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.
Don't you just love how that phrase "that's life" is tossed around like it's a cure-all for all the wrongs in society? I imagine how that must have sounded many many years ago. "Pay King George III taxes on your tea without representation, or get thrown in the dungeons and be separated from your family. That's life." Or "bow down and scrape the boots of your 'massa' and conform to the reality of slavery or get your foot chopped off like Kunta Kinte, that's life." Or "go to the back of the bus with your own kind or else end up with tear gas sprayed in your face, that's life." Or "don't marry anyone but your own kind else no one will hire you at your job and you'll be shunned, that's life." Or "take that Jew star of David off your jacket or else you'll be hauled off to the gas chamber, because here in 1930s Germany, that's life."
Good grief. I just thank goodness that some brave people didn't accept that premise and instead made things right.
I didn't imply it was a cure all....you have some self centered, narcissistic POS, commenting essentially about her bill is more important than someone who is dying. Now you want to use analogies comparing it to slavery, the civil rights movement and the Boston Tea Party ....what I find funny, if hers was such a noble cause, why didn't she at least own it as opposed to backtracking, saying her account got hacked
Last edited by Keep It Simple; 01-11-2016 at 02:44 PM..
And most millenials with half a brain censor what goes up about them. As they get older and approach major milestones, it isn't unusual for them to scrub their Facebook, etc clean of anything that they don't want Grandma, their boss, or the Prosecutor to see. Is there a record of it that could be found? Maybe, but at that point you're looking at law enforcement type measures to find it.
Believe it or not, I see much more controversial stuff coming out of older folks on facebook than younger folks. The worst I USUALLY see from kids (usually under age 22) is them at tailgates, parties, or the bars. By the time they are 25 they've often really tamped down to sharing very little that is controversial at all. Those that grew up (or went to college) BEFORE facebook don't seem to have the same filter. They don't post pictures partying or breaking the law, but many seem to have zero compunction about sharing extremely politically controversial or otherwise inflammatory stuff on the internet. They don't post about their employer, but then, most folks, millenials included, don't share much beyond "So excited to accept a new post with XYZ Company. I will miss everyone at ABC. Thanks for the memories" or "excited to be done with work for the rest of the year" around the holidays.
A few years ago I read about a man who was driving drunk and hit and killed some people. The driver had minutes previously posted on social media about drinking at a local bar. The paper printed screen shots of his posts. The prosecutor didn't have to go far to gather information to present to court of his drinking history. It was all there on the web....months and months of information.
It is amazing to me that people share their stupid behavior with the world. Incredible stupidity.
I think if it's work related then there is a problem, if not, not.
I go back to the old Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler argument. Churchill was a womanizer, drunk, smoked too much, etc. Hitler was a prude in personal matters. Which one would you have wanted on your side? Which one would you have wanted to identify with?
If we followed the advice on this thread, then Churchill would have been out.
I could care less that Kennedy and Clinton were womanizers while in office, or Bush II an alcoholic and cocaine user before he was President. Just tell me how they do their job. I feel the same way about football players, subway sandwich artists, and everybody else.
I think if it's work related then there is a problem, if not, not.
I go back to the old Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler argument. Churchill was a womanizer, drunk, smoked too much, etc. Hitler was a prude in personal matters. Which one would you have wanted on your side? Which one would you have wanted to identify with?
If we followed the advice on this thread, then Churchill would have been out.
I could care less that Kennedy and Clinton were womanizers while in office, or Bush II an alcoholic and cocaine user before he was President. Just tell me how they do their job. I feel the same way about football players, subway sandwich artists, and everybody else.
Did Churchill publicize his indiscretions? Kennedy? Clinton?
Don't you just love how that phrase "that's life" is tossed around like it's a cure-all for all the wrongs in society? I imagine how that must have sounded many many years ago. "Pay King George III taxes on your tea without representation, or get thrown in the dungeons and be separated from your family. That's life." Or "bow down and scrape the boots of your 'massa' and conform to the reality of slavery or get your foot chopped off like Kunta Kinte, that's life." Or "go to the back of the bus with your own kind or else end up with tear gas sprayed in your face, that's life." Or "don't marry anyone but your own kind else no one will hire you at your job and you'll be shunned, that's life." Or "take that Jew star of David off your jacket or else you'll be hauled off to the gas chamber, because here in 1930s Germany, that's life."
Good grief. I just thank goodness that some brave people didn't accept that premise and instead made things right.
Our hardships are a little gentler than those faced by Kunta Kinte and the Jews in Hitler's Germany. First world problems.
A few years ago I read about a man who was driving drunk and hit and killed some people. The driver had minutes previously posted on social media about drinking at a local bar. The paper printed screen shots of his posts. The prosecutor didn't have to go far to gather information to present to court of his drinking history. It was all there on the web....months and months of information.
It is amazing to me that people share their stupid behavior with the world. Incredible stupidity.
