Federal Government Approves of Facebook Boss Bashing

[rees263]

I'm not entirely sure how Facebook status publishing works when set to "Public", but i'm sure the boss had to actively look at her profile in order to see her status, assuming he's not "friended" her on Facebook previously. If he's actively looking up her profile to see what she's thinking, that's hardly equivalent to walking up to the boss in question and slagging him off directly.

As I said, if she made the comment privately then that's a different matter. I'd still consider posting something on your FB page a public statement, even if it's not immediately accessible to everyone. For all we know they could have been friends on Facebook anyway.

 

[Gralian]

As I said, if she made the comment privately then that's a different matter.

Privately =/= information kept out of the public domain. As far as i'm concerned, "private" disclosures simply mean anything said outside of the designated work environment in question. This includes public spaces. It is "private" because the individual is not obligated to maintain office rules and obligations in the public space as it is outside of the company's jurisdiction. They are free to do or say as they wish.

Admittedly, i don't actually know the law well enough to tell you if that would be true in a case regarding defamation or something similar, though. I may very well be wrong in my definition.

 

[Therumancer]

How is this a free speech issue though? Free speech entitles you t

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in there says you are free from the consequences of such words.

Nailed it in one. So many people seem to forget that Freedom of speech does not mean Freedom from consequence.

However, Tom is wrong in saying that she won her case. The case was settled. Nobody officially "won", and thus no significant precedent has been set. Looks like what happened is that the company realized that with the NLRB's help, the case could go all the way to the top, and they didn't want to spend the money fighting it.

Too bad too, I expect they would have won unless they had a real duffer for a lawyer.

Actually they wouldn't have. The reason being is that she's being fired under a company policy while not at work. There are only a very few jobs out there where you can be held accountable at your job for what you do on your own time, most of those jobs are goverment regulated in one fashion or another. This can include things like public service (police officers) but also certain officials and security professionals.

This is like someone firing you because they don't like the color of the wallpaper in your kitchen in a legal sense.

Now, having "won" this case doesn't mean her days aren't numbered. She did indeed say those things, she pissed people off, and she's basically holding her job despite resistance. This means that while "safe" for the short term due to any obvious retaliation getting her employers in worse trouble, it does mean that if she doesn't find another job (probably hard with this rep) she's going to be out of work when enough time passes and they manage to set something up. The union will be some help there, but I don't think it can defend her against this kind of incentive to get rid of her. We'll see what happens though.

Of course there could be more to this situation than we're hearing. Despite the court case, she could also have a lot of backing from other workers and supervision who agree with her as well. That might be in part why the case was settled, along with the fact that I really think they would have gotten slam dunked worse, and seen precedent established.

There is also one other big question here, and that is how her employers (and presumably the guy she was talking about) found out about what she said on Facebook. In general only people she's invited to be on her friends list are going to be seeing her messages. It could just be that one of her friends is a rat (which means the case was based on hearsay, which could be a factor). It might also be that somehow her bosses were spying on her personal coorespondance as well which might have ended it.

 

[rees263]

As I said, if she made the comment privately then that's a different matter.

Privately =/= information kept out of the public domain. As far as i'm concerned, "private" disclosures simply mean anything said outside of the designated work environment in question. This includes public spaces. It is "private" because the individual is not obligated to maintain office rules and obligations in the public space as it is outside of the company's jurisdiction. They are free to do or say as they wish.

Admittedly, i don't actually know the law well enough to tell you if that would be true in a case regarding defamation or something similar, though. I may very well be wrong in my definition.

It appears our disagreement is partly a semantics thing, and I admit I don't know the legal definition either.

I'd like to think that the whole thing would have gone differently here in the UK, but maybe your opinion is closer to the majority view, who knows?

 

[tkioz]

I don't know why anyone would want to read a coworkers facebook, the thought alone gives me the creeps, the vast majority of coworkers I've had in my life have most definitely not been friends, we might get alone alright on the job, but I know I've thought some horrible things about Bob the repair dude, and I'm pretty sure he's thought some nasty things about me, no matter that we smile at each other and talk about the footy.

