Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way the company knew it was her is because she told them. She did not publicize her involvement, and nothing in the picture identified her or her employer. And yeah, the way they handled the guy vs. her is definitely messed up.
I agree that free speech doesn't apply to the workplace. But this wasn't at work. She wasn't wearing a work shirt or anything connecting her to work. Even Twitter messages and FB status messages are initiated by the sender voluntarily putting their actions and opinions on display in a setting that may also contain connections to their place of work. This was not the same type of situation. She didn't take the video and send it out there. It seems like a different situation to me.
I only read one article and it said she made it her profile pic on twitter and on social media accounts of hers the employer name was listed as being where she worked.
Again, the woman was exercising free speech away from the workplace and was not posting images of herself shooting the finger at the Chump in Chief on social media. I just don't see the comparison. My significant other was a state executive for years, a government employee, and was cautious about exercising public political speech, particularly since she ardently disagreed with many of the politicians she worked with. That's a different situation.
She did post the image to her social media page though. She didn't take it and she didn't make it viral, but supposedly she made it her profile pic.
Well, that would certainly change things wrt her company's policy. Didn't know that. Maybe someday people will learn to be more careful about what they put on the internet. I doubt it, though.
These viral controversies typically expire when the next viral outrage happens. As someone who disagrees with SJW tactics, I'd feel secure in sticking with my resolve. If that employee is an exceptional worker, then who am I to judge and be the thought police on what they do in their private life? I strongly disagree with this overreach by employers. There are only a few jobs where you're a community pillar and your private life can affect your job performance, but for most jobs, it shouldn't matter.
I'd like to see a link so I can see what the "problem" was for the company. Unless the company is mentioned, I just don't see a justification for firing the woman. I also find it more than a little interesting that a male employee got a warning for supposedly doing something similar.
Exactly. If you are some material science engineer for a company, I have no ****ing clue why they would care what is on your profile pic. If your job is being a public servant such as maybe law enforcement, I can see why a social media profile picture could relate to your career and why an employer might care. Depends on the job.
who knows really, maybe the woman was on thin ice anyway and they just used it as an excuse to get rid of her. These firings are all stupid, modern social medial age overblows everything out of proportions, and this goes for both left and right. It's not a secret company's are now super sensitive about PR on social media, everyone is afraid to death of backlash from both sides. There's really no justification, everyone is on edge about what and who goes viral, especially something politics related
On target. Of course it depends on the job. Working for a state commission or agency, or for a state supported college, means that you are working for a government entity. One could argue that actions those in charge might find offensive reflect on the government. I personally have a far widen tolerance for free speech, but I could see the argument. But for a private company? Protesting politically away from the workplace shouldn't require their "permission," and that she was fired for exercising free speech appears to me to be a violation of the US Constitution, in my opinion. I have to disagree with this, as well. If she was on "thin ice" due to work performance, and I've seen no indication that she was, then fire her for poor job performance. Don't fire her for exercising free speech protected by our constitution. It is no different that firing someone because they went to a trump or Clinton rally on their own time. Are companies allowed now to fire you for that? I agree with much of the rest of your post.
you are an wage earner who has to survive that's who you are. look i agree with you in principle but to act like we live in idealistic world is crazy. you would never choose some stranger or employees "rights" if your business and livelihood was threatened with extinction and there is nothing wrong with admitting that. if you would that's nuts and i'm sure your competitors would be happy if not encouraging you do be so principled.
@Space Ghost is right about this, though I'd have said it in a more diplomatic way. Virginia is an at-will state, meaning they can fire her for any cause or no cause. There is no claim she can make against them for her firing, unless they did it to discriminate against her for her race, religion, gender, etc. But, beyond their right to terminate her at will, they didn't fire her for no cause, they fired her for cause -- violating their social media policy. She has no case she can win against them, and imo no reason she can feel wronged. @Deckard keeps mischaracterizing her freedom of speech vis-a-vis the company. It is not that the first amendment is suspended at the workplace, it simply does not apply to any actor besides the government. So where she did it doesn't matter. That it is a business taking the action and not the government means her first amendment rights are irrelevant. The company perhaps should not have taken such extreme action, but they are within their rights to do so.
We'll just have to disagree. At the very least, the fact that she was treated differently that a male colleague who did something similar, based on what I've read, should lead her to getting an attorney so she can sue the company for discrimination.
Well, she is certainly free to sue; this is America after all (... unless of course she signed one of those mediation agreements). I'm not a lawyer, so it's probably foolish of me to pontificate on it, but I would think the angle would have to be that she was given unequal treatment based on her gender compared to a man who was previously not terminated. I'm not feeling good about her chances, but what do I know?
I'm uncertain of her chances as well, but I'll be surprised if an attorney doesn't take her case on a pro bono basis. That's if she decides to sue. As for the whole "at will" thing, I'm not crazy about that, either. I feel like our individual rights are being chipped away by conservative courts that, for example, believe a corporation is a person, something else that's outrageous. That's another topic, though. The GOP pays lip service to "local control," but here in Texas, the city and county governments are constantly getting that local control taken away by a Republican legislature. Also another topic. Sorry. Just found this video from CNN. Wish I had found it earlier! It sums up very well how I feel about this, and includes both parts of an interview of the woman fired, and reaction bits from Colbert, the Tonight Show, etc.. Check it out!
The laws currently do agree with you that employers can fire for any vague cause in at-will states. That doesn't make it ethically right, though. Laws have been enacted to guarantee basic rights and protect from discrimination, so this could change at some point in the future. But I don't see that happening as people love their public shamings and lynchings. Society would rather ruin someone's livelihood over a difference of opinion.
This is true. I was responding to their legal standing, but there is an ethics question as well. And, I don't see that they did anything unethical, unless more is brought to light about the disparate treatment she and this male coworker got. Companies preserve for themselves -- and should have -- some latitude in deciding what action they will take when employees break their rules. It could have been sexism, but I haven't seen a good reason to think so. The likeliest answer is that her form of political speech seemed more dangerous to their company image than what that other guy did. If that's what it is, I have no problem with it. I don't think it is unethical regardless of the burden it puts on the employee. The company isn't responsible for her general welfare. From a PR point of view, I think they screwed up, especially in hindsight. If she was reprimanded but stayed on, this wouldn't be a story and the company's reputation would be generally the same. I also wonder what it does to the workforce morale. A reprimand would be private, so coworkers who saw the misbehavior might not know the punishment; but a termination puts everyone on notice. That could elicit better employee behavior but can also engender resentment. EDIT: Btw, I might be totally biased as an owner of a small business who is annoyed with the dumb things employees sometimes pull.
Unless you know what company policy she broke, you can't really side with any party. If the company fired her for unethical or immoral behavior, that would be harder to prove unless they specifically mention in their policy that it is illegal to give the finger to the current president.
