collective bargaining agreement), that contract probably contains a just cause provision. Contact your union representative for assistance.

Even without an oral or written contract, you may nevertheless have an implied contract that prohibits your employer from firing you without good cause. To determine whether an implied contract exists, a court would consider such factors as: the length of your employment, commendations and promotions, job performance evaluations, any assurances of continued employment (a promise of permanent job security, for example), and your employer's employee handbooks and policies. There are no set criteria for establishing an implied contract; the court simply reviews all of the circumstances. Your employer must base any good cause termination on economics (such as a layoff) or poor job performance. If your contract was breached, you may have grounds for a lawsuit.

© 2003, 2008 The State Bar of California.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

California law is pretty shocking for workers rights. At least it was from what I remember.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Papa Lazarou