No, but it’s an interesting question, whether or not it should be. Free speech however, is considered a human right. We are discussing the fitness of using firing as a club to discourage free speech here.
I really doubt that is a commonplace issue. If you want to say free speech for people causes a lot of businesses to fail, feel free to bring out some cites.
I was playing the capitalism card, not the race card, drawing a parallel between one set of entrepreneurs who suppressed human freedom to make money, and another. Way to get it wrong, Fox News.
It takes some balls to write that, considering that it has been shown repeatedly in this thread that this simply is not a free speech issue. Well done.
No, it takes no balls at all, to argue one’s own position even though others are advocating their own position. I realize that you think “it has been shown” but I don’t.
Cite for survival rates of new start-ups, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I never claimed free speech led to failures. I noted the high rate of failure during the first five years. The business owner does what he can to avoid failure, and I posit that firing employees who are potentially harmful is one of the things a business owner can do. You argue he should not do that, and I wonder how you would defend your lack of action to your unemployed former employees?
In the context of the Second Amendment, we allow Nazis and other violent ideolouges to have free speech, even though we know their agenda is corrupt to the core and might seduce weak-minded, violent idiots and lead them to do bad things. In the context of business, we let some businesses fail for the sake of free speech. The advantage the employees have is more knowledge about the businesses they work for, more ability to avoid bad bosses and rotten businesses and to get redress via free speech if they find themselves dealing with a bad boss/rotten business.
My suspicion is that businesses that fail due to free speech would be a vanishingly tiny minority. If YOU want to advance this as a credible issue … cite. You seem almost to be saying that 50 percent of new businesses fail because of free speech.
In order for me to justify punishing her for the old people thing, I’d have to know how stories are selected by the station and how they are approved. For example, if reporters bring in their own stories with occasional assignments from their bosses, and she never picked old people stories and was never assigned any, then why fire her? Her personal biases didn’t affect her job. If, however, she was given assignments about old people and refused to do them, I would definitely see that as worthy of discipline.
As far as the recording thing, that’s also a grey area. Reporters don’t use every second of film that is shot, lots of time gets left on the cutting room floor. It may be that for whatever reason, she felt that the interview with some subject was over and she got all she needed, but she let them keep talking. I don’t see a problem with that at all
Can it be proven? I’ve spent a lot of time defending her and any employee’s random behavior, but even if I were to accept the opposing arguments and agree that firing an employee for personal stuff is ok, there is still one more hurdle I feel employers need to jump over. They need to be able to prove with some reasonable standard that the personal confession is, in fact, true. Lots of people like to bullshit while not at work about their work, and I don’t want some stray bits of social media or an overheard conversation to be the end of a career. The station managers should be able to prove that she actually did those things. They should not be able to fire her simply because she said she was unprofessional, they need to have proof of it
I wouldn’t need that. All that would be needed was if there was a perception among the public (or even a possible perception) of bias against a group of viewers that would end up costing the station money. I don’t care if she’s done nothing illegal or immoral - it was her actions that caused this and she’ll pay the consequences. Her free speech rights are completely intact - she can continue to write stuff like that. But I doubt any other station will touch her so why should her current station have to put up with it?
There are cases where I can see the principle of the matter being more important. There was a case recently where a teacher was let go from a school because her ex had threatened to harm her and the school was worried about him showing up while kids were there. In this case the teacher did no wrong, she was a victim of domestic violence and the school basically let the abuser win. I feel the school did this teacher, their students, and society a disservice by not standing up for the teacher, even if it meant that some parents would pull their students out of the school in fear.
What is the difference in the two cases? The main one is that the reporter is completely responsible for her own actions. Her freedom of speech is unabridged, even though not consequence free. The rights of the station to employ who they want, and terminate people who they feel reflect poorly on the station shouldn’t be ignored. The teacher on the other hand was a victim of the actions of another. She didn’t bring on the problem herself, and as a matter of public policy we should not be punishing women (or men) for being involved in an abusive relationship.
Well first let me say that I’ve avoiding using the “free speech” thing because that deals more with government regulation of speech rather than private corporations. I don’t consider what happened to the reporter a 1st Amendment issue precisely because of that so you’re responding to the wrong person.
Secondly, I’m not of the belief that simply because one is the cause of their downfall, that they deserve whatever punishment that is meted out. Employers get too much leeway to fire people for whatever reason they want. This screws the employee out of rightfully earned compensation, pensions, etc. when the boss just wants to save some money. More protection needs to be created so that this can’t happen. Therefore, even if she was responsible for initiating the actions that lead to her firing, I feel the punishment does not fit the crime. I do agree that through her own stupidity, knowing what the law is, she is completely responsible for what happened to her according to the letter of the law. My argument is that the letter of the law should be changed to protect employees more.
