Federal Government Approves of Facebook Boss Bashing

[Baresark]

This kind of stuff happens all the time! If you want to be protected, join the thugs at local 139! Give me a break.

No one should get fired for this kind of stuff. But free speech SHOULD be all inclusive, and you shouldn't have to be in a union to get protection. Thanks again for showing me why I hate big government.

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

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.

Actually, you have it wrong. Freedom of speech protects you from ill consequences for saying something. This includes consequences such as getting fired from you job or having your physical person harmed. It's not the same as violating a law. That is like saying that my neighbor can say anything he wants about me, but I'm well within my right to beat him to death for it. It doesn't work like that. Freedom of speech protects you from certain blowback. In this case the boss was well within her rights to go on her facebook and say something equally as incendiary about that woman, but she is not allowed to fire her for what she put on her facebook. She would have to argue that she is somehow under performing on her duties due to facebook (though legally, it would be best if she left out all mention of facebook). Couple that with the fact, facebook is not public (subjectively). It's basically like making comments to your friends. It's the same as if she were hanging out with a group of friends and said what she said, she still wouldn't have grounds to fire her.

I understand your reasoning in the analogy about drunk driving, but your logic is flawed. Drinking alcohol is legal, but drinking and driving is illegal. You are not breaking a law by drinking, so of course there is no blowback from that (besides personal ones). But your violating the law for driving while intoxicated, so there is a consequence from that. Not because you were drinking, but because you were drinking and driving.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

Hooray for being in a union *Off to Facebook to write horrible, horrible things publicly* Hah, but no...what she did was obviously in poor judgment and she really shouldn't have thought twice about posting sensitive material like that on the internet since we know the internet is where secrets go do die.

 

[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.

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.

While you have a point, the keyword here, I think, is "potentially". Depending on the woman's position and duties, and the duties that the boss held, and their professional relationship, it may not have been an issue. The article wasn't clear, but unless he was her direct supervisor, and they had to work closely together, it would have been fairly simple to get past it.

There are plenty of jobs where direct contact with your boss is far from necessary, especially if there is another layer of management between you and them.

Even if they did have to work in direct contact with each other, just because they have a strong dislike for each other doesn't mean that they can't both act professional and get the job done.

If a company wants to fire someone over negatively impacting productivity, then they need to wait until they can show that that is what, in fact, happened.

 

[jpoon]

Hah, awesome. It's about time for once that our government didn't stab us in the back. I would always support the liberty that she was making use of. Call it as you see it.

 

[Low Key]

And to think, it all could have been avoided if she wasn't "friends" with her job and/or boss on facebook. It's the same principle as dumbass kids disclosing their drug usage and whatnot, and they are "friends" with their parents. Sometimes stupid people rightly get what is coming to them.

 

[Fearzone]

Welcome to the People's Republic of America. Hopefully they can find another reason to fire her like surfing the Internet at work.

 

[Redd the Sock]

I don't think this was a free speech issue. I remember a story a year or two ago about someone getting fired because their boss saw some photos on an employee's facebook page of them being in a somewhat drunken and rowdey state, which could easially apply to the same ruling. It's a question of whether you beleive an employer can or should fire someone over their non work antics. In an ecconomy where I've heard of people not getting hired due to a bad credit score, it is nice to see some pushback. We just can be expected to be "ON" 24/7.

Let's be honest, I won't argue the woman's actions were immature, but what of the employer's actions. An employee has said / posting something rude and mean about me. What do I do? Write it off as someone having a bad day and needing to vent? Politely ignore it knowing I can't make everyone happy or have everyone I have to work with like me? Maturly talk to the woman about just how I pissed her off and addressing concerns? Nah, just fire the *****. After all, who has time to deal with people that don't at least put on a facade of respecting me. If the comments were made in the heat of the moment, they're probably cemented in the woman's mind now because yes, it was a particularly dickish thing to do. Then again, I've always been amazed at how little people acknowledge how much common politeness (let alone the general level of sucking up and false cheer in business) is a sham. I wonder how many employees he'd lose if all employees dared to break the friendly facade and tell him what they really think of him?

