4 ms·

> If I were to become an employer one day, what you say on your time is your province, not mine. What about the guy that had the racist blog? Would you be ok w

> If I were to become an employer one day, what you say on your time is your province, not mine. What about the guy that had the racist blog? Would you be ok with that type of public internet behavior from your employee? Even if they identified themselves as your employee and had a picture online posing in front of the office?

corobo 11y ago
The next sentence covers that "When you're representing the company, that's different."
- ohitsdom 11y ago
  Yeah but in context of the post, it sounded like that was meant to read "on company time".
- kohanz 11y ago
  When is someone "representing the company", though? That's what a lot of this boils down to. Is it only when they are officially operating for the company? In this age of public LinkedIn profiles, etc., it's far too easy to associate the actions of an individual with their employer. In the FHRITP case, the man worked for a public (provincial government) organization, so I'm not surprised that there was outrage that someone who behaves in that way in public was on the public payroll.
  - protonfish 11y ago
    He was speaking anonymously and got doxed - as were the developers joking at the conference. We all do and say stupid things now and then and if somebody were filming you 24/7 it would not be very long before they documented something that was a social faux pas. There is a big difference between blurting out drunken nonsense and soberly, premeditated publishing under a personally identifiable account, especially if it is part of your job to be the public face of the company.
    - kohanz 11y ago
      > He was speaking anonymously On-camera, being interviewed by a television reporter who was not hiding the fact that she was recording, and he was responding directly to her questions and under no obligation to answer. You consider that "anonymously"?! Let me guess, he was drunk and thus should not be accountable for any of his actions.
      - mc32 11y ago
        Do you think if we could that we should subject every idiocy fueled by alcohol, narcotics, etc., to the court of public opinion. Things that people say in frustration, a fit of rage, etc? If you were to record surreptitiously everything people said under all circumstances, you'd have a whole bunch of people to castigate and berate. More than you can imagine.
        kohanz 11y ago
        I think you're perhaps focusing on the PyCon case while I'm speaking only of the FHRITP case. If your "idiocy fueled by alcohol" is volunteering offensive answers to a reporter, on television, you've entered the court of public opinion on your own accord.
- mynameismonkey 11y ago
  As an employer, if I had ten employees who all thought FHRITP was funny, and one of them got drunk enough to pull this stunt on television, I would consider that one out of ten had a serious judgement problem and nine had some semblance of socially reasonable judgement to not do such a thing. I don't need my employees to think like me, act like me, or or like any particular brand of "acceptable" as defined by me or the company. I do not need to know nor care if any of my employees thinks FHRITP is funny. I absolutely _do_ expect all of them to not go on television and demonstrate this level of bad judgement. By extension, I would now have two issues: first of all I'd question what other bad judgement comes into play in that employee's work product, secondly I'd be aware that _my_ judgement now comes into play as the responsible hiring manager. I'm extremely sensitive to separation of work and family life. I demand the same from my employer. But I am wise enough to know that no matter what I do in the privacy of my own home, once I take that on a television news broadcast, I am in effect representing anything and everything the viewing public can now associate me with, whether it be my cycling club, my church, my darts team, my family, or my employer. (I only have the last two of those five, I'm straining for examples as I don't go out much...) In short, where the conversation seems to be "OMG corporate thought police" it is in fact "seriously, keep that to yourself". noun: judgement - the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.

corobo 11y ago

The next sentence covers that "When you're representing the company, that's different."

ohitsdom 11y ago
Yeah but in context of the post, it sounded like that was meant to read "on company time".
kohanz 11y ago
When is someone "representing the company", though? That's what a lot of this boils down to. Is it only when they are officially operating for the company? In this age of public LinkedIn profiles, etc., it's far too easy to associate the actions of an individual with their employer. In the FHRITP case, the man worked for a public (provincial government) organization, so I'm not surprised that there was outrage that someone who behaves in that way in public was on the public payroll.
- protonfish 11y ago
  He was speaking anonymously and got doxed - as were the developers joking at the conference. We all do and say stupid things now and then and if somebody were filming you 24/7 it would not be very long before they documented something that was a social faux pas. There is a big difference between blurting out drunken nonsense and soberly, premeditated publishing under a personally identifiable account, especially if it is part of your job to be the public face of the company.
  - kohanz 11y ago
    > He was speaking anonymously On-camera, being interviewed by a television reporter who was not hiding the fact that she was recording, and he was responding directly to her questions and under no obligation to answer. You consider that "anonymously"?! Let me guess, he was drunk and thus should not be accountable for any of his actions.
    - mc32 11y ago
      Do you think if we could that we should subject every idiocy fueled by alcohol, narcotics, etc., to the court of public opinion. Things that people say in frustration, a fit of rage, etc? If you were to record surreptitiously everything people said under all circumstances, you'd have a whole bunch of people to castigate and berate. More than you can imagine.
      - kohanz 11y ago
        I think you're perhaps focusing on the PyCon case while I'm speaking only of the FHRITP case. If your "idiocy fueled by alcohol" is volunteering offensive answers to a reporter, on television, you've entered the court of public opinion on your own accord.
mynameismonkey 11y ago
As an employer, if I had ten employees who all thought FHRITP was funny, and one of them got drunk enough to pull this stunt on television, I would consider that one out of ten had a serious judgement problem and nine had some semblance of socially reasonable judgement to not do such a thing. I don't need my employees to think like me, act like me, or or like any particular brand of "acceptable" as defined by me or the company. I do not need to know nor care if any of my employees thinks FHRITP is funny. I absolutely _do_ expect all of them to not go on television and demonstrate this level of bad judgement. By extension, I would now have two issues: first of all I'd question what other bad judgement comes into play in that employee's work product, secondly I'd be aware that _my_ judgement now comes into play as the responsible hiring manager. I'm extremely sensitive to separation of work and family life. I demand the same from my employer. But I am wise enough to know that no matter what I do in the privacy of my own home, once I take that on a television news broadcast, I am in effect representing anything and everything the viewing public can now associate me with, whether it be my cycling club, my church, my darts team, my family, or my employer. (I only have the last two of those five, I'm straining for examples as I don't go out much...) In short, where the conversation seems to be "OMG corporate thought police" it is in fact "seriously, keep that to yourself". noun: judgement - the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.