And you’ve been trying to walk on water since you first posted in this thread. It isn’t working.
Just try not to think about the old anchor guy next to her who is not wearing pants under that desk.
I know many elderly people who are far more internet savvy than you. They also have abetter grasp of “freedom of speech” than you as well.
None of this happened in her private life. This happened on a* public* blog that clearly included information identifying her and her affiliation to the station. That is what put the station’s reputation at risk and justifies her firing. Putting anything on the internet is NOT PRIVATE. It is the digital version of putting it on a billboard for all to see. The sooner people like this reporter and Evil Captor realize that, the better.
I agree publicly attacking your employer or his product is grounds for firing.
The reporter’s blog was somewhat of a grey area to me. I thought she was poking fun at herself. But the thread comments made me realize that yes she did take it too far. Some of the comments made her employer and her profession look bad.
It’s just disturbing to realize how easy it is for our bosses to snoop on our conversations. Most blogs are only read by a small group of friends. My personal twitter account has less than 40 followers. All of them are family, college friends, friends at my church etc.
Blogs can go viral but most of the time they don’t. They are usually pretty boring unless you know the person. Who wants to look at someone elses vacation pictures?
Agree. And her employer should be free to fire her for any reason[sup]*[/sup].
[sub][sup]*[/sup]Unless it’s for an expressly forbidden reason, like gender, sexual orientation, etc.[/sub]
My daughter, her boyfriend, several nephews, all in their 20’s maintain two versions of Facebook. One with their real first and last names is kept clean and is for potential employers to see. Th e other is their “real” page and is under a slight pseudonym (using middle name as last name, for instance).
Seriously.
I don’t live in a utopian world, I’m painfully aware of that. I live in an at-will firing state where employees can be fired for any reason, or no reason, except of course for reasons forbidden by federal discrimination laws. That’s why I post all my radical opinions under a pseudonym.
Still, I think I SHOULD be able to post them under my real name, without having any worries about getting fired. And yeah, even drunken fast food employee blogs that diss their employer should be tolerated under the general understanding that a free and open discourse is a good thing, overall. Just as we now permit Nazis and other heinous types to publish their ideas, under the understanding that a free and open discourse is a good thing.
… or, IMHO, violating her free speech rights, which should be included in that list.
In a free society, an employer *should *have the freedom to hire whomever they want, and fire anyone for any reason (or no reason at all). Except, of course, if the firing is based on discrimination (age, religion, gender, etc.).
Her employer did not violate her freedom of speech. While employed, she was free to blog anything she wanted. Now that her employment has been terminated, she still has the freedom to blog anything she wants.
That’s not the important part of that story, though. Do you think that, if he’d given away trade secrets on his own time, and made it clear that he wasn’t speaking as a representative of the company, that would have made it all right? Remember that the secrets he gave away led indirectly to a lot of people losing their jobs.
I agree with you that there are circumstances under which employees ought to be immune from firing for their private speech. Here are some examples:
-A bartender tweets that she really likes a new cafe. The cafe is owned by the bar owner’s ex-husband, so the bar owner fires the bartender. Not cool.
-A nurse blogs about the advantages of using generic prescriptions. The hospital where he works makes a greater profit off of branded drugs, and fires him for cutting into profits. Not cool.
-A teacher believes that high-stakes testing is unethical and posts to that effect on Facebook. Her school district thinks that cuts into the team-building effort around testing and fires her. Not cool.
But here are some examples in which discipline or firing for speech is all right:
-A bartender posts about how she waters down drinks in order to encourage people to drink more and gets fired. That’s fine: her speech is going to discourage people from going to the bar, hurting her employer.
-A nurse blogs about patients by name and gets fired. That’s fine: she’s violating confidentiality, even if she’s doing it on her own time, and that reflects poorly on her employer.
-A teacher posts about how she doesn’t bother to grade papers any more, just gives kids the grades she thinks they deserve. She gets fired. Fine: she’s revealed that she’s a crappy teacher, and her principal has new information to that effect.
In other words, if an employee is speaking in a way that hurts the employer’s bottom line, or violates codes of ethics, or reveals unwillingness or inability to do the job, that’s actionable. Other things, not so much.
The reporter’s list contains a lot of revelations about unethical and incompetent behavior on the job, in my opinion, so firing her was ducky.
Should Paula Deen get her gig back?
You are not a TV personality.
I do not feel I have the right to punch you in the face, even for saying offensive and stupid things about me. And I do not think employers should have the right to fire people, even for saying stupid and offensive things about them. A free and open discourse is worth promoting and preserving. I’m vaguely surprised at all the support for controlling private speech via corporate strongarming here. This board is leaning WAAAAAAY to the right on this issue.
Right. It isn’t you, it’s everyone else. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=ZipperJJ]
If I came up to you and said “Evil Captor, you are a shitty human being, and ugly too. I hate you so much, I should punch you in the face. What are you going to do about it? I mean, really, you stupid fucking asshole.” And then you punched me in the face. Would that be restricting my right to free speech? No, that would be you reacting to my speech in the manner of your choice, and me feeling the consequences of my speech.
[/QUOTE]
Of course, he would then be subject to criminal and civil penalties for making you feel those consequences.
Yeah, it couldn’t possibly be your ridiculously childish opinion.
Uh, this is not a right-left issue. This is a “living in reality” versus “living in fairyland” issue. We are leaning reality.
Our bosses do not have to actively watch what we say on the internet, Google will do it for them. Just set up a Google Alert for what ever you want to track, such as when your company name is mentioned, and Google will send your boss an e-mail letting him know. No searching on your bosses part is needed, just set up an alert and sit back and wait.
I know someone who works for some organization somewhere, and if he mentions the name, a Google Alert will be sent to the Public Relations and Community Liaison officer. Someone is certain of this.
Companies and organizations want to know when negative things are being said about them so the issue can be addressed early on.
Many people who say stupid things about their jobs are unaware of the wide spread use of Google Alerts in this way.
I do not now, nor have I ever, worked for anybody anywhere. Nothing to see here, move along.
My dog has a better grasp of freedom of speech.
No kidding. I agree with Crafter_Man, for shit’s sake.