Going to his facebook would just be asking for trouble, if I don't go there I can happy pretend that he hasn't called me a monster cockbag, but if I do go there it just gets awkward.

 

[WolfEdge]

How do you go back to working for someone that you've openly mocked? And beyond that, how is this a free speech issue? She wasn't being jailed for the things she said, she was being fired. And when it comes right down to it, why shouldn't her boss have control over who and who doesn't work at his own company? It'd be like me not having a choice over who could and could not live in my own house.

SOMEONE'S rights were violated, here. And with the information presented, I'd be inclined to believe it was the business owner's. Whether she DESERVED to be fired or not, it should have been his decision. But then, unions are a *****.

 

[KazOondo]

Your boss should be able to fire you for whatever reason they want if it doesn't violate your contract.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Score one for the 1st amendment.

Been a long time coming...

 

[Actual]

If your boss is on your friends list, this is no different from calling them a dick to their face, for which you would rightly be fired.

 

[Adam Galli]

She is entitled to her freedom of speech. I've wanted to say a lot worse about a former boss.

 

[Adam Galli]

She is entitled to her freedom of speech. I've wanted to say a lot worse about a former boss.

yeah but you didn't do it in an incredibly open way which creates negative press about whatever company they were working for.

Sure moan about life to your friends, but this is common sense. It would be like if somebody wandered round with "insert company name here" overworks their staff , if that somebody worked for them. Its negative publicity and more than enough reason for any employer to go, hey thats a bit off, byebye.

I stand by the employers rights here.

You may have a right to free speech, but you also have the right to know when to best exercise it.

That is exactly what freedom of speech means. Saying what you want whenever you want about anything you want. If the government says "No, you can't say that," then they might just take away every other right we have. Sure, I personaly think its stupid for a person to post that on facebook, just because its personal buisness, but the employee has every right to say it.

 

[Awexsome]

I think that the union and government are in the right here that you can't lose your job over this kind of talk over facebook but when the company starts looking for good employees who deserve a raise... Expect this to come back and bite you in the ass.

Freedom to speak it and not lose your job over it, but just don't expect any favors from that boss that he doesn't have to give.

 

[Baldr]

There are much better ways of dealing with work related problems than posting about them on facebook and if not, then it is time to get a new job.

For all good things that Unions did in the past, now they are just a tool for overpriced work, and keeping incompetent, inexperienced, indolent, and apathetic labor.

 

[Adam Galli]

She is entitled to her freedom of speech. I've wanted to say a lot worse about a former boss.

yeah but you didn't do it in an incredibly open way which creates negative press about whatever company they were working for.

Sure moan about life to your friends, but this is common sense. It would be like if somebody wandered round with "insert company name here" overworks their staff , if that somebody worked for them. Its negative publicity and more than enough reason for any employer to go, hey thats a bit off, byebye.

I stand by the employers rights here.

You may have a right to free speech, but you also have the right to know when to best exercise it.

That is exactly what freedom of speech means. Saying what you want whenever you want about anything you want. If the government says "No, you can't say that," then they might just take away every other right we have. Sure, I personaly think its stupid for a person to post that on facebook, just because its personal buisness, but the employee has every right to say it.

yeah and the employer has every right to terminate on those grounds. You still have the RIGHT to say it, the consequences of your actions are entirely seperate. You have the RIGHT to drink, but if you do it before driving do you not equally get thrown in prison, course you do.
Cause and effect. Do a stupid thing get the consequences of it.

Depending on where you say it should get you fired. If the person had a patient in the back of the ambulance and they said so and so is a real dick, sure its unprofessional and they should be fired. But we are granted freedom of speech just about everywhere esle. Getting fired for something you say on facebook is like saying you just bought a new rifle and getting arrested the next day. We have the right to bear arms so we can own guns. Just like we can say whatever we want. Had the company stated prior to hiring that any negative comment made on the internet can be cause for termination they can be fired. If not, oh well.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

On the one hand, I agree with the principle of free speech. Plus, firms should not be able to take action on the way someone acts outside of work, unless they're wearing work uniform (if applicable) or are otherwise representing the company in any way (in which case take whatever action you want, bosses, I won't stop you).

