5 ms·

I don’t agree with the firing, but let’s be clear about what she was fired for because it wasn’t going to the kitchen. It was for posting negative content about

I don’t agree with the firing, but let’s be clear about what she was fired for because it wasn’t going to the kitchen. It was for posting negative content about her employer on social media. This could get you fired from practically any job and has naff all to do with working from home. The surveillance is a whole other issue but I feel that point will be overlooked since everyone will focus on her disciplinary. Which is a shame.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
WalterBright 4y ago
If I was paying money to someone, and they were slagging me off online, I'd immediately cease paying them.
- laumars 4y ago
  Depends on the details. For a lower level position I might give a written warning, on the provision they take down the offending post(s). But since she’s named a client, that could harm business relations. So in that instance the severity of the misdeed is greater. I’m sure their performance would be taken into account too. If someone is generally a high performing individual who had this one incident then a more lenient outcome might be expected. But if the company are already unhappy with the employee’s performance then this might just be used as an excuse to terminate their employment.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    How would you feel if you were paying them and they were slagging off you?
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      Did you ever consider listening to the reasons they were slagging you off? Was it true, did you make changes
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        They should come to me with their issues, not social media. If a mutually acceptable accommodation can't be reached, it's time to part ways. After that, then they can slag me off online all they want, short of slander.
        hourago 4y ago
        > They should come to me with their issues, not social media. So many companies say this to just fire people that bring feedback. Whistleblowers are needed for a reason. This concept that companies are always right is alien to me. I have only heard it from management, and only towards subordinates because management are the first ones to badly complain about their own salaries and jobs.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Whistleblowing is something different. > This concept that companies are always right is alien to me. I wasn't saying that they were. I just said I don't care to pay people that say hateful things about me. I seriously doubt you or anyone else would, either. Suppose you hired a maid, who then posted online about all your unattractive habits?
    - laumars 4y ago
      I answered that question. In short, “it’s nuanced”. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere and the company suspending that individual while that review her case to see which side of the line she falls seems like an entirely reasonable reaction.
- ornornor 4y ago
  Or you could treat them like humans and they wouldn’t be complaining about being poorly treated while you’re paying them?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Cratchit, you'll want the whole day off tomorrow, I suppose.
WheatM 4y ago
Clent 4y ago
Social media is no longer a side technology, it is the main method of communication for a generate or more of adults. Demanding workers adhere to a restriction on their inalienable right to free speech cannot continue.
- yucky 4y ago
  This is not a free speech issue, the government isn't involved. Why would companies want to pay people to publicly trash them online?
  - bryankaplan 4y ago
    You're conflating the 1st Amendment with free speech. The former is rooted in the latter. Free speech is a natural right, applicable to all situations. This is a free speech issue.
    - yucky 4y ago
      This is the argument used by people who think you should be able to say anything on Facebook, Twitter etc. And the response is always the same - you have the right to say what you want, but there are consequences. In this case, firing.
      - Gigachad 4y ago
        You made the same mistake as the higher comment. Yes, this is how it works legally in the US. But the concept of free speech is not tied to US law. It is a free speech issue and it’s perfectly conceivable that a countries laws would reflect these rights for social media protections.
        xref 4y ago
        You’re agreeing with the op. You do have free speech on social media. You also have consequences. Same as on the street, work, school, playground, grocery store, car dealership…
altereds 4y ago
I think the negative content about the employer was the fact that her employer was monitoring their employees through the webcam, anything directly said about the company I see is other users reacting to the employer's surveillance. The employee is just stating a fact about their employer which everyone feels is scandalous or negative including the employer themselves.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

WalterBright 4y ago

If I was paying money to someone, and they were slagging me off online, I'd immediately cease paying them.

laumars 4y ago
Depends on the details. For a lower level position I might give a written warning, on the provision they take down the offending post(s). But since she’s named a client, that could harm business relations. So in that instance the severity of the misdeed is greater. I’m sure their performance would be taken into account too. If someone is generally a high performing individual who had this one incident then a more lenient outcome might be expected. But if the company are already unhappy with the employee’s performance then this might just be used as an excuse to terminate their employment.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  How would you feel if you were paying them and they were slagging off you?
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Did you ever consider listening to the reasons they were slagging you off? Was it true, did you make changes
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      They should come to me with their issues, not social media. If a mutually acceptable accommodation can't be reached, it's time to part ways. After that, then they can slag me off online all they want, short of slander.
      - hourago 4y ago
        > They should come to me with their issues, not social media. So many companies say this to just fire people that bring feedback. Whistleblowers are needed for a reason. This concept that companies are always right is alien to me. I have only heard it from management, and only towards subordinates because management are the first ones to badly complain about their own salaries and jobs.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Whistleblowing is something different. > This concept that companies are always right is alien to me. I wasn't saying that they were. I just said I don't care to pay people that say hateful things about me. I seriously doubt you or anyone else would, either. Suppose you hired a maid, who then posted online about all your unattractive habits?
  - laumars 4y ago
    I answered that question. In short, “it’s nuanced”. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere and the company suspending that individual while that review her case to see which side of the line she falls seems like an entirely reasonable reaction.
ornornor 4y ago
Or you could treat them like humans and they wouldn’t be complaining about being poorly treated while you’re paying them?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Cratchit, you'll want the whole day off tomorrow, I suppose.

WheatM 4y ago

Clent 4y ago

Social media is no longer a side technology, it is the main method of communication for a generate or more of adults. Demanding workers adhere to a restriction on their inalienable right to free speech cannot continue.

yucky 4y ago
This is not a free speech issue, the government isn't involved. Why would companies want to pay people to publicly trash them online?
- bryankaplan 4y ago
  You're conflating the 1st Amendment with free speech. The former is rooted in the latter. Free speech is a natural right, applicable to all situations. This is a free speech issue.
  - yucky 4y ago
    This is the argument used by people who think you should be able to say anything on Facebook, Twitter etc. And the response is always the same - you have the right to say what you want, but there are consequences. In this case, firing.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      You made the same mistake as the higher comment. Yes, this is how it works legally in the US. But the concept of free speech is not tied to US law. It is a free speech issue and it’s perfectly conceivable that a countries laws would reflect these rights for social media protections.
      - xref 4y ago
        You’re agreeing with the op. You do have free speech on social media. You also have consequences. Same as on the street, work, school, playground, grocery store, car dealership…

altereds 4y ago

I think the negative content about the employer was the fact that her employer was monitoring their employees through the webcam, anything directly said about the company I see is other users reacting to the employer's surveillance. The employee is just stating a fact about their employer which everyone feels is scandalous or negative including the employer themselves.