Fired After Heckling Reporter

Off Topic
#21

[quote]Aero51 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
I do think corporations have too much power to dictate how you run your life outside of work. [/quote]

The company isn’t telling people not to say these idiotic things. They are merely saying that they don’t want you if you do. There is no control, if you work for someone, that person is just as free as you are and if they don’t like you being a dumbass they are exercising their freedom to not employ you.

Why do so many people think that employees rights are more important than employers?[/quote]

Is this a serious question? I hope you aren’t that ignorant. [/quote]

Please explain so that I can see how entitled you truly believe that you are. Your employer doesn’t owe you shit unless there is an agreement in place. You screw up, they fire you. You are a blemish on company morale or image, they fire you. The boss just doesn’t like you anymore, they should be able to fire you, that is their right. You have no right to a job. That’s on you and only you. Please tell me why a company owes you a job?

#22

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
I do think corporations have too much power to dictate how you run your life outside of work. [/quote]

The company isn’t telling people not to say these idiotic things. They are merely saying that they don’t want you if you do. There is no control, if you work for someone, that person is just as free as you are and if they don’t like you being a dumbass they are exercising their freedom to not employ you.

Why do so many people think that employees rights are more important than employers?[/quote]

Is this a serious question? I hope you aren’t that ignorant. [/quote]

Please explain so that I can see how entitled you truly believe that you are. Your employer doesn’t owe you shit unless there is an agreement in place. You screw up, they fire you. You are a blemish on company morale or image, they fire you. The boss just doesn’t like you anymore, they should be able to fire you, that is their right. You have no right to a job. That’s on you and only you. Please tell me why a company owes you a job?
[/quote]

It isn’t a matter of entitlement it is a matter of rights. See my post above.

#23

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
To answer the question concisely. It is a matter of human rights. I don’t follow my boss home and watch how he talks to his wife and kids. I don’t follow my coworkers and monitor what they do on the weekends. I certainly don’t think it is right for a company to exert that kind of power over the individual.

Speaking the language of the higher-ups, you waste money on diminishing returns monitoring and enforcing peoples behavior. [/quote]

But he didn’t follow him anywhere. The employee projected himself into the public eye. If your employer got on television and said, “I hate the blacks and the jews” and you didn’t want to work for him anymore because of it, you have every right to quit. That’s basically the exact same situation with the roles reversed.

#24

[quote]Aero51 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
I do think corporations have too much power to dictate how you run your life outside of work. [/quote]

The company isn’t telling people not to say these idiotic things. They are merely saying that they don’t want you if you do. There is no control, if you work for someone, that person is just as free as you are and if they don’t like you being a dumbass they are exercising their freedom to not employ you.

Why do so many people think that employees rights are more important than employers?[/quote]

Is this a serious question? I hope you aren’t that ignorant. [/quote]

Please explain so that I can see how entitled you truly believe that you are. Your employer doesn’t owe you shit unless there is an agreement in place. You screw up, they fire you. You are a blemish on company morale or image, they fire you. The boss just doesn’t like you anymore, they should be able to fire you, that is their right. You have no right to a job. That’s on you and only you. Please tell me why a company owes you a job?
[/quote]

It isn’t a matter of entitlement it is a matter of rights. See my post above. [/quote]

Which of this guys rights were violated? You haven’t been able to come up with one correctly yet.

#25

[quote]Aero51 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
I do think corporations have too much power to dictate how you run your life outside of work. [/quote]

The company isn’t telling people not to say these idiotic things. They are merely saying that they don’t want you if you do. There is no control, if you work for someone, that person is just as free as you are and if they don’t like you being a dumbass they are exercising their freedom to not employ you.

Why do so many people think that employees rights are more important than employers?[/quote]

Is this a serious question? I hope you aren’t that ignorant. [/quote]

Please explain so that I can see how entitled you truly believe that you are. Your employer doesn’t owe you shit unless there is an agreement in place. You screw up, they fire you. You are a blemish on company morale or image, they fire you. The boss just doesn’t like you anymore, they should be able to fire you, that is their right. You have no right to a job. That’s on you and only you. Please tell me why a company owes you a job?
[/quote]

It isn’t a matter of entitlement it is a matter of rights. See my post above. [/quote]

And I say again, why do you think this guy has rights but his employer does not have the right to not want to employ him any longer?

#26

[quote]Aero51 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
I do think corporations have too much power to dictate how you run your life outside of work. [/quote]

The company isn’t telling people not to say these idiotic things. They are merely saying that they don’t want you if you do. There is no control, if you work for someone, that person is just as free as you are and if they don’t like you being a dumbass they are exercising their freedom to not employ you.

Why do so many people think that employees rights are more important than employers?[/quote]

Is this a serious question? I hope you aren’t that ignorant. [/quote]

Companies protect their image. It’s PR 101. If someone associated with them does something stupid for the world to see the company quickly disassociates itself from that person. These people don’t get fired because the company is punishing them for what they do, but because of how they impact the company’s business interests. It’s almost a subconscious association: “hey that guy’s a prick, and he works for that company”, you don’t directly link the two, but the two appear in the same image in your head.

