Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree, however, what is the statute of limitations for want of a better term for inappropriate behavior that "reflects on an employer"? I mean some people are twittering and facebooking from an early age.
Sure. I don't think there's a person alive who hasn't said or done something in their youth that they would want resurfacing at age 30 or 40. Those of us who went through our salad days before Facebook can breathe a sigh of relief that there's no digital record of our misdeeds.
But in truth, my remarks are confined to what someone does in the here and now. Mind you, if you're interviewing for a job, you really oughta clean up your social media past history. But to post something like that as an adult borders on imbecilic. And as I point out, it's really an excellent indicator of character.
There's actually nothing more revealing than social media outlets for discovering that the person who works for you or the person you truly believed was intelligent is basically a moron when let loose on those sites. When I initially signed up to Facebook several years ago (since I was told by friends that everyone is on Facebook and that I was missing out on wonderful stuff) I couldn't believe that this 'wonderful stuff' was no more than juvenile banality and more showed the 'true colors' of these folks. The world is doomed, folks, and it's little wonder that aliens (if having visited the earth in spacecraft) have chosen to leave us well alone. Surely, people have never been more stupid since the beginning of time than they are now.
A person's social media footprint can be a good indicator of his or her true character.
Your behavior outside of the workplace matters. If you do, say or type something stupid that reflects badly on the employer's values, and word gets out...then the employer should at least reprimand you. Termination for repeat offenses or one egregious offense. That includes social media postings, bigoted behavior at a grocery store, indecent or socially unacceptable behavior at some "private" venue that just so happens to have been caught on smartphone camera, etc. If you're going to do something dumb, make darn sure it's kept on the down-low (and don't share it on social media).
Keeping people who are socially or behaviorally moronic on the payroll can damage an employer's reputation and ultimately hurt its bottom line. Image often matters when trying to secure deals, keeping customers and clients happy, keeping employees happy and passionate, and so on. Every single employee of a company contributes to its image and reputation. Yes, even the mail clerk and the janitor.
Also, the associations you keep, including your social media friends, may also matter in the eyes of employers. Decent folks typically have the majority of their social circles (real-life and online) consist of people who are decent themselves.
You can choose to stay off of social media completely, but that may not sit well with some employers. Some employers prefer their employees to keep up with the times socially, culturally and to some extent technologically...and these days that will likely include maintaining a social media presence.
As for "statute of limitations"...I doubt most employers will care about what foolish thing you said or did 20 years ago as long as it's kept quiet. (Unless it's something egregious, like a felony crime.) Everyone has their moments of stupidity in the past, and HR and hiring managers know that...hell they probably weren't saints themselves back in the day. However...if something from a decade or two ago suddenly surfaces today, AND causes a negative stir among coworkers or worse, the public...then the employer has a potential PR problem on its hands that it's gonna have to deal with in some way (and yes, terminating you is one option on the table). Especially these days, when SJWs (social justice warriors) and loud public shaming is all the rage.
In general, I don't think a person should be fired for what they say on social media, although -- like most things in life -- there are limits.
What amazes me about this thread is that so many people who go bonkers if government were to try to censor people, don't care a whit if big business tries to censor them. Hmmmmmmmmm.
In general, I don't think a person should be fired for what they say on social media, although -- like most things in life -- there are limits.
What amazes me about this thread is that so many people who go bonkers if government were to try to censor people, don't care a whit if big business tries to censor them. Hmmmmmmmmm.
I understand that to a large degree. But at the same time, you cannot be an effective manager if you are trashing your subordinates in public. You cannot be an effective co-worker if you are making fun of your co-workers in public. You hurt people the you mock and insult, and you have lost the trust of anyone else who finds out about it.
In my case, I could have not said a thing and just fired the woman when things went bad at work. And they would have. Soon.
You don't get to be mean and work for me. You can have grouchy days, but not outright mean or carry tales that hurt others.
