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.
When you identify with a corp on social media as this thug did, they have every right to fire you for harming their image. One should never be retained if they are not an asset to their employer.
katygirl68, This went beyond stupid, to the level of evil.
She'll be lucky to get hired even at minimum wage for many years to come. Terrific that she'll learn a lesson while still young.
I know, what she said really pissed me off too. My intention when I came here was to ask if there have been any prominent black leaders speaking out against this type of rhetoric. I'd love to hear them say this is wrong instead of the usual comments making excuses for this type of hatred. Then I saw that comment saying she shouldn't get any unemployment (I agree), or welfare (I don't).
This girl may have difficulty getting a job after her tweets went viral. It was a stupid comment, but it was only words not actions. Subway has every right to fire her over them, especially since she did it in a way that associated their restaurant with her tweet. But it's not going to be easy for her finding another job.
Exactly. Even if I don't like what she said, what does that have to do with her fitness on the job? Since when are employees required to be 24/7 representatives of the company they work for even ON THEIR OWN TIME? I don't care that it's on social media, it doesn't matter, it's something she said on her own time and that to me is everything.
And yes, free speech legislation SHOULD cover such scenarios. If it were up to me, it would be fully 100% illegal, even in "right to work" state, to fire people for things they say on their own time. My time outside of work is MY time, and yes, a company SHOULD be MADE to employ such workers even if they don't like their off-work behavior so long as their actual work performance is up to snuff. They should only be evaluating workers for how good of a job one does, not what one's "image" is on their own time, especially for a minimum wage job. It's not like she was a spokesman like Lee Iacacco (years ago) and an executive to boot, a "face" of the company if you will.
Free speech only applies to the government not being able to infringe on what you say, and even that has limits.
If your employer does not like what you say, especially when you are wearing a uniform that identifies that employer, he should indeed have the right to fire you.
Every person wearing the uniform is the "face " of the company, no matter how low on the totem pole.
I don't care, but agree she should get no government aid for shooting herself.
Why not? As others have pointed out people in more powerful positions have been able to keep their jobs after mean tweets, and they're educated and most likely are people of means. This woman probably has no more than a high school diploma, if that, and no means to support herself other than minimum wage drudgery and housing assistance and food stamps. Your way would have her out on the street, with no means to feed or house herself unless she turns to a life of crime or finds some other means of employment, which we know is going to be difficult for a while.
If this woman gets denied all her benefits, then so should Eric Holder for his even worse comments and provocations. Instead he'll get a nice benefits package and retirement on our dime, not to mention his potential income from book deals, speaker's fees, and Of Counsel designation with some prominent law firm. As usual, the poor are to be punished while the rich get even more money and power.
Her issues getting a job should not qualify her for welfare. If this were someone I knew, I'd advise a public apology , published in all regional papers, plus hundreds of hours of community service, as a method to show you get it.
If her family wishes to subsidize her hatred with their own money, no problem. But not John Q Public. Not for this vermin.
Her issues getting a job should not qualify her for welfare. If this were someone I knew, I'd advise a public apology , published in all regional papers, plus hundreds of hours of community service, as a method to show you get it.
If her family wishes to subsidize her hatred with their own money, no problem. But not John Q Public. Not for this vermin.
So you advocate her working for no pay with those hundreds of hours of community service, even further interfering with her ability to support herself. I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree with you. You are basically saying she needs to be punished for her words, without a trial or conviction, and then forced to work for the state for free.
Imagine if your employer saw this comment of yours and felt it didn't represent them as a company so they fired you, and you had to do all the things you are suggesting.
Free speech only applies to the government not being able to infringe on what you say, and even that has limits.
If your employer does not like what you say, especially when you are wearing a uniform that identifies that employer, he should indeed have the right to fire you.
Every person wearing the uniform is the "face " of the company, no matter how low on the totem pole.
I am aware how free speech works legally. I am saying it should be expanded.
She is not the "face" of the company when she's on her own time. Am I the face of a company when I'm on vacation? I remember a guy who, on his own time, visited nude spa places and there were probably even photos taken of the occasion, because that's what people do, they take photos of their life for making memories of their life, and not once did anyone have any notion that he shouldn't have been doing such things. It was understood implicitly--his time was HIS time, yes even with photos of the occasion in existence. It was no reflection of the company and no measure of his fitness as an employee.
The only point I will somewhat agree with is that it's better to say these things under an alias in forums vs using your real name in Facebook or Twitter, which for some reason seem to be looked at in a "public" sort of way that forum and newsgroup/Usenet discussions don't, those discussions "stay in there." Frankly, I think they should bring newsgroups back, I don't know where they went to, I loved them. Discussions here and in other place using an alias is somewhat the same thing.
Community service would not interfere, katygirl68, it might help her get a job in the future.
She isn't going to work w/o showing remorse for her actions, and fully admitting how horrific her actions were.
Someone with that mentality isn't going to have remorse for her actions. She actually thinks it's okay to shoot cops that did nothing wrong because more cops have shot black people than the other way around, without even mentioning that most people shot by police actually did something to invite the shooting.
My problem is that this is going to further enforce that victim mentality and not teach her a lesson at all. And my bigger problem is that she's probably poor, and she gets the full brunt of punishment while people in powerful positions like Eric Holder will not be punished at all. He wasn't stupid enough to say that cops deserve what they get, but he and others like him have certainly gone out of their way to excuse the behavior.
No remorse = no future. That's her choice, and she'll have to accept the well deserved consequences of her actions.
While I agree on Holder, it doesn't change what should happen to her, as moral relativism is childish, at best.
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.