So the company protects itself, especially if there are any future incidents that may be even worse, no one can say: “hey what about that guy 2 months ago, he felt up Brenda in accounting, you didn’t fire HIM”.

If you’re an idiot in your spare time and the company finds out, they have every right to fire you to prevent the company’s public image from being associated with your shenanigans.

#27

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
To answer the question concisely. It is a matter of human rights. [/quote]

I don’t agree that employment is a right.

[quote]
I don’t follow my boss home and watch how he talks to his wife and kids. I don’t follow my coworkers and monitor what they do on the weekends. I certainly don’t think it is right for a company to exert that kind of power over the individual. [/quote]

The company in question did not do this either though. They saw one of their employees on TV acting like an asshole. So they fired him. An employer isn’t obligated to stand by or stand up to an employee.

[quote]
Speaking the language of the higher-ups, you waste money on diminishing returns monitoring and enforcing peoples behavior. [/quote]

Which isn’t what happened and I seriously doubt happens very often in the private sector.

#28

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
To answer the question concisely. It is a matter of human rights. I don’t follow my boss home and watch how he talks to his wife and kids. I don’t follow my coworkers and monitor what they do on the weekends. I certainly don’t think it is right for a company to exert that kind of power over the individual.

Speaking the language of the higher-ups, you waste money on diminishing returns monitoring and enforcing peoples behavior. [/quote]

It seems you’re under the assumption that this guy’s company video taped his rant as proof to fire him. This is not so. The proof presented itself to the company, which did not align with how they feel their employees should act (i.e. they seem to have felt there was a direct conflict between his employer’s mission and his actions which became public through no effort of their own).

Again, it does not seem to me that the company monitored it’s employee outside of the agreed upon working hours but, none-the-less, through no effort of theirs, this information came to light anyways.

#29

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
To answer the question concisely. It is a matter of human rights. I don’t follow my boss home and watch how he talks to his wife and kids. I don’t follow my coworkers and monitor what they do on the weekends. I certainly don’t think it is right for a company to exert that kind of power over the individual.

Speaking the language of the higher-ups, you waste money on diminishing returns monitoring and enforcing peoples behavior. [/quote]

But he didn’t follow him anywhere. The employee projected himself into the public eye. If your employer got on television and said, “I hate the blacks and the jews” and you didn’t want to work for him anymore because of it, you have every right to quit. That’s basically the exact same situation with the roles reversed.
[/quote]

I would argue that it isn’t. A person has a lot to lose if they quit a job (unless they have a big savings which is rare and difficult for the average American today), a company can replace you in a week. In addition, due to social media this guy probably wont land a job within the next 2 years. He will be in poverty over a sentence that pisses a few people off. That is far less worse than the dishonest crap politicians pull or people that beat their wife and kids…but they don’t lose their jobs in most cases. I think 2 weeks suspension without pay would have been fair.

#30

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
It isn’t a matter of entitlement it is a matter of rights. See my post above. [/quote]

Why do you believe there exists a right to employment?

#31

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
To answer the question concisely. It is a matter of human rights. I don’t follow my boss home and watch how he talks to his wife and kids. I don’t follow my coworkers and monitor what they do on the weekends. I certainly don’t think it is right for a company to exert that kind of power over the individual.

Speaking the language of the higher-ups, you waste money on diminishing returns monitoring and enforcing peoples behavior. [/quote]

But he didn’t follow him anywhere. The employee projected himself into the public eye. If your employer got on television and said, “I hate the blacks and the jews” and you didn’t want to work for him anymore because of it, you have every right to quit. That’s basically the exact same situation with the roles reversed.
[/quote]

I posted but for some reason I didn’t go through. Basically what I said was that I don’t think the reverse is true. A company has very little to lose from an employee leaving in most circumstances. An individual has a lot to lose, especially today where people cant save any money. I think 2 weeks suspension would have been fair. This guy will never get a job within the next 2 years simply because it was on the media. What he did was awfully minor in comparison to the shit many other people get away with.

#32

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
But he didn’t follow him anywhere. The employee projected himself into the public eye. If your employer got on television and said, “I hate the blacks and the jews” and you didn’t want to work for him anymore because of it, you have every right to quit. That’s basically the exact same situation with the roles reversed.
[/quote]

Exactly. Aero, we all know you hate your job and are sensitised. But this case is not a slippery slope towards corporate mass surveillance. He was stupid enough to act like a misogynist asshole in front of a TV camera and his employer fired him to save face. People have been sacked for less.

#33

[quote]Aero51 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
To answer the question concisely. It is a matter of human rights. I don’t follow my boss home and watch how he talks to his wife and kids. I don’t follow my coworkers and monitor what they do on the weekends. I certainly don’t think it is right for a company to exert that kind of power over the individual.

