I understand your position, but IMO it’s an indefensible one. You completely discount employer’s rights, and it’s just not workable in a free and open society.
It is, I think everyone here agrees on that. But free and open discourse without consequences is not worth preserving. It effectively strips free speech rights from one side of the employment equation.
and again - this isnt a ‘free speech’ issue - even if she were ‘joking’ about committing a federal crime (tampering with the mail) - that is not the kind of behaviour (the tampering with mail) that any company would want to seemingly ‘allow’ or encourage their employees to do.
So - if they didn’t fire her - its tacit approval of her actions as well as opening up themselves for suits and prosecution. By firing her - they let it be known that her actions (which ever one suits you) are not agreeable to company policy.
She’s still ‘free’ to talk about her shennanigans all she wants.
Excellent post. Evil Captor, do you get this distinction? Others have noted that the firing was justified based on her work conduct, not just because she posted about her conduct publicly. For example, if she hadn’t posted anything on her blog but her boss had directly observed her stealing mail, complaining about old people, sleeping on the job, stopping the recording of interviewees, and admitting that she didn’t know what she was talking about, do you think she wouldn’t have faced any consequences?
My mind truly boggles in this thread. We have one poster saying employers should continue employing someone even if they talk shit, sorry, “[say] stupid and offensive things about them,” and another saying that it should be okay for someone to work in a daycare and be a member of NAMBLA in his personal time (!?) I mean, you’ve got to be fucking kidding me. That sort of behavior would cost my business money. In the latter case, probably putting me out of business forever and possibly make me a community pariah if I knew that info and didn’t act on firing the employee. That not only ruins the business person’s business, it hurts the other employees of that business, as well. I only run a small business, but why on God’s green earth would I continue hiring someone who is saying offensive things about my business? What possible sense can that make?
This is a joke, right?
Of course I wouldn’t keep paying him. But if his membership in NAMBLA does not affect his job, then I would feel that I have no reason to punish him. If that hurts me, so be it, but sometimes, matters of principle should win out
I find both your snarky tones to be unhelpful in this discussion where a very real issue could be debated rather than shut down by excessive, I dunno, meaness is the only thing I can call it. I’m glad I didn’t reply yesterday because I would have contributed to that. Full disclosure, despite what you may believe, I AM in a position to hire and fire. My voice is not the only one, nor the last, nor the most powerful, but I have conducted dozens of interviews and made hiring decisions that were later supported solely by my recommendation.
Both of you have a point, underneath your attacks, however wrong. Most people should look out for themselves or their business. But there is a line where principle and business meet and I feel this crosses that.
I would compare it to people taking a stand on a social issue such as the CEO of Chick-Fil-A coming out to say he’s against gays even though it would have been easier to remain silent. I use him precisely because he’s wrong, an idiot, and I disagree with him. However, as a personal opinion, I wouldn’t fire a guy who came out with that even if it would hurt my business because I believe in his right to say it and DON’T believe in my right to punish him for it despite that. If he were flipping burgers and I was the CEO, his burger flipping is not impacted by his views and so he can say whatever he wants. FYI, Dangerosa’s story deals with a guy who make unofficial remarks as a representative of the company, which I do think is a fire-able offense, and therefore different from what I’m talking about.
I do understand it can hurt my business and why some people would call me an idiot but I believe in the principle behind it. Sometimes, principle should win out, and to me, this is one of those times. I wouldn’t mind you two calling me an idiot business owner if you can least show that you understand why I’m taking the stance that I do.
And my beliefs on this isn’t just some random thought bouncing around in my head. I think that allowing companies to take employees’ personal lives into account for work discipline is harmful. It leads to stupid ass shit like those “at will” work states, or that moron dentist who was rightly excoriated by most people on this board who fired his hot dental assistant. It harms real people, that’s why I’m against it.
