Dark Jezter
First Post
Okay, now that one is going a little too far. Getting fired because you got caught drinking Bud when you work for Miller? Sheesh.
Google blogger: 'I was terminated'
- Thread starter Truth Seeker
- Start date
Protester employee
Actually, something like that happened at my old company . . . I heard the dude was going around with sandwich board protesting in New York City on weekends . . . which doesn't make any sense, since the company wasn't in NYC, it's so small nobody ever heard of it, and New Yorkers are so used to crazy people they have +5 on saves against paying attention to them.
He was eventually fired, but it had more to do with not doing any work and threatening to kill his manager's family . . . glad I wasn't in on the interview process for hiring him!
Mark said:
Actually, something like that happened at my old company . . . I heard the dude was going around with sandwich board protesting in New York City on weekends . . . which doesn't make any sense, since the company wasn't in NYC, it's so small nobody ever heard of it, and New Yorkers are so used to crazy people they have +5 on saves against paying attention to them.
He was eventually fired, but it had more to do with not doing any work and threatening to kill his manager's family . . . glad I wasn't in on the interview process for hiring him!
GreyShadow
Explorer
Krieg said:
Only if you work at McDonalds and they do it during work hours.
I'm a bit torn on this on.
On the one hand, blogging negatively about your employer can result in an employee being fired at least and at worst being sued for libel or slander if it can be proven that their blog caused a serious loss in business. On the other hand, employees also have the right to free speech - and by blogging negatively may be able to point out some weaknesses in the compony that need to be addressed. The compony does not need to keep them employed, no, especially in at-will employment states like California and Tennessee - but unless serious workplace misconduct can be proven then the fired employee is entitled to unemployment compensation.
However, if the employee has been with the compony for a couple of years and is only now showing dissatisfaction, then a wise manager would see this as a symptom of a larger problem and investigate further instead of "killing the messenger".
Ultimately it is up to the individual on how they decide to deal with this, blog or not. I myself, find it difficult to curtail my freedom of speech.
On the one hand, blogging negatively about your employer can result in an employee being fired at least and at worst being sued for libel or slander if it can be proven that their blog caused a serious loss in business. On the other hand, employees also have the right to free speech - and by blogging negatively may be able to point out some weaknesses in the compony that need to be addressed. The compony does not need to keep them employed, no, especially in at-will employment states like California and Tennessee - but unless serious workplace misconduct can be proven then the fired employee is entitled to unemployment compensation.
However, if the employee has been with the compony for a couple of years and is only now showing dissatisfaction, then a wise manager would see this as a symptom of a larger problem and investigate further instead of "killing the messenger".
Ultimately it is up to the individual on how they decide to deal with this, blog or not. I myself, find it difficult to curtail my freedom of speech.
Felonious Ntent
Explorer
Mark said:I quit smoking last July after about 25 years or so. I didn't threaten to fire myself, though. Still, the difference in healthcare insurance rates is significant and it's amazing how much one or two smokers can effect the costs to every single employee in the company. If I knew that one or two people smoking was costing me better healthcare, or causing my children or spouse to get lesser care, I'd probably be a bit unhappy, too. It's hard to argue that there is any upside to smoking, regardless if it is a personal choice. And believe me, I'm not one to read people the riot act as a way to reinforce my own newly found non-smoking status. I think this is only the second or third time I have mentioned it to anyone, at all. I simply stopped for my own sake.
(But this is getting a little "bloggy", isn't it, Eric?)
Good job on the quiting smoking. I quit smoking in September of 03. So around 1 1/2 years smoke free after 16 years of smoking. It's a great feeling isn't it?
Truth Seeker said:
Not going into a political rant, but noting that the Constitution guarantees that the government won't infringe upon your rights. It does not apply to private citizens or corporations. In that sense, it is not a "free speech infringement".
jesseghfan
First Post
It is not at all clear that all states would view such terminations as legal. After all, there are limitations on employers even in cases of "at will" employment. One generally may not be fired for one's race, for instance, at will or no.