Her reaction to an ill patron does not shine a good light on her employer and the employer did what they felt was in the best interest of their company, other employees and customers. Social media is the downfall of many employees and until they learn to use it responsibly or not at all they choose any consequences of their words/actions that they voluntarily post.
The problem here is the blurring of lines between work and private life. The employers should not owe you after you end your workday. They should not be in control of your private life other than requiring that you are law abiding and don't do drugs. What's next, firing people over making political statements that don't match company's views ?
How is checking an employee's Facebook page different from sending private investigators to follow her or him around and watch from the street what's going on inside their homes ? The technology is different but it's the same principle. Creepy and invasive.
The problem here is the blurring of lines between work and private life. The employers should not owe you after you end your workday. They should not be in control of your private life other than requiring that you are law abiding and don't do drugs. What's next, firing people over making political statements that don't match company's views ?
How is checking an employee's Facebook page different from sending private investigators to follow her or him around and watch from the street what's going on inside their homes ? The technology is different but it's the same principle. Creepy and invasive.
Mozilla Chief Executive Brendan Eich has stepped down, the company said on Thursday, after an online dating service urged a boycott of the company's web browser because of a donation Eich made to opponents of gay marriage.
The software company came under fire for appointing Eich as CEO last month. In 2008, he gave money to oppose the legalization of gay marriage in California, a hot-button issue especially at a company that boasts about its policy of inclusiveness and diversity.
This CEO was fired in 2014 after it was publicly revealed he gave money to oppose gay marriage in 2008. So the statute of limitations can be at least 6 years for having political views that are not currently PC.
Please don't get sidetracked with this example. It is meant to show the extent having unpopular views years ago can come back to haunt...even views that were popular in 2008. In 2008 most Americans including Obama and Hillary also opposed gay marriage.
I understand that to a large degree. But at the same time, you cannot be an effective manager if you are trashing your subordinates in public. You cannot be an effective co-worker if you are making fun of your co-workers in public. You hurt people the you mock and insult, and you have lost the trust of anyone else who finds out about it.
In my case, I could have not said a thing and just fired the woman when things went bad at work. And they would have. Soon.
You don't get to be mean and work for me. You can have grouchy days, but not outright mean or carry tales that hurt others.
All of the examples you are giving are about an employee discussing his company on social media. In which case, they willingly make the company an involved party and are acting as that company's representatives.
This woman was let go for making an admittedly stupid remark about something that happened in her private life outside the company. Unless she's a public / spokeswoman type figure who has certain image maintaining responsibilities, this is her business and not her company's business.
I am pro-2A and make it open on social media. Does it mean my company can fire me if the owners disagree with my views ? Even if we're in an engineering consulting business which has nothing to do with this subject ?
Should a company be able to fire it's employee for opposing or supporting women's abortion rights or gay marriage or a particular political candidate ?
It's a slippery slope and sooner or later it will have to be dealt with by legislation. Otherwise we'd be back to the days when Henry Ford would send inspectors to check if his workers went to church on Sunday.
Mozilla Chief Executive Brendan Eich has stepped down, the company said on Thursday, after an online dating service urged a boycott of the company's web browser because of a donation Eich made to opponents of gay marriage.
The software company came under fire for appointing Eich as CEO last month. In 2008, he gave money to oppose the legalization of gay marriage in California, a hot-button issue especially at a company that boasts about its policy of inclusiveness and diversity.
Technology | Thu Apr 3, 2014 4:33pm EDT Related: TECH
Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire
This CEO was fired in 2014 after it was publically revealed he gave money to oppose gay marriage in 2008. So the statute of limitations can be at least 6 years for having political views that are not PC.
Please don't get sidetracked with this example. It is meant to show the extent having unpopular views years ago can come back to haunt...even views not unpopular in 2008. In 2008 most Americans including Obama and Hillary also opposed gay marriage.
I'd say the CEO position is different since he actually does single handheldy represent the company. This goes along with people in high visibility / spokesperson positions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
