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.
So you have no issue with this woman's post and her narcissistic attitude? Would you want her representing your company?
Absolutely not, because I understand she isn't "representing the company" during her off-hours. Anyone who says she is, they're wrong. If customer stupidity or client stupidity inspires one to think they DO, said customers/client need to be told otherwise. The customer isn't always right, if that's what this is about, and they should be told so.
As the one guy said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StAcKhOuSe
i don't condone badmouthing employers on social media. but generally, what people want to post on their off hours is their business. {snip} let the employees express themselves outside of work and don't invade their privacy. we are not slaves. we have lives outside of work.{snip}
An episode of "The Jeffersons" come to mind. Lionel is about to get a job but he objects to a lie detector test. The dialog:
Personnel: What harm can it {a lie detector test} do?
Lionel: Plenty. Now look, it's bad enough that you investigate me, ask my friends all sorts of personal questions about me. But when you want to hook me to a machine to dig into my head, to find out what makes me tick, that's going too far.
Personnel: Lionel, we've go to know...
Lionel: Look, you have no right to know that much about me; you're not buying me, you're only hiring me.
I don't care that that was the 1970s, I don't care that "times change," I don't care that people who are posting are supposedly "volunteering this information," to me the principle is the same (a) employers have this stubborn tendency to think they own their employees 24/7 and (b) employees are right to oppose it. Heck, how many people have said that employers become suspicious if you DON'T have a social media presence, and how many times have we heard of companies asking for passwords trying to find out information which was on lock-down?
Funny enough, his father (George) is the one earlier pressing his son to capitulate, when he's usually quite eager to stand up and fight otherwise.
^ Thing is, when things like this go viral now, it can look bad for the business she was employed under. Stupid people will start attacking the business for hiring her (as clearly she has a bad attitude), or associating with her at all. So to protect its own image and distance itself from the controversy, the company may choose to fire the employee causing so much public drama.
It makes people feel good to shame others on the internet. Calling out someone for their bad behavior makes others feel good. While I think she deserves to be called out and I think her employer has the right to fire her if THEY may be at risk of bad press and loss of business, I also think people need to grow the hell up and use their brains sometimes, because they have a tendency to take things too far. No one should be calling for the salon to fire her, or else they will boycott it, for example. No one should take it that far. Shaming her for what she did is one thing, but bringing her place of work into it to the point it may affect them is a whole other thing. Yet when this inevitably happens, I don't blame the business for wanting to fire the person and disassociate from that bad press and bad behavior.
Of all the shaming incidents that have gone viral, this woman did one of the worst things IMO. Even worse than the AIDS comment lady mentioned in the NYT article shared a few pages back. I think this woman's entitled, arrogant attitude and complete disregard for the health of someone else is appalling. I was genuinely appalled when I first read this story and saw her post. What a selfish b*tch she is. I could not believe someone could be that self-absorbed. Then to, a. claim that she didn't write the post and was hacked, and b. to still demand an apology since she was sitting eating with "veterans and firefighters" as if that makes her special or makes any difference at all was icing on the cake for me. This woman seems vile to me. Most people would apologize after this type of thing goes viral, and get upset, but she dug her heels in and insisted she was hacked, and STILL asked for an apology from the restaurant. Awful person.
Absolutely not, because I understand she isn't "representing the company" during her off-hours. Anyone who says she is, they're wrong. If customer stupidity or client stupidity inspires one to think they DO, said customers/client need to be told otherwise. The customer isn't always right, if that's what this is about, and they should be told so.
As the one guy said:
An episode of "The Jeffersons" come to mind. Lionel is about to get a job but he objects to a lie detector test. The dialog:
Personnel: What harm can it {a lie detector test} do?
Lionel: Plenty. Now look, it's bad enough that you investigate me, ask my friends all sorts of personal questions about me. But when you want to hook me to a machine to dig into my head, to find out what makes me tick, that's going too far.
Personnel: Lionel, we've go to know...
Lionel: Look, you have no right to know that much about me; you're not buying me, you're only hiring me.
I don't care that that was the 1970s, I don't care that "times change," I don't care that people who are posting are supposedly "volunteering this information," to me the principle is the same (a) employers have this stubborn tendency to think they own their employees 24/7 and (b) employees are right to oppose it. Heck, how many people have said that employers become suspicious if you DON'T have a social media presence, and how many times have we heard of companies asking for passwords trying to find out information which was on lock-down?
Funny enough, his father (George) is the one earlier pressing his son to capitulate, when he's usually quite eager to stand up and fight otherwise.
Did anyone read the article? She wasn't an employee, she was a contractor. She leased a space in a salon to do cosmetology services. Salon ended their business arrangement due to bad publicity and people who would boycott said shop. Why does anyone think they owe her any sort of loyalty or anything else??
The difference is that in the past you had people with alcohol problems, drug problems, political ideologies, and so on, but it was kept within the confines of one's house or neighborhood. Now it's shared with the world.
Well said. And it was better that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shyguylh
So what if it is?
Heck, I remember when Dennis Rodman played for the Chicago Bulls. People KNEW how crazy he was, he went out of his way to let them know. Even so, the idea was "as long as you contort yourself properly ON THE BASKETBALL COURT that's all that matters." Now, I realize that sometimes different professions have different expectations (I would imagine music artists are expected to be "colorful" and such vs, say, an accountant) yet even so I've heard of players now being told "your off-court behavior is just as important as your on-court behavior, you represent us anytime you do anything in public."