In New York, for instance, certain protections exist. Now it is confusing and IIRC largely untried law, but:
2. Unless otherwise provided by law, it shall be unlawful for any
employer or employment agency to refuse to hire, employ or license, or
to discharge from employment or otherwise discriminate against an
individual in compensation, promotion or terms, conditions or privileges
of employment because of:
b. an individual`s legal use of consumable products prior to the
beginning or after the conclusion of the employee`s work hours, and off
of the employer`s premises and without use of the employer`s equipment
or other property; - [Smoking is ok, for instance]
c. an individual`s legal recreational activities outside work hours,
off of the employer`s premises and without use of the employer`s
equipment or other property; or
b. "Recreational activities" shall mean any lawful, leisure-time
activity, for which the employee receives no compensation and which is
generally engaged in for recreational purposes, including but not
limited to sports, games, hobbies, exercise, reading and the viewing of
television, movies and similar material;
Now this, to my knowledge, isn't very well tested law, so its limits aren't that clear, and there are a lot of exceptions, yada, yada. Not that I'm giving any legal advice- perish the thought. But I'd be interested in seeing in a theoretical way if it might just provide a harbor.
Any NYers or others remember when the Atlanta Braves John Rocker made foolish racist/ hetero-sexist/ classist comments upon getting off a NY subway train? Or how about when those off duty police or firefighters (don't recall) had a racist float in a parade or somesuch? Would have been interesting to test this out.
Additionally, I'm surprised it hasn't become a wide practice in the blogger community to stamp the occassional "Maybe we should form a union" on all such postings. Suddenly, a whole bucketload of extra protections might just kick in under federal and state labor relations law- complaining in an attempt to organize is a highly protected activity. Again, don't take my ponderings as legal advice- that would be foolish, maybe just plain wrong. I'm just pointing out that maybe this stuff isn't so "employers have every right" at all.
In New York, for instance, certain protections exist. Now it is confusing and IIRC largely untried law, but:
2. Unless otherwise provided by law, it shall be unlawful for any
employer or employment agency to refuse to hire, employ or license, or
to discharge from employment or otherwise discriminate against an
individual in compensation, promotion or terms, conditions or privileges
of employment because of:
b. an individual`s legal use of consumable products prior to the
beginning or after the conclusion of the employee`s work hours, and off
of the employer`s premises and without use of the employer`s equipment
or other property; - [Smoking is ok, for instance]
c. an individual`s legal recreational activities outside work hours,
off of the employer`s premises and without use of the employer`s
equipment or other property; or
b. "Recreational activities" shall mean any lawful, leisure-time
activity, for which the employee receives no compensation and which is
generally engaged in for recreational purposes, including but not
limited to sports, games, hobbies, exercise, reading and the viewing of
television, movies and similar material;
Now this, to my knowledge, isn't very well tested law, so its limits aren't that clear, and there are a lot of exceptions, yada, yada. Not that I'm giving any legal advice- perish the thought. But I'd be interested in seeing in a theoretical way if it might just provide a harbor.
Any NYers or others remember when the Atlanta Braves John Rocker made foolish racist/ hetero-sexist/ classist comments upon getting off a NY subway train? Or how about when those off duty police or firefighters (don't recall) had a racist float in a parade or somesuch? Would have been interesting to test this out.
Additionally, I'm surprised it hasn't become a wide practice in the blogger community to stamp the occassional "Maybe we should form a union" on all such postings. Suddenly, a whole bucketload of extra protections might just kick in under federal and state labor relations law- complaining in an attempt to organize is a highly protected activity. Again, don't take my ponderings as legal advice- that would be foolish, maybe just plain wrong. I'm just pointing out that maybe this stuff isn't so "employers have every right" at all.
I'm disgusted by blogs generally; they are the worst of the excesses of psychological exhibitionism the internet has so far produced. People put up public documents in public spaces and then disclose totally inappropriate details of their lives on them because the blog doesn't feel public. Because the experience is such a disassociated one, people don't feel the normal embarassment of rambling on about their defunct relationships or the normal fear of dissing their employers.
I hope people do start suffering the consequences of blogging that they would suffer for any other form of public expression. An employee shouldn't need to be warned that posting public documents attacking their employer is a suicidal career move; and any employee who claims that they need such things clarified for them should be treated like someone who needs such things clarified for them ie. a poor hiring choice.
I hope people do start suffering the consequences of blogging that they would suffer for any other form of public expression. An employee shouldn't need to be warned that posting public documents attacking their employer is a suicidal career move; and any employee who claims that they need such things clarified for them should be treated like someone who needs such things clarified for them ie. a poor hiring choice.
Similar Threads