Of course, what about the people who own and work in the business that is harmed? Yes, they are a concern too, however, their problems are micro while the employer/employee relationship problem is macro. Better for a company to take some hit to their bottom line than to allow all companies the right to injure employees. One is a company-specific problem, the other is a larger social issue. Just like how it is no justification for the Boy Scouts to be allowed to be homophobic and bigoted even though it might be better for their bottom line in the immediate future by staying the status quo, businesses should not be allowed to broadly injure employees just because its better for them. It is better, I think, for society to protect workers rather than some company, even many companies, to be able to remove such social safety nets
I think there should be a line between work and private lives that has been crossed. By no means am I completely against something such as a background check, nor am I naive enough to think that being an FBI agent should require the same degree of scrutiny as a Burger King cashier. If you can show that your personal life does not affect work, nor do you act against your work as its representative, then your personal life should be your own.
Personal life - absoloutely - in this case, the blog post was about her conduct during her professional time - or directly related to it.
Its not that her ‘opinions’ were being acted upon - but her self reported pattern of behaviour while ‘on the job’.
Anyway you choose to read it she is either a thief or a liar.
I won’t employ either as I have to be able to trust my employees.
In my opinion, this is not one of those cases, especially as it affects the rest of your employees if it ever gets out. Basically, they’ll all be without jobs, because no parent (I would think) is going to send their kids to a daycare where the owner knowingly employed a member of NAMBLA. Call me crazy. Plus the owner’s reputation in the community is likely to be trashed.
Look at the blog that started it all. On the right is the “funny” list. On the left is this:
***Shea Allen is a special investigations reporter currently employed by the ABC affiliate in Huntsville, AL. ***
So, it’s not like she made any effort to keep it strictly personal.
New blog. I hope she does stay above the fray. no Jerry Springer for her.
http://sheaallensays.blogspot.com/2013/07/15-minutes.html?m=1
Calling people who disagree with you “haters” is something stupid teenagers do.
Of course, that’s logical, also:
Employees shouldn’t be able to quit
Employers must hire everyone they interview
Employees must work for whichever company they interview with
etc.
Video interview.
49 of 50 states are “at will” states (Montana is the exception). Although most have public policy exception that prevents firing because, for example, the employee was warning that the employer was shipping defective parts that could injure people.
I can understand that then, though I disagree. I think that just because one talks about work in their personal endeavors doesn’t mean it actually should be subject to employer vetting, nor does it suddenly become, by proxy, work related. I think in a personal setting, whether social media or to your friends, one should be able to talk whatever shit they want about their job with few exceptions.
I don’t disagree that it may hurt the owner or the other employees, but as I stated, I think that the larger issue of employee protection, it is better to have specific businesses hurt in their immediate bottom lines than to blanketly allow employer intrusion into employees’ personal lives. One’s a social matter, one’s a simply an employer/employee matter. It would be no different if the employer himself does something to hurt the business that affects the rest of the employees. The difference is, a law preventing harassment of an emplyees’ personal lives would protect those other employees too if they ever did anything boneheaded in private
Just saying you work somewhere doesn’t mean you should be subjected to that employer’s rules outside of your job. People should be free to say they work for Coke but drink Pepsi. As long as they are not doing it as a representative of Coke, it is their own personal lives and should be protected
Well then I disagree with 49 states. I’m not sure what your point was, to convince me I’m wrong because most people that way? Hell, I know the law, and I know that most people seem to support it, albeit for wildly different reasons. I just know that I feel it should not be the norm
I don’t think anyone commented on this scenario. To the posters defending the reporter: do you think the above situation would be grounds for termination? After all, LHoD specifies that it’s all being done on the nurse’s own time.
Please point to the place where I said I thought employees DO NOT have the right to fire people at will. I believe I have stated just the OPPOSITE in one of my posts. Just because I have a differing opinion about what SHOULD BE in this instance, does not mean I do not recognize what IS. For example, I bet a lot of southern racists would have greeted the notion of getting rid of Jim Crow laws with similar incredulity. The people who objected to Jim Crow laws understood what reality was very clearly. They just thought it was wrong.
Being able to blog about committing felonies and still keep your job is nothing at all like Jim Crow laws, and for you to compare them like this is deeply offensive and disgusting.
Did he violate my right to free speech tho?