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 did NOT say the government fired her. But her employer a government contractor is obviously fearful that they will suffer repercussions from the trump administration.
From same story:
So, if she worked at home depot it would have came out differently? Come on man.
But, but is that what we're debating? Nope! We're only debating the right to fire someone because they raised a middle finger and posted it on facebook with that being "deemed" by the employer as contrary to the social media restrictions they've imposed upon their employees.
What other country do you know of calling itself advanced is that kind of behaviour simply allowed without challenge.
Most, if not all 1st world countries I'm aware of make it impossible by rule of law to have any document or agreement whereupon you are required as a condition of employment to relinquish your rights under their constitutions having any force or affect whatsoever.
Employment contracts should not under any circumstances over-ride those rights stipulated under the constitution and if they've been allowed to assume pre-eminence in such a manner they desperately need challenging and changing.
Whay would this be a feature you would either desire or support. Firing for cause should not involve your private or public life though something that has no import on your job performance or the company you work for.
Tell me this boob of a boss is concerned for his business when he allows obscene invective to simply be erased on the one hand and the benign raising of a middle finger to justify dismissal?
Is the country you want one in which this company needs to fear business reprisals because an employee on their own time raised a finger?
Your confusion comes from your lack of understanding about the Constitution. The rights enumerated in the Constitution do not apply to private contracts, they apply to the government. The rights listed are those things, which the government cannot take away from individuals.
This was probably her ever first lesson in consequences. She'd probably been told she can do whatever she wants, she can be a free spirit, she can be her own person. That is true, but what she wasn't taught is that the flip side of that, is that there are consequences.
This, is the problem.
She's fifty years old! It's been a long time coming.
EXCEPT her male co-worker who posted even more obscene stuff on his FB account was NOT fired. And the male worker's post was pro-trump. For sure the company discriminated on gender (illegal because it's a protected class). Maybe also based on politics which may be legal, but is what this thread is all about.....this company a government contractor is cow-towing to the fascist regime in power.
What her co worker did is immaterial to the discussion.
That is thankfully NOT how it is. Sex-based discrimination is ILLEGAL. It is a protected class.
Yeah, all she has to do is prove that's what it was. Good luck with that.
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.
