TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!!
Yes. Just my opinion of course.
Other than the employers being the only morons, I agree with you. They should not have fired her.
-
Features
Woman Photographed Flipping Off Trump Fired By Employer
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
Yes. Just my opinion of course.
Other than the employers being the only morons, I agree with you. They should not have fired her.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,253
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Had I done that I would probably have been fired from my company even if I wasn't wearing anything about my employer. It's just bad for business.
But I know that ahead of time. I would love to be able to do that, but I need the job more.
laughing dog
Contributor
I see a solution to the Federal deficit here. If the Trump administration is going to cancel contracts with any contractor with employees who either flip off or want to flip him off, then any contract with a firm of more than 2 people should be cancelled.
Your actions in your free time can reflect negatively on your employer. That's what she's getting fired for.
untermensche
Contributor
If your actions are criminal, sure.
But if it is an opinion about the president no f'n way.
That is a mile too far. No employer should have that right.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
Wearing company tee shirts is more humane than cattle branding or tattoo stamping
She is not wearing a company t-shirt!!!!!
Got it?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Wearing company tee shirts is more humane than cattle branding or tattoo stamping
She is not wearing a company t-shirt!!!!!
Got it?
I am not sure the message will get through.
braces_for_impact
Veteran Member
Sometimes when I try to consider if an action is right or wrong, I flip it around. Lets take these actions and place them back, back in time by about two years, and pretend it was President Obama's motorcade, and the employee of a federal contractor flipped Obama the bird, then got fired for an "obscene action".
Right about now I'm wondering if there are a lot of postal employees suddenly wondering if they're allowed to express a political opinion on their own Facebook pages.
I wonder, what if this woman used that as her profile picture but she wasn't the one that actually did the deed? Would that make a difference? Should we ask that all employees of governmental contractors be silent about their own political beliefs? Or is it the way she expressed this belief, with an upraised middle digit? If companies have rights and beliefs (both religious and political) do those rights overshadow the rights and beliefs of the personnel that make up the company? It seems to lately, at least according to the SCOTUS. If the employees of companies that do business with the federal government have to be wary of expressing their opinion or how they express that opinion, then one would think Federal employees should be even more careful yes? So who is left that is allowed to express such opinions? School teachers? First responders? Military personnel? Post office employees? What about the lady that runs the gift shop at a state park?
I feel that if this incident resulted in the firing of an employee, then half of the House, Senate, and roughly a third of Facebook should have been let go during the last administration before Trump. Of course, Obama was not a thin skinned troglodyte that prompted an owner of a company to honestly wonder if their contract might be cancelled over a middle finger.
Right about now I'm wondering if there are a lot of postal employees suddenly wondering if they're allowed to express a political opinion on their own Facebook pages.
I wonder, what if this woman used that as her profile picture but she wasn't the one that actually did the deed? Would that make a difference? Should we ask that all employees of governmental contractors be silent about their own political beliefs? Or is it the way she expressed this belief, with an upraised middle digit? If companies have rights and beliefs (both religious and political) do those rights overshadow the rights and beliefs of the personnel that make up the company? It seems to lately, at least according to the SCOTUS. If the employees of companies that do business with the federal government have to be wary of expressing their opinion or how they express that opinion, then one would think Federal employees should be even more careful yes? So who is left that is allowed to express such opinions? School teachers? First responders? Military personnel? Post office employees? What about the lady that runs the gift shop at a state park?
I feel that if this incident resulted in the firing of an employee, then half of the House, Senate, and roughly a third of Facebook should have been let go during the last administration before Trump. Of course, Obama was not a thin skinned troglodyte that prompted an owner of a company to honestly wonder if their contract might be cancelled over a middle finger.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
If I applaud that these turds lost their jobs after coming out as racists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville (and I do),
then I am not sure I have much room to object to this woman being fired for flagging a bird at Trump and his motorcade.