What you just described is somehow a Quip Pro QUO ..because most prosecuters would amass all the worst evidence to bring forth..SO forgive me..BUT that drunk driver had to have been in an :ELITE" category!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keep It Simple
Back then, maybe....but nowadays you can be a womanizer, people still vote for you
Yep..loving women and women loving to be with a male..doesn't not necessarily mean they are BAD PEOPLE....Then of course if evidence proves battering/drugging to get their Jolly's then again..causing detriment to their own family's causing harm comes to mind!!
But Op's question about "Social Media" being fair game for potential cause for firing...ABSOLUTELY...WHY..because anyone as an individual yet as an employee REPRESENTS that particular Business!!
So for you folks who love ability to voice personal opinions..Great!!! Enjoy!! But be on notice..just maybe such opinions that go against your employer's agenda..YU will lose!!! Guess one needs to weigh their options I guess..maybe wait until you are out from under..then again future hiring business will pass you up too!!
Personal postings of hate/intolerance/bigotry will always come back to haunt you..WHY? because Corporate/business's want productivity and will never high someone who could put their stockholder's at risk....
I'd be thinking that you advocate giving freedom to freedom destroyers. The KKK deserves to be censored, as they advocate censoring people they don't like. That makes them subversives.
And you are making my point exactly. This is the US. We have a Constitution. The brush of freedom that covers one group covers every group, even the ones you don't like. The KKK can advocate censoring all they want. Once they try to force people to do what they want, it's game over - they've broken the law. Just like you can advocate which politician you think people should vote for, but you can't force someone at gunpoint to vote for who you want. What you are allowed to do in the name of freedom, everyone is allowed do in the name of freedom. We don't (or shouldn't, anyway) have separate laws for you and another set for Joe Blow and another set for the KKK. Having one set of laws that we all follow is what democracy is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris347
Hey, I am with you on that, but lets look at reality. If I am your employer, and you make lousy choices and are saying stupid things in public, outside your workplace, it is directly related to the Company, because you chose to represent us, by becoming part of us. That's the reality of it, be right , wrong, or indifferent. You have the freedom to make your own choices, and do as you please, within the boundaries of the Law, and be known as whatever you want to be in private life. What you don't have the freedom to do is to be an example of what your Company that you work for, hires as its employees.
Your personal freedom is protected. Your freedom to work in a place that finds your behavior in public unacceptable for the image of the Company is not. As an Employer, I would not have to approve or disapprove of what you do on your own time. All I have to do is decide your not the kind of person I want my employees exposed to. That's my freedom of choice, same as yours on what you want to do.
I know what Society I want to live in too. The one where we "Both" have freedom of choice. , not just one person.
But who gets to make the decision about what are lousy choices? If a couple is married and the woman announces she's going to try to get pregnant, should her boss be able to fire her for what he thinks is a lousy choice to have children?
Put it into perspective. There are a lot of hiring managers that would not hire a woman who has kids because they think she won't be as devoted to the job as a man without kids. So there is a law stating that when you are on an interview, the hiring manager or the boss is not allowed to ask anyone if they are married, have children, expecting a baby, or pregnant.
If a pregnant woman believed she didn't get hired or got fired because she thought her hiring manager didn't want to hire anyone or keep anyone going on maternity leave in the next 8 months, she'd have a case for discrimination. What is the difference between that and the same woman not getting hired or being fired because she posted on social media that she was pregnant and her hiring manager looked that up? She was still pregnant and she was still not hired or she was fired in the first case because of something the boss heard or was told, and in the second case, by something he might have read on social media. It's the same thing and the first situation is protected by law, and the second seems to show why we need yet another law to protect employees off the clock.
As to the image of the company, if you as a boss pay me peanuts so that I have go on welfare or food stamps, if you require me to come in to work at any hour of any day for any shift at a moment's notice and refuse to work around my schedule, if you deliberately schedule me short of enough hours to get benefits, if you expect me to come in early and leave late without pay for that extra time, if you expect me to give 2 weeks notice when you can fire me at the drop of a hat, why, in the name of all that's holy, would you expect me to be concerned with the company image on my off time?
There are times I think this kind of thing is NOT legit and is just someone's excuse to cut someone loose.
The not category would be someone posting a photo of their partner who happens to be the same sex. So I don't think losing a job because of information an employee is handing over to their employer is always fair.
Then again, it works both ways. If the CEO says something that offends a group, there will be consequences. We saw this with Chick-Fil-A and other companies. Sometimes it's a comment that's not even that controversial, and is meant as a mild jab, but people have to feign being offended and then call for someone's head.
In both instances, it's a matter of common sense. Knowing what a company could do - knowing what the climate is out there if you misstep as the CEO - means you need to be extra careful if you value or need your job.
If you don't need or value your job, then say and post whatever you like because it sounds like the consequences won't really impact you.
But if the consequences will impact you and you do such things anyway, that's on you.
Last edited by MPowering1; 01-11-2016 at 05:58 PM..
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.
....what I find funny, if hers was such a noble cause, why didn't she at least own it as opposed to backtracking, saying her account got hacked 