And third, even if I were to agree with you that she deserved some punishment, I would still call for the station to have to prove that the things she revealed about her performance were actually true and not some false blog post attempt at humor. I don’t care if the station was harmed, I care if what they are punishing her for is true or not. If true, the station has a case. If she was just joking around, then they don’t. People should be able to bullshit on their own time.
(Underlining mine.)
No, we give Nazis free speech under the First Amendment. The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms. But this isn’t even a First Amendment issue. The government didn’t suppress the reporter’s right to have a blog. The television station did no such thing, either. However, as a private corporation, they had the right to terminate her employment because the comments in her blog reflected adversely on the station and the reporter’s performance of her job with that station. This is not a Constitutional issue at all.
“Look, sir, I was just kidding when I said I play Angry Birds all day and my clueless boss has no idea, and that I only pretend to work when I hear you coming. I guess humor isn’t your ‘thing’. Anyway, the burden of proof is really on you to show that I wasn’t making it all up, so people would laugh at how gullible you… why are you calling security?”
Understood, it was more of a blanket response to the thread but not to your posts in particular. I apologize for the confusion.
She was paid for what she earned. I don’t believe employees have a right to continued employment. The boss is supposed to save money; that’s part of his job description. People get let go all the time because the business climate changes, natural disasters, or boneheaded moves by management. Such is life. Employees also quit for new jobs, leaving employers unable to meet their schedules or fulfill orders. Both employees and employers need to make contingency plans.
Here, we disagree strongly. I think employers should have the right to hire and fire without interference from the government except in carefully proscribed areas. Right now that includes race, gender, religion, disability, and a few others. I would like to see it extended (on a Federal level) to include sexual orientation and possibly some others. But what you are proposing is an unwarranted intrusion of government into the daily operation of a business. It’s heavy handed, unworkable, and fundamentally changes the relationship between employer and employee. This may be what you are looking for, but I feel that would be extremely detrimental to the economy and way of life in the US.
Prove it to whom? Does every hiring and firing need to get government approval? I could care less if she was joking or not, or if the station was correct in thinking that they were harmed. It’s not my or the government’s concern - this is between her and the station. Would you subject an employee to the same level of scrutiny if they want to leave for another job? Would you disallow someone from resigning if they were doing so based on an erroneous report that the CEO kicked puppies?
I understand where you’re coming from but I see it as a fundamental shift in the US if you insert the government between workers and employers at this level. It can work in other countries and it’s not the worst system in the world, but IMO it’s worse than the one we have. If we had an effective single-payer health care that wasn’t tied to employment I’d dismiss this whole idea, but I recognize that employment in the US is tied to many things. I just don’t think the level of government involvement you propose is worth it for anything other than the few protected classes listed above.
It has been shown.
Seems like this thread is now spinning around whether the station should have to PROVE that she did the things she said she did (braless, hating on old people, stealing mail, etc.) before they could consider any action against her.
How about this? Even if they KNEW that was all bullshit, that she was false-bragging, or trying to be cool, or whatever, they were still right to fire her.
Why? Because she was turning into a PR issue, and for a business that is heavily dependent on it’s image, almost exists solely because of it’s image, that, my friend, is a firing offense. She was not a model employee to begin with, and then she became an embarrassment. Done, here’s your box.
If I’m on the front page of the local newspaper tomorrow for stealing money from the non-profit I volunteer for (in my private life), I expect my current employer would meet me at security the next day with a box of my personal belongings.
Why not? They are the ones doing the firing, the least they could do is justify it. The alternative is that any boss can claim they overheard something or another and base a firing on lies, miscommunication, and rumors. I think an employee deserves better than that and all firings should be justified. Why are you against that?
Its not continued employment I’m defending but a justification on the firing. Yes, people get fired or laid off for all sorts of reasons, but I want those reasons to be justifiable. I think in your scenario, both employees and employers do not equally share the impact and that, to me, is wrong. Ultimately, even with more protections, the employer is still richer than the employee and still owns the means of production. Allowing the employer unlimited discretion in firing gives too much power to them when they already have most of it.
What is so sacred about the current style that requires it to be protected against change? On what do you base your belief that the economy would suffer severely? And if you already support certain protected classes, why does this cross the line and something else that might be entirely the fault of the employee (that might make the business suffer) doesn’t?