No, in his case, people KNEW he was nutty, and he was, but he delivered where it mattered, come playing time, so it was not a problem, as well it shouldn't have been. He did this even while being teammates with Michael Jordan, who was all about image.
People's views have changed, that's the issue I think. Go back and look at older movies. "Thank God It's Friday" with Donna Summer comes to mind--people went to that disco club and acted nutty as all get-out, including that accountant's wife who was trying to get him to realize that he's not required to behave like an accountant outside the office. BINGO.
Again--CEOs of Ford, especially high-profile ones who appear in commercials, I can see it. However, even if it's public knowledge, everyday people even in prestigious jobs have the right to be themselves when they're off the clock--and post all about it. It's their life, on their time.
A big shout-out to Stackhouse as well. Spot on.
Huh? Dennis Rodman is a public figure.
You just lost your own argument.
I guess Andy Warhol was right, he said in the 60s "In the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes". Some must believe that.
What we have now is a self absorbed society that thinks the world needs to know all the details of their life, from what they had for lunch, every slight they feel they have, yes every detail.
Absolutely not, because I understand she isn't "representing the company" during her off-hours. Anyone who says she is, they're wrong. If customer stupidity or client stupidity inspires one to think they DO, said customers/client need to be told otherwise. The customer isn't always right, if that's what this is about, and they should be told so.
.
.
So you going with the freedom of speech angle....how about we take it to the extreme. On your own time, you attend say klan rallies, pose in the appropriate attire on FB and Instagram and basically give your opinion about minorities ( non threatening). You really feel your employer should take absolutely no action, because you are doing it on your time? Seriously?
Last edited by Keep It Simple; 01-08-2016 at 08:53 PM..
So you going with the freedom of speech angle....how about we take it to the extreme. On your own time, you attend say klan rallies, pose in the appropriate attire on FB and Instagram and basically give your opinion about minorities ( non threatening). You really feel your employer should take absolutely no action, because you are doing it on your time? Seriously?
In that very extreme example, perhaps not, and that goes double if the person was the head CEO of a multi-billion corporation and their public spokesperson (much as Lee Iacocca was of Chrysler years ago). However, with the great majority of such things involving everyday people, I absolutely do feel that an employee should be able to do whatever AND POST ABOUT IT and there be no repercussions, even to the point of the law MANDATING this.
As the one person said, and I wish I could recall who it was, you have to protect the free speech of persons even when it's that vile (because I will agree that is vile), because otherwise more benign things will get censored. For instance, what if I work for Burger King (I did once many years ago) and I didn't agree with the "Rainbow Whopper" campaign, the one celebrating LGBT tolerance and such? Why shouldn't I be able to say on my own free time "I love everybody etc but I don't believe in the campaign?" At work, of course I have to keep my comments to myself and "play the game," but on my own time, why should I have to bite my tongue? I should absolutely be able to say on my own time that I don't agree with the campaign.
Beyond that, people seem to have lost the understanding of how a person can be a jerk or very outspoken in their personal life yet be a great worker. For instance, I often times speak of how people who love their dogs or cats like they're children are sick and that I consider that morally repugnant, yet I've been a cashier and had people come in and say that exact thing--but I say nothing, and I treat them the same as I do anyone else who comes in there. I didn't give them any better or worse service than anybody else. It's amazing how a person can "turn it off for work" and do what they have to do, and frankly I think they're able to do so because they know that eventually they'll be out of the office and then "real them" can emerge. So long as a person does what they have to do along those lines, I say it matters not what they do or say on their own time.
It's a lot like George Costanza's rant on Seinfeld about the "separate worlds." It's not hard to understand.
That is a main reason why I, yes, would absolutely support MANDATING employers not being able to take action unless the person was the CEO of a major corporation and a very public figure, because you have to protect people's free speech even when it's vile else the door is open for outright censorship of your personal life, which to me is far worse than the prospect of a sleazy person being in the workplace (especially if this sleazy person still does a good job).
Absolutely, even if you work for a minority rights organization. I am absolutely serious. Not only that, I think the law should MAKE, yes MAKE, employers take no action. Again, I would make an obvious exception to a person who was the head CEO of a major corporation, or in this case was the head person of a minority rights organization. However, an everyday employee? You better believe there should be no repercussions from that, whatsoever, to the point of the law FORCING employers to not do anything--to the point that if a company did fire such a person, a fine would be levied which was so large it would basically force the company out of business.
As the one person said, and I wish I could recall who it was, you have to protect the free speech of persons even when it's that vile (because I will agree that is vile), because otherwise more benign things will get censored. For instance, what if I work for Burger King (I did once many years ago) and I didn't agree with the "Rainbow Whopper" campaign, the one celebrating LGBT tolerance and such? Why shouldn't I be able to say on my own free time "I love everybody etc but I don't believe in the campaign?" At work, of course I have to keep my comments to myself and "play the game," but on my own time, why should I have to bite my tongue? I should absolutely be able to say on my own time that I don't agree with the campaign.
That is a main reason why I, yes, would absolutely support MANDATING employers not being able to take action even in your extreme example, because you have to protect people's free speech even when it's vile else the door is open for outright censorship of your personal life, which to me is far worse than the prospect of such a person being in the workplace.
Freedom of speech does not automatically mean absolution from everything. You are protected under the law that you won't be legally charged. Employers can fire people for a wide variety of reasons, as long as it isn't discriminatory. The last I checked, narcissism and down right heartless b*tch doesn't qualify under the discriminatory umbrella....Now you are saying a person can be an idiot all they want outside of work, you want to say an employer can't fire them....sorry, I don't agree
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.
