Yup. I suspect someone else may get fired over that photo, a LEO.
Why? Why would she tell her HR dept that it was her in a picture in which she was not clearly identifiable & why would she tell her HR dept about why she was flipping the bird? It could have been for the driver’s actions; driving too close (doesn’t appear to be the case from this photo) or maybe laid on his horn/siren just before passing her?
It’s like walking into the police station & saying, “That burglary you had over the weekend, the one you don’t even know about yet because the owners are still away, that was me, I did it.” :smack:
She certainly can express those personal opinions, but the consequence may be (apparently was in this case) that she gets fired by Akima. Other expressions might get her banned from FaceBook or Twitter. All those private companies are free to impose sanctions of various sorts for behavior they disapprove of.
It’s entirely possible that both are true. Someone else pretty obviously took the photo, since she’s in it and not holding a camera at the time, and the story says “A photographer traveling with the presidential motorcade snapped Briskman’s picture and the image quickly spread across news outlets and social media.”
Perhaps she picked it up from one of those news outlets / social media, recognized herself and decided “that would be an awesome profile picture” and started using it herself.
It’s moot given that Virginia is an at-will state, but you’d have a hard time proving that flipping the bird is obscene, or its verbal equivalent, “fuck you.” It’s understood to be an expression of contempt, not a sexual message appealing to prurient interest.
However, given that Trump justified violence against protesters as being a proportional to the finger, he probably tried to sic the Secret Service on her.
I don’t like this recent trend, mostly pushed by the left, of getting people fired from their jobs because of their political views. I don’t know why “liberals”, supposed champions of the poor and downtrodden, want to build a society in which the only people who can express political opinions publicly without fear are those who are wealthy enough to never have to work again. In this case it’s backfired against one of their own. They shouldn’t be surprised.
These same people argue that, for instance, a boss sleeping with his secretary is coercive because of his “power” over her and the implied threat of firing if she doesn’t do it. But they’re A-OK with corporations dictating what political and moral views employees are allowed to hold if they don’t want to die homeless on the street, and suddenly they’re laissez-faire capitalists when they debate this issue. It doesn’t make sense.
In this case the firing may be defensible on the grounds that she works in marketing for a government contractor, so she’s effectively flipping off a customer. But I don’t like this sort of thing in general.
There is hypocrisy on both sides about this kind of issue. I know many people (on both sides ) bristle at ‘both sides do it’. But in this case it’s true. Although I agree with you that of incidents have gained attention lately, it seems to more often be the left trying to ruin people’s livelihoods for non-PC expression.
But when it comes specifically to companies firing people, you’d have to change the law. As I mentioned before, in the celebrated Google firing recently that company probably did violate CA’s employment laws, or likely enough they probably paid the guy off. CA has a law saying company’s can’t threaten firing to get employees to adopt or desist from political views. VA doesn’t. Although again the CA case some people on the left might argue that wasn’t politics (though it was IMO), and some on the right might argue neither was this, but inappropriate public behavior reflecting badly on the company. But as now a bunch of posters have agreed, as the law is in VA and a lot of other states, it’s moot.
So you do have to worry about calling attention to your ‘private’ behavior if it’s like that. But reading between the lines of statements articles about this I guess this lady wanted adulation from the anti-Trump world more than she really wanted to work for this company. That would be an explanation why she’d walk into HR and say it was her in a photo that doesn’t seem very recognizable otherwise, besides adopting it on her social media profile. She was quoted saying she thought she could do better for a job, leaving it open better because of the cred she’d gained with some people over the incident.
It works both ways. I imagine that there will be quite a backlash against the company, even if technically they are in the right and this isn’t a 1st Amendment issue. Actions have consequences, so have to see how this plays out, but I think the company overreacted. A sit down with HR and stern talking to would have been more appropriate, IMHO in this case, especially since the woman in question wasn’t wearing any company logos or material.
In recent years we’ve seen people lose their jobs because they post stupid jokes about not having to worry about getting AIDS in Africa because they’re white or putting Youtube videos of the time they harassed Chick-fil-A employees at the drive thru because he didn’t like the owners’ politics. It seems as though the ship has sailed when it comes to your personal social media affecting work.
