I wrote earlier about the controversy in Des Moines, Iowa over bus ads purchased by a local atheist group. After much controversy, and a recognition that there was no legal basis for pulling them, the transit authority in Des Moines agreed to reinstate the ads.
Now, it seems that some drivers are objecting to even driving a bus that has one of the ads on it:
There are some empty seats on DART buses thanks to those controversial atheist ads. That includes the driver seat.
Des Moines Area Regional Transit confirms a driver refused to drive a bus with an atheist advertisement Monday.
It happened during shift change. There were some passengers on the bus, but DART officials said they called in a replacement driver and passengers had to wait only about 5 minutes.
DART officials said the driver faces disciplinary action for refusing to drive the bus.
I should think so. The guy refused to do the job he was paid for, he deserves to be fired for it.
H/T: Richard Dawkins
I think the driver was probably aware that his actions would have consequences. I think it’s cool that he stood by his principles. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be punished, but that’s up to DART. However since employment is voluntary in this country, the driver had every right to refuse to drive the bus.
What would your feelings be if it was a birther ad and the driver had refused to drive the bus?
So does that mean that a vegetarian bus driver should be able to refuse to drive a bus that advertises McDonalds ?
It would be cooler if the principle weren’t moronic. I disagree with this ad, therefore won’t drive the bus? Why? Nobody thinks the driver endorses every message plastered on the vehicle.Sounds like the principle is being a petulant little brat.
The driver is an at will employee and can refuse to drive the bus for any reason at all. Of course it is at the risk of continuing at their job but that’s their decision.
Not being free to refuse to work is called slavery.
I’m don’t remember saying that he should be clapped in irons and made to drive the bus at the point of a gun; I’m just saying it’s a dumb rationale. You’re free not to drive a bus bearing an anodyne ad for an atheist group, or patronize a Jewish-owned shop, or whatever. But it makes you an intolerant jerk, and a bigger one when walking away from the job you agreed to do inconveniences a bus full of people trying to get somewhere.
Wait Julian, if he’s being an intolerant jerk, then what does that make you? You are being equally “intolerant” of the bus driver’s view.
If him disagreeing with the ad makes him intolerant, then you disagreeing with him makes you intolerant as well.
And yes, Doug, I could certainly see a vegetarian doing the same thing if there were a McDonald’s ad on the side of the bus. We all know how extreme PETA can get, and while I don’t know of very many bus-driving PETA members, I certainly could see one refusing to drive a bus that advertised for McDonald’s, steak houses, etc. Not saying it makes any sense to do that, but yes, people should certainly be allowed to make that decision, bearing in mind that there are consequences.
I was responding more to Doug’s comment than yours Julian. Your opinion of whether or not the guy was a jerk doesn’t really matter to me. More importantly is people implying that he shouldn’t be allowed to do what he did, when he certainly should and he has that right, jerk or not.
Would you support people’s right to boycott riding a bus/patronizing a bus company if it was sporting an advertisement for something they disagreed with? Why not a bus driver as well?
Certainly instead of inconveniencing those bus passengers for an additional five minutes, this bus driver could have spoken prior with management and asked that he not be assigned to drive a bus with those ads. That would have been a better course of action. Maybe he even did that and management ignored him, the article is fairly low on details.
It’s DART policy that drivers don’t get to choose what bus they drive. If the driver refuses to drive the bus for any reason, then the driver should face the consequences.
I do feel that the driver is being intolerant to those who may not agree with her opinion about faith. However she is well within her right to be so. Hate and intolerance in and of themselves are not a crime.