I would say that they need to prove it to a judge or jury. How it would work, I think, is that the employee could sue for wrongful termination and the station would have to prove that the illegal activities she posted on her blog were true. I am absolutely against simply letting the station claim potential harm from her blog, or anything personal of hers, and using that to justify firing her.
What do you mean would I subject the employee to the same level of scrutiny? An employer cannot keep an employee against their will when they want to leave, that’s almost like slavery. I feel that employees should be able to leave their job for whatever reasons they want, barring some very specific exceptions. I want to change the employer/employee dynamic to lessen the power gap. Even if we were to change the laws to what I prefer, the employer would still have the upper hand.
Is this about monetary worth to you? If it wasn’t “worth it” for those protected classes, if doing that actually was bad for business, then would you still be for their protection? To me, its more about the principle, and that’s why I’ve repeated that it doesn’t matter to me if businesses suffer. They will adapt, I think, the whole economy isn’t going to collapse because its harder to fire employees. Hell, in government jobs already, you have millions of workers who keep the services in this country chugging along AND its harder to fire them. Despite stereotypes to the contrary, it hasn’t broken the economy. I think private workers should get the same amount of protection as public sector workers
Isn’t the news supposed to be exempt from political and financial concerns? The news doesn’t have to make money, that promotes bias
The reason we are getting testy, Evil Captor, is that your ignorance on the matter is so stubborn. You keep repeating the same crap that’s been disproven. You keep claiming that this is remotely a freedom of speech issue when it isn’t. Even you admit that an employee does not have freedom of speech while on the job.
The issue is whether or not she had the freedom to post in public about things she does in her job that limit her ability to do it effectively, and whether employers do not have the freedom to take said confessions into account. Using your idea of freedom of speech–of course they do. Just like, with the legal concept, the fact that you in your free time admit to a crime does not mean that the government can’t touch you.
Furthermore, unlike what YogSooth keeps saying, she didn’t do this in her own private life. She did it publicly on a blog that not only has her real name, but her employer. Furthermore, her comments make no sense except in light of her doing her job. Her blog is not a private life thing. It’s her public blog for her job. The reason why people read that blog is because of her job. She may not be on the clock, but she is representing the company in that.
And, again, something which almost everyone seems to ignore–she wasn’t fired for just this one thing. She was fired for a long list of bad behaviors on the job. And the reason she was fired was what she admitted in the blog about doing on the job.
Yes, there are arguments that employers should be restricted in what they can fire you for. That’s not freedom of speech, though. No country uses freedom of speech as their reason for such restrictions. It’s a business regulation, to keep businesses from having too much power.
I can agree with you that what you do in you own personal private life should be okay. That’s why I’m against people being fired for what they say on Facebook to their friends. Facebook is private (assuming you set it up right). Blogs are public.
And, public or private, I can see an argument that your political speech you do off the job should be protected. As long as you don’t use your employer’s name or imply they support you, I’m all for that to.
But saying things about what you do on the job? On a blog about your job? Why should that be protected? That’s the question we have, not all this BS you guys keep saying it is. This is not about freedom of speech in any way.
EDIT: Yogsooth posted while I was writing. My problem with what he says: they actually have the proof. This isn’t something they claim she said. This is out in public. It can be proven that she said what she said. And her past behavior on the job is documented. I don’t see any reason for an impartial judge not to agree with the firing.
That is because you actively refuse to see it.
Why should employers have to continue to employ someone against their will? That’s almost like extortion. So if I was a newscaster I could alienate the entire audience by my legal but stupid off-hours activities and the station would have to keep her on the air? What principle are you advocating for here?
But she wasn’t fired for political speech. She wasn’t fired for financial concerns, other than the damage their ratings would suffer from employing a public embarrassment. Does the fact that she works for a news organization mean she should be MORE protected than any other worker in this regard? Any worker who publicly embarrasses their employer is subject to termination, no matter what industry.
Are you saying that an employer should be forced to keep an employee no matter what they do, as long as what they do doesn’t happen at work? Should George Zimmerman’s former employer be required to keep him on as a security guard even though his public notoriety would severely impact that companies reputation? I know thats a little bit of a extreme straw man, but the correlation is there, IMHO.
Maybe a better example would be this. Let’s say ( to keep it in the news industry) that Brian Williams is discovered to be an active member of the aforementioned NAMBLA. Now, know one is saying he is an active pedophile, but he is associated with a group that NBC is very unhappy with him being involved with. They fire him because, well they have to, before the boycotts and outrage start, and their ratings plummet. You got a problem with this?