There are, however, a few differences that I see as significant:
1. Her action was expressing her opinion about Trump, not about an entire category of people. Unless Trump does his own ordering for this company, chances of her opinion of him having a direct impact on anyone is slim to none. The white supremacists, otoh, have outed themselves as the type of people who think other people should be second class citizens... other people who are very likely to be customers of the businesses. As a company owner, I would no longer trust them to be treating ALL of my customers with respect and/or providing good customer service to them.
2. As others have noted, virtually no one anywhere would recognize the woman from the photo - even if she posted it on her Facebook page. The white supremacists otoh were clearly identifiable. Customers & other employees could easily recognize them, and then feel very uncomfortable having to deal with them in the workplace.
3. Akima LLC was inconsistent in their policy enforcement. They immediately fired this woman for the photograph that neither identified her or the company; yet "a male colleague kept his job after recently posting lewd comments on his Facebook page that featured Akima LLC as his cover photo. She said this colleague was reprimanded for calling someone “a fucking Libtard asshole” on Facebook, but was allowed to delete the post and keep his job."
4. Akima LLC "told her that because Akima was a government contractor, the photo could hurt their business". If this company is telling the truth that they have reason to fear government retaliation in the form of lost government contracts - that is a violation of free speech.
then I am not sure I have much room to object to this woman being fired for flagging a bird at Trump and his motorcade.
There are, however, a few differences that I see as significant:
1. Her action was expressing her opinion about Trump, not about an entire category of people. Unless Trump does his own ordering for this company, chances of her opinion of him having a direct impact on anyone is slim to none. The white supremacists, otoh, have outed themselves as the type of people who think other people should be second class citizens... other people who are very likely to be customers of the businesses. As a company owner, I would no longer trust them to be treating ALL of my customers with respect and/or providing good customer service to them.
2. As others have noted, virtually no one anywhere would recognize the woman from the photo - even if she posted it on her Facebook page. The white supremacists otoh were clearly identifiable. Customers & other employees could easily recognize them, and then feel very uncomfortable having to deal with them in the workplace.
3. Akima LLC was inconsistent in their policy enforcement. They immediately fired this woman for the photograph that neither identified her or the company; yet "a male colleague kept his job after recently posting lewd comments on his Facebook page that featured Akima LLC as his cover photo. She said this colleague was reprimanded for calling someone “a fucking Libtard asshole” on Facebook, but was allowed to delete the post and keep his job."
4. Akima LLC "told her that because Akima was a government contractor, the photo could hurt their business". If this company is telling the truth that they have reason to fear government retaliation in the form of lost government contracts - that is a violation of free speech.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,253
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
The plot thickens.
Malintent
Veteran Member
in context, "appropriate" is a measure of consistency with the employer's expectations that have been communicated to the employee through handbooks, training, policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines.
Then the company you own and / or operate may have a loose, or non-existent, Social Media policy, if you choose.
What does the Department of Labor do? How about Health and Human Services? I think your hyperbole level is hugely here.
It works both ways... "At Will" protects both employee and employer (well, mostly the employer, true).. but you say that employees are essentially "slaves" by law above, and then here in the next sentence you are saying the opposite... that they are "too free" to find new employment whenever they want..
Union Busting is partly why. Walmart and the like dominating the job market with basically a monopoly on entire towns' paychecks... Those, in my opinion, are the organizations that are "too big" for the normal DoL regulations to fully protect the employee.
hurtinbuckaroo
Contributor
This is the regularly scheduled post to remind some of our (non-)readers that
SHE IS NOT WEARING A COMPANY T-SHIRT.
That is all.
SHE IS NOT WEARING A COMPANY T-SHIRT.
That is all.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,253
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Thank you for your service.
Look, I think what this boils down to is whether or not she's wearing a company t-shirt.
Has anybody got any information about that?
Has anybody got any information about that?
hurtinbuckaroo
Contributor
Let me get CSI to sharpen the photo a bit so we can read all of it.
I don't find your weaseling on it valid.
Either you can be fired for off-duty actions or you can't.
In practice, embarrass the boss and you're probably going to get fired.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 41,253
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
They have amazing ways to increase photo resolution at CSI. I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Don't you just say, "Enhance Sector 17" and wait .34 second?