Google blogger: 'I was terminated'

[Rel]

And of course the whole reason this situation crops up is that there is a conflict of rights. If "A" has the right to free speech, but "B" has a right to privacy, then whose right gets to prevail?

Probably the guy who didn't post stuff in a blog for all the world to see.

 

[Pielorinho]

My understanding of employment law is like this:
-Your boss can't violate your contract in the course of firing you. (This comes up most often in cases of unionized employees who are employed under contract).
-Your boss can't fire you for certain specific reasons called "protected classes." For example, your boss cannot fire you for your race, sex, national origin, etc.
-Your boss can fire you for any other reason. Your boss may fire you because you're a Packers fan and your boss hates all things Green Bay. Your boss may fire you because he saw you putting mayonnaise on your fries and thinks that's nasty. Your boss may fire you because he found out you play Dungeons and Dragons. Your boss may fire you because you refuse to grow a goatee. (If you can't grow a goatee due to being female, however, your boss usually may not fire you for that reason.)
-The inalienable right to liberty and to freedom of association applies both to you and to your boss. You're free not to associate with your boss; your boss is free not to associate with you (unless either of your reasons are related to protected classes).

Daniel

 

[Hitokiri]

As has been said, what you say in blogs is public record, so badmouthing your company in them is no different than taking out space in your local paper to do so. Of course, there may be times when the employee is protected. For example, if a new employee found a company violating laws itself and posted about it, I would imagine they could try to get protection from whistleblower laws (which were passed by congress in 1986). However, I wouldn't be posting stuff on the www unless I had exhausted every other option, there is no sense in looking for trouble.

 

[Krieg]

Your boss may fire you because he saw you putting mayonnaise on your fries and thinks that's nasty.

Well that is just a given.

 

[MonsterMash]

Well that is just a given.

Not in Belgium or the Netherlands, where it seems to be mandatory.

 

[Krieg]

Not in Belgium or the Netherlands, where it seems to be mandatory.

Yep I've seen Pomme Frittes....my point stands.

 

[fusangite]

Now that's silly.

You may think so. But I'm not telling you my opinion; I'm simply informing you of what the law is.

Your boss can fire you for any other reason. Your boss may fire you because you're a Packers fan and your boss hates all things Green Bay. Your boss may fire you because he saw you putting mayonnaise on your fries and thinks that's nasty. Your boss may fire you because he found out you play Dungeons and Dragons. Your boss may fire you because you refuse to grow a goatee. (If you can't grow a goatee due to being female, however, your boss usually may not fire you for that reason.)

This isn't true in most jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions only permit firing for cause and prohibit firing without cause. Cause does not equal any reason a person dreams up. While standards vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on what constitutes cause, a number of the examples you have given here wouldn't fly in the vast majority of places in the developed world. "Cause" is not the dictionary definition of cause; labour legislation defines cause in fairly narrow ways. For instance, cause must typically be associated with things that actually affect job performance.

 

[Pielorinho]

You may think so. But I'm not telling you my opinion; I'm simply informing you of what the law is. This isn't true in most jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions only permit firing for cause and prohibit firing without cause.

I believe that Canadian labour law is very different from US labor law; I was referring to the latter.

Edit: For some good information on at-will employment in the US, check out Nolo.com, a pretty well-respected resource on US law. Naturally, this isn't an invitation to debate the merits of US versus Canadian labor law--I'm offering it for informational purposes .

Daniel

 

[Rel]

You may think so. But I'm not telling you my opinion; I'm simply informing you of what the law is. This isn't true in most jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions only permit firing for cause and prohibit firing without cause. Cause does not equal any reason a person dreams up. While standards vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on what constitutes cause, a number of the examples you have given here wouldn't fly in the vast majority of places in the developed world. "Cause" is not the dictionary definition of cause; labour legislation defines cause in fairly narrow ways. For instance, cause must typically be associated with things that actually affect job performance.

Most states in the US have this concept of "at will" employees. Basically you don't need much of a reason to quit and the boss doesn't need much of a reason to fire you.

The seemingly obvious solution to this is to become self employed like me. What they don't tell you is that once you become self employed, EVERYBODY is your boss. Oh well, at least I don't have to worry if anybody comes in and sees me dorking around on ENWorld.

Except my wife...

EDIT: I now notice that Pielorinho already talked about the "at will" thing and even provided a useful link. I guess that'll teach me to try and post while my eyes are still dilated from the opthmologist.

And Pielorinho, in a few days we'll be opening up the thread regarding the next NC Game Day. I hope you can make it. If not then maybe I'll see you at GenCon since it looks like I am actually going to make it there this year!

 

[Pielorinho]

Rel, I hope to make it to a game day soon; it seems like for the past year, my weekends have been all full, and I don't get to make it to the Triangle ever. And I'm not even sure if I'll make it to Gencon this year, though I hope I can.

Daniel