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.
Boohoo. Actions have consequences, even if you're rich and famous.
look, if he would have done it at work or on his work time, then I can understand what happened. but to fire him for what he said on his own personal time and his own private site is just wrong.
I hope he sues and wins a large judgement from espn.
this story just goes to show how much espn really hates the Constitution.
look, if he would have done it at work or on his work time, then I can understand what happened. but to fire him for what he said on his own personal time and his own private site is just wrong.
.
Not true when as a public figure, you represent the brand. If this were Bubba in a widget factory in middle of noowhere Arkansas, I'd agree. But in CS's old job, 24/7, he represented the brand. That means for that huge contract, in return, he must represent it as the employer wants at all times.
CS if he becomes the afore-mentioned widget maker in Bubbaville, has no such obligation.
Social media, btw, is NEVER private. I know many employers who peruse candidate's social media before hiring them.
States and a private sector contract are apples and oranges. 100% immaterial.
Like I said, it depends on the actual wording of the contract. If the word "illegal" is included, it most certainly does include referral to state and federal laws.
look, if he would have done it at work or on his work time, then I can understand what happened. but to fire him for what he said on his own personal time and his own private site is just wrong.
I hope he sues and wins a large judgement from espn.
this story just goes to show how much espn really hates the Constitution.
He was employed as a media personality. His social media channels are a part of that paid persona. His PUBIC Facebook and Twitter accounts are not "private sites" and what he posts there are not under the umbrella of "personal time." He was warned by his employer that his public posts were hurting their brand. He chose to ignore them and, thus, break the stipulations of his employment.
Like I said, it depends on the actual wording of the contract. If the word "illegal" is included, it most certainly does include referral to state and federal laws.
LOL. Morals clauses are always obtuse-to maximize employer discretion. PS: It would have to say "limited to illegal", not say "including illegal". ESPN knows how to word it to protect ESPN.
I know what EXACTLY we're discussing. The TRUTH of the matter is that 33 states AND the Federal Government feel exactly the same way Schilling does, so ESPN is going to have a HELL of a time proving any "morals clause" violation.
No. I'm sorry, but you clearly have absolutely no clue what a morals clause is or how it is applied. No idea at all. No matter how many times people have tried to explain it to you, you just stick your fingers in your ears and say, "No, that's not what I want it to mean, so I'm not listening!!!!" It's like everyone else in the thread is talking about speeding tickets, and you're talking about parking tickets. And you just refuse to grasp that they're not the same thing.
I'm curious - what is the origin of your username? Because it's clear as crystal that you have no interest at all in being informed about anything that doesn't fit the way you want things to be.
LOL. Morals clauses are always obtuse-to maximize employer discretion.
We'll see about that. If Schilling had a decent lawyer in his contract negotiation, the scenario I've presented could very well be true. "Obtuse" language in a "morals clause" in a contract offered by an employer is nearly always too broad. Employees' attorneys know that, and trim it down to specifics.
Not true when as a public figure, you represent the brand. If this were Bubba in a widget factory in middle of noowhere Arkansas, I'd agree. But in CS's old job, 24/7, he represented the brand. That means for that huge contract, in return, he must represent it as the employer wants at all times.
CS if he becomes the afore-mentioned widget maker in Bubbaville, has no such obligation.
Social media, btw, is NEVER private. I know many employers who peruse candidate's social media before hiring them.
Yes. Once on the internet, nothing is private thought any more.
Increasingly, employers are looking prospective employees over on the net before hiring them, and that includes what they say on social forums like this. What a person says here is as much an indication of their personality and their life attitudes as much as politics, and politics these days is a very good indicator to an employer as to whether he can expect a new hire to get along well with others or could be a problem on the job.
Facebook is particularly valuable for them, as everyone is easy to access there, and so many people are on it. An employer can find many sites that offer psychological profiles they can use on selecting new hires. based on what they post to the internet.
It's not what a person says that rings most of the alarm bells. It's how they say it, and when they say it. An employer may not care at all what an employee's politics are, but he may sure want to know if a person is going to spend more time arguing with someone than doing the job, or how the person's personality here on the net may affect his business in dozens of other ways.
It doesn't do a company much good to hire a sales rep, for example, who will irritate customers rather than bring in the business he was hired to go get.
Or hire a guy in a machine shop who will make everyone around him irritated. Anger and irritation when a person's mind has to be concentrated on his job can lose a boss a lot of money, and sometimes can result in serious injury as well.
Do not believe what anyone says here is private. It is not. Someone with a bit of internet savvy can easily discover anyone's net address and server and find out just as much as they want to know about any of us as they want. The only protection any of us has is encryption, and much of the encryption is not hard to hack.
What you say here can be tracked right back to you at any time. Think twice before you post once.
I'm curious - what is the origin of your username?
Think very carefully about that. The "origin" will occur to you at some point.
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.