 

[Dfskelleton]

Yes, she does have the freedom of speech, and can usually say whatever she wants outside of work. But, if she posts it on facebook for everyone to see, that's no different than going out on your free time with a sign that says "MR._____ IS A HUGE DICK." right outside his building. She's flexing her freedom of speech, but she's also showing disrespect and irresponsibility, something our constitutional authors didn't like too much either.

I guess the question on free speech is "Where do you draw the line?"
It's like with the WBC. Do they have the right to use negative signs to spread their beliefs? Yes. Do they have the right to protest funerals? Yes. Are these morally or socially acceptable? Absolutely not. Unfortunately, politically, there's no boundary line between free speech and being disrespectful and hurtful to others. They have to let them flex free speech, otherwise we wouldn't be a truly "free" country, something America prides itself deeply with.
The worst part is that people know this. They use this to their advantage as an excuse for irresponsibility, foolishness, and disrespect. They can get away it too.
Another terrible truth with this: We probably can't do anything about it.

 

[Yoshisummons]

I just had to do a mock trial last year about defending a kid making fun of his teacher online. Good times, and it's really nice to see what the situation would really be handled.

 

[Fearzone]

This is not a freedom of speech issue. She has the freedom to call her boss a dickhead. Her boss should likewise have the freedom to fire her. If her boss is truly that bad though, she should do the right thing and just quit.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

I never understood how you could get fired for something you said or did outside of the work environment.

Then again, i never understood why so many people feel the need to spill their guts over Facebook or Twitter either.

People should be able to say whatever they want about who they want outside of the office. I'm sure it really hurts knowing what they think of you, but deal with it. Honestly. You can't punish someone for whatever they might say about whomever or do in their private life. If it was in the work environment, then it would be completely understandable if the individual was canned for talking trash about their boss or co-workers. The only reason people should be punished so severely in relation to external communications in private life would be if someone gave away company secrets or sensitive documents to other people.

She knows inside information over the company. If she decides to goo onto a public outlet and say nasty things about the company, it might affect alot of people's views on many things. It might be her opinion or maybe she's just had a rough day, but people will take it as the word of truth. Alot of companies ave a policy set up where you cannot publically denounce any aspect of your company in a recorded manner (cause they can't trace you if it's not recorded really).

Hell if I went on TV tomorrow and called the CEO of my companny a jack off and a dick, they'd try to can my ass too.

 

[Tom Roberts]

The problem was the company's policy was too broad. See the part where they talk about restricting an employee's ability to talk about wages, hours and working conditions while not at work. So what that means is, I can't find out if Judy is making more or less money than me, or even if she feels the ladder leading up to the work area in the attic is unsafe, regardless of if we're at work, being paid by the company, or down at the coffee house on the weekend.

That seems overly restrictive of my reasonable right to the exercise of free speech to me. If it's not, why not add in riders forbiding making supportive remarks about the competition's products, or using them in any way or at any time. Coca-cola truck drivers cannot drink Pepsi-cola products! Or requiring that the company's products be publicly extolled by all employees, regardless of whether or not you're being paid.

Now was this the wisest decision ever made by this girl? Nope. (or at least I really, really hope not.) Is it liable to be a self-fulfilling prophecy? Yep. Is calling your boss a 'diok' and 'scumbag' talking about work conditions? Probably. Is it eloquent? Nope.

But...Is it different than venting about your boss at the grocery store only to find said boss standing behind you? I think that's a pretty good comparison to what happened. Should you be fired for expressing your private opinion in a public place? And does it make any difference if the opinions are true? If for instance the boss in question was piling work onto an employee who refused to go out socially with the boss? What about if they were piling on the work simply because the boss thought the employee 'didn't have the right stuff' (whatever that might mean) in an attempt to drive them to quit? Or the more benign (but no less unfair) 'because they can handle it.'?