However, on the other hand, if you are making nasty comments about somebody, regardless of whether or not they deserve it, then either do it to their face, or don't do it at all. And certainly don't do it in public where anyone can see. I was on a night out a while ago with some colleagues, and some of my bosses, and we were having a laugh and a joke, but if I (outside work) had called my boss a "dick" or "scumbag" then I would have fully deserved to be punished at work, or at least called out on it. And why shouldn't the same apply to Facebook? If I call my manager something bad over Facebook, which is worse because then anyone can see it, who are we to say that I don't deserve some form of punishment? The whole basis of a happy, healthy, productive working environment, revolves around people getting on, and if you don't get on with your boss then you should either try and build bridges, or find a new job. And if you're stupid enough to air your grievances in public, then you deserve everything you get.

If anyone has a valid, decent, sensible point about why this woman shouldn't have been disciplined, then please, quote me, and I would be more than happy to have a sensible debate about the matter...

I disagree with you. Now, if the boss had just called her out, said "I don't appreciate this, and would like you to stop" that's one thing. But we already give our workplaces a great deal of control of what we do outside of work (and as you pointed out, in no way representing the company directly). And frankly, it's none of their business.

What she said in no way impeded her ability to satisfactorily perform the duties she was hired to execute, nor did it in anyway mar the image of the company (i.e. it's not like she was engaging in inappropriate behavior while in uniform) and that really should be the bottom line. As long as you're able to do your job, then what you do in your spare time is your business, not theirs.

 

[Trivun]

On the one hand, I agree with the principle of free speech. Plus, firms should not be able to take action on the way someone acts outside of work, unless they're wearing work uniform (if applicable) or are otherwise representing the company in any way (in which case take whatever action you want, bosses, I won't stop you).

However, on the other hand, if you are making nasty comments about somebody, regardless of whether or not they deserve it, then either do it to their face, or don't do it at all. And certainly don't do it in public where anyone can see. I was on a night out a while ago with some colleagues, and some of my bosses, and we were having a laugh and a joke, but if I (outside work) had called my boss a "dick" or "scumbag" then I would have fully deserved to be punished at work, or at least called out on it. And why shouldn't the same apply to Facebook? If I call my manager something bad over Facebook, which is worse because then anyone can see it, who are we to say that I don't deserve some form of punishment? The whole basis of a happy, healthy, productive working environment, revolves around people getting on, and if you don't get on with your boss then you should either try and build bridges, or find a new job. And if you're stupid enough to air your grievances in public, then you deserve everything you get.

If anyone has a valid, decent, sensible point about why this woman shouldn't have been disciplined, then please, quote me, and I would be more than happy to have a sensible debate about the matter...

I disagree with you. Now, if the boss had just called her out, said "I don't appreciate this, and would like you to stop" that's one thing. But we already give our workplaces a great deal of control of what we do outside of work (and as you pointed out, in no way representing the company directly). And frankly, it's none of their business.

What she said in no way impeded her ability to satisfactorily perform the duties she was hired to execute, nor did it in anyway mar the image of the company (i.e. it's not like she was engaging in inappropriate behavior while in uniform) and that really should be the bottom line. As long as you're able to do your job, then what you do in your spare time is your business, not theirs.

True, it's none of the company's business, ordinarily. However, I would argue that it does impact the way she can handle her duties to a satisfactory level. She posted something bad about her boss that he then saw, which means that if they didn't already have a bad relationship then they would afterwards, which impacts on their ability to communicate well. If two people in a team don't get on, and don't communicate well, which is what would happen here, then that's going to have a direct impact on the performance of the team as a whole, because for a team to successfully work together they need to be able to get on well and communicate well. Neither of which is achieved by slagging each other off over Facebook. So the woman's actions could have potentially affected the performance of her and her boss as part of a team, which affects productivity as they work for the company. So it's in the company's interests to take some sort of disciplinary action, and to, if the offence is severe enough, fire her.