Home Depot Employee Fired for Wearing "God.." Button

He will lose in court but win in the press. Home Depot is more afraid of that than anything. Why do you think HD hasn't responded yet? Because they are figuring out what to do. I guarantee you they will settle out of court or find a way to give the guy his job back.

THis isn't about free speech. Free speech isn't protected in the workplace. THis is about perception, and a retailer cares more about winning the war of perception than the war of free speech.

 

1) What do you think it going to cause more splash? Offending atheists or offending patriotic, religious Americans???

2) HD hasn't said anything. But what smacks of HD being on shaky ground is that they haven't said anything or released any info. That's a sure sign they know if the details got released it would not look good. Because if there was a really good reason - they'd let it come out into the media.

3) People do not distinguish between a corporate office decision and an individual store. Doesn't matter - Home Depot is Home Depot to most people.

And finally, are you seriously trying to find equivalency in wearing a button to stealing????

Why not just say what he did was like murdering someone?

How many people here didn't strictly follow corporate policy in their jobs at one time or another??? C'mon!

 

Or it could be privacy policies. Companies don't generally go to the media and go into the details of their personnel decisions.

 

Because the perception stinks of old take-out hidden in a dark corner.

Here's a better analogy without the red herrings. I write and publish a blog. Manager finds out and tells me to STFU. I claim 1st Amendment rights and won't budge.

Point 3 does matter. The manager might've been a petty douche, and corporate is well within its bounds to change policy. But is it a policy they'll change?

I doubt it's as simple as paying off button boy. What would stop another exhibitionist/extortionist from pulling the same stunt?

Point 2: HD's silence doesn't equate complicity. Button Boy is already considering suing.

Point 1: Putting Rudy T. in a Home Depot commercial cause more splash.

 

You missed my points here. Public perception doesn't differentiate between corporate policy and that of a single manager.

My question to you again is that do you think Home Depot corporate offices would have wanted the manager to handle this situation the same way by firing the guy? Consider the negative press. PR departments pride themselves on managing the media and crisis such as this.

Yet HD PR arm has been completely silent. That's a tell-tale sign. either they are mismanaging the crisis or they know they are in a big bind and still trying to figure out how to manage it.

This is a huge deal for them. Companies are passionate about avoiding these kinds of situations - this is a PR disaster for them. They don't care about corporate policy - dude, the whole point of the policy is to avoid controversy.

So when your policy CREATES the controversy - it's clearly a failure.

 

Sometimes silence is the best option. Responding would just make this a bigger story and extend its lifecycle. As it is, it will die off in a day or two. A general rule for a big corporation is to NEVER get into a media war with a ticked off employee or customer. You'll never win that as the corporation.

 

Not a media war, but being silent is nearly as bad. It implies complicity and allows one side to shape the story.

Home Depot, if it were wise, would release a statement such as, "We take these matters very seriously and since this is now a legal matter will refrain from public comment, out of respect for the case and the former employee.

Home Depot does much to support our troops and encourages patriotism blah blah by our efforts in such and such. "

That's standard PR response. Why hasn't that come out? Very weird.

 

I understand public perception. I don't think this particular case atm is worth changing policy to please certain people more than following existing policy.

Bribing button boy with silver or firing the manager for what could be a mistake doesn't make your point legitimate.

I don't know the circumstances behind the firing. Your guess would be as good as mine.

I also think you're giving corporate too much credit for micromanaging their individual stores.

 

I think you're overrating public perception not to mention the popularity of this story. I would be willing to bet that 95% of people are not even aware of this story. Out of that 5% how many people do you think care much less care enough to boycott Home Depot?

 

http://www.wptv.com/content/news/ok...ational-attention/iYwNKa0kbUSR1At-X0j34A.cspx

Now you see what happens when you don't manage something like this - this is going to be a great case study for PR classes! How not to manage a crisis!

Home Depot really screwed up. There's going to be a backlash, and this will indeed cost them a lot of money. It will hurt them in sales, it will hurt their brand, and it will cost them more money.

They are now saying he was fired for wearing a non-Home Depot button. But that's very spurious since he wore that for a year with no comment and he only got fired after he brought a Bible into work.

Firing this guy was a huge mistake.

 

Yes, they have.

A Home Depot spokesman said Keezer was fired because he violated the company's dress code.

"This associate chose to wear a button that expressed his religious beliefs. The issue is not whether or not we agree with the message on the button," Craig Fishel said. "That's not our place to say, which is exactly why we have a blanket policy, which is long-standing and well-communicated to our associates, that only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on our aprons."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33505354/ns/business-local_business/

 

Say again?

 

just saw that. but still, it's a very weak response.

 

Are you kidding me, it's on the View, the Tonight Show, all the cable talk shows...it's spreading around like wild fire.

 

That's all super and great but it's still not a story most people are in touch with. LMAO...The View? Conan O'Brien? Have you heard the obscure stories they cover?

You are seriously overrating the popularity of this story.

 

Now I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, stubborn or delusional.

 

Here's the kicker- if prayer is part of any official school function it has been treated in cases that the school is endorsing the prayer and banned, however if prayer is taking place as part of an official school club it is not treated as if the school endorses the prayer just because it endorses the club, for instance a student bible club.

also, it has been interpreted that if a school endorses prayer it is establishing religion as a function of the federal government since it receives federal funding, when in fact it is actually a local entity not a federal entity.

there is a public charter high school in our county that was previously a private Christian high school that had to reduce some but not all of its religious practice to enter into the school district, they still allow voluntary attendance at a designated prayer time in an auditorium but they no longer offer any religious classes to students.

I don't think it should matter from a Christian perspective whether prayer is prohibited or not, that is why I am not concerned about the issue- except what fun we can have here with it.

I was just taking time to discuss the wording of the first amendment and how it is applied.

As far as I know a high school cannot offer prayer over the speaker system at a football game. It is prohibited because that is interpreted to be a congress passing a law to establish religion.

So I go back to flag burning. Do we need a law to say it is OK to burn the US flag in protest? No, that has been accepted as free speech and if a school did not have any policy prohibiting such expression I don't see why some school teachers couldn't burn one right before their next football game.

I think in most cases I am aware of school officials that have been sued for allowing prayer were in favor of the prayer and had no policy preventing it.

My biggest point is that the first amendment in a strict reading prohibits two things, congressional laws that establish religions, and congressional laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

 

Each of the shows whether it be cable talk shows or late night comedy draws audiences from one million to multiple millions each telecast.

I'd hardly call millions of people seeing this as obscure. You throw in the coverage on local news channels, print, and all the blogs, as well as the thousands of articles now all over the place on the net, and this is not some obscure story.

I think you are trying to minimize it for some reason.