 

[cerebus23]

Call me when as a non union worker i can call my boss a dick, well i have done that to one boss that just was exactly that but then again he and his whole family run company was a circus of asshattery.

But facebook and twitter are very public, many businesses anymore use all online sources and what you post to look at perspective employees. Heck it is even risky to be bad mouthing your boss or workplace at work when you might get overheard by some ladder climbing ass kisser, and get tattled on, not even counting when you do it for thousands of people can potentially read and link your rants on your fb or twit page.

Grocery store still is not an online social site, what maybe a dozen people will hear you at a grocery store, most of them will not know you from jack or your boss from jill to know wth you are talking about, but online ranting gives ample time for many people to read and get caught up on the drama and people do love drama, add to that exponentially more people reading it.

Bottom line you hate your boss or your place of work go find a good fps or some other game and go work out your anger after work in a productive manner by blowing peoples heads off. I acually played better on bad work days, much better in fact. Or just quit, unless the pay is out of this world, the stress and the frustration of having a bad boss or work environment is not worth the health issues. Or go vent at a bar to your friends or over the phone, but not in a public forum, like standing in the middle of times square with a megaphone for a few hours and screaming about your boss and place of work would be more akin to what your doing when you twit or fb about it.

 

[Buccura]

Nice to see some federal legislation I can actually get behind.

 

[RvLeshrac]

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...

Because we're not slaves. Our bosses do not own us outside of work. That's the end of the discussion, right there.

 

[Moosejaw]

Folks are proclaiming 'freedom of speech!' like they do when someone bans them from a message board. The thing needed to be understood here is that the first amendment and the entire constitution is a limit on GOVERNMENT. It's 'Congress Shall Make No Law' not 'My Boss Shall Not Fire Me'. If you think it's an awesome idea to force private industry's manners through law, go ahead and keep thinking that but you'll have to make a new law to do so because the First has no business there. Of course, then you'd have to totally violate the first amendment to do so but it's not like anyone cares about that anyway.

If you're on someone's private property, they can say anything they want to you and compel you to leave. You're not being forced to be there and you willingly entered into an arrangement when you took a job, you should watch your conduct and be aware of the repercussions.

As for the people that defend it otherwise, I'm guessing it wouldn't be okay for an employer to openly berate and insult his employees in a similar manner to this?

 

[Staskala]

Even if you are protected from getting fired you might as well quit your job after something like this.
If your boss wants to get rid of you he will sooner or later find a way and the time until then won't be a merry one for you.

It always amazes me how many people are just too eager to share stuff that might get them into trouble on the internet.

 

[Baresark]

This kind of stuff happens all the time! If you want to be protected, join the thugs at local 139! Give me a break.

No one should get fired for this kind of stuff. But free speech SHOULD be all inclusive, and you shouldn't have to be in a union to get protection. Thanks again for showing me why I hate big government.

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

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.

blablabla freedom of speech..

She is underperforming in her duties though. Any negative statements you make that negatively impact the way your company (whatever it is) create bad press. Your job is to do whatever it is you do and not negatively hurt the company. If she joined a physical protest against her company she would get fired. Or if she just yelled it somewhere out in public. The online space shouldn't give people a shield like this. An employer has the right to keep his companies best interests at heart. And people who slander a business and genuinely seem to like it are acting against that best interest.

That is false. A statement said amongst friends about your boss has no bearing what so ever on job performance. Liking or disliking someone specifically is not part of any job description. If she said something in a public forum, specifically mentioning her job, she should be fired. But if she said something to friends, mentioning her boss' name, she is safe. Also, a negative statement about a job is not negatively impacting unless it's in a public forum, and was her job to advance the companies public image? I don't believe it was. Like I said, this is what freedom of speech is supposed to protect against. She may be stupid, and a little bit idiotic to do what she did, but she is well within her rights to do it.