Speaking the language of the higher-ups, you waste money on diminishing returns monitoring and enforcing peoples behavior. [/quote]

But he didn’t follow him anywhere. The employee projected himself into the public eye. If your employer got on television and said, “I hate the blacks and the jews” and you didn’t want to work for him anymore because of it, you have every right to quit. That’s basically the exact same situation with the roles reversed.
[/quote]

I would argue that it isn’t. A person has a lot to lose if they quit a job (unless they have a big savings which is rare and difficult for the average American today),[/quote]

Only if they’re dumb enough to quit without another job lined up or a plan.

[quote]
a company can replace you in a week. [/quote]

Now who is being ignorant?

[quote]
In addition, due to social media this guy probably wont land a job within the next 2 years. [/quote]

Two years, doubtful. Anyway, it’s his fault. I can not for the life of me comprehend why you are portraying this guy as the victim.

[quote]
He will be in poverty over a sentence that pisses a few people off. [/quote]

Conjecture.

[quote]
That is far less worse than the dishonest crap politicians pull or people that beat their wife and kids…but they don’t lose their jobs in most cases. [/quote]

What does this have to do with anything?

[quote]
I think 2 weeks suspension without pay would have been fair.[/quote]

Well, you could always open up a business of your own and react to these types of situation however you please.

#34

[quote]Aero51 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
To answer the question concisely. It is a matter of human rights. I don’t follow my boss home and watch how he talks to his wife and kids. I don’t follow my coworkers and monitor what they do on the weekends. I certainly don’t think it is right for a company to exert that kind of power over the individual.

Speaking the language of the higher-ups, you waste money on diminishing returns monitoring and enforcing peoples behavior. [/quote]

But he didn’t follow him anywhere. The employee projected himself into the public eye. If your employer got on television and said, “I hate the blacks and the jews” and you didn’t want to work for him anymore because of it, you have every right to quit. That’s basically the exact same situation with the roles reversed.
[/quote]

I posted but for some reason I didn’t go through. Basically what I said was that I don’t think the reverse is true. A company has very little to lose from an employee leaving in most circumstances. [/quote]

This is not true. Skilled labor and experience isn’t easily replaceable especially in the short term.

[quote]
An individual has a lot to lose, especially today where people cant save any money.[/quote]

Why can’t they save?

[quote]
I think 2 weeks suspension would have been fair. [/quote]
That’s your opinion.

[quote]
This guy will never get a job within the next 2 years simply because it was on the media. [/quote]

100% conjecture.

This is irrelevant.

#35

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
But he didn’t follow him anywhere. The employee projected himself into the public eye. If your employer got on television and said, “I hate the blacks and the jews” and you didn’t want to work for him anymore because of it, you have every right to quit. That’s basically the exact same situation with the roles reversed.
[/quote]

Exactly. Aero, we all know you hate your job and are sensitised. But this case is not a slippery slope towards corporate mass surveillance. He was stupid enough to act like a misogynist asshole in front of a TV camera and his employer fired him to save face. People have been sacked for less.[/quote]

Let’s use a high profile case as an example. Ray Rice was not initially fired by the Baltimore Raven’s when his domestic violence case first came about. He was suspended by the NFL and the Raven’s were going to keep him. When the video finally surfaced people in Baltimore didn’t just call for Rice’s head, some called for Harbaugh’s and even Steve Biscotti’s (the owner of the team). People actually thought Biscotti should be forced to sell the Raven’s all because one asshole punched his wife.

The point is, employers are affected by the actions of their employees. I guarantee the Raven’s bottom line was affected by that one employees actions.

#36

[quote]Aero51 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
To answer the question concisely. It is a matter of human rights. I don’t follow my boss home and watch how he talks to his wife and kids. I don’t follow my coworkers and monitor what they do on the weekends. I certainly don’t think it is right for a company to exert that kind of power over the individual.

Speaking the language of the higher-ups, you waste money on diminishing returns monitoring and enforcing peoples behavior. [/quote]

But he didn’t follow him anywhere. The employee projected himself into the public eye. If your employer got on television and said, “I hate the blacks and the jews” and you didn’t want to work for him anymore because of it, you have every right to quit. That’s basically the exact same situation with the roles reversed.
[/quote]

I posted but for some reason I didn’t go through. Basically what I said was that I don’t think the reverse is true. A company has very little to lose from an employee leaving in most circumstances. An individual has a lot to lose, especially today where people cant save any money. I think 2 weeks suspension would have been fair. This guy will never get a job within the next 2 years simply because it was on the media. What he did was awfully minor in comparison to the shit many other people get away with.
[/quote]

For someone in a senior position, to be on a sunshine list to not know this would bite him in the ass makes him a fucking idiot. Think about this for a moment…he was participating in a meme-- something that by definition IS viral. How the fuck did it not register that social media was going to be all over this, just as he and his Douchey buddies were all over it? The firing is a completely reasonable response, especially since he was in a senior professional position and the social media fallout will be harsh but that’s something he should have been able to foresee.

A lot of people get fucked over by social media taking over and mob mentality but in this it is actually fitting. He actually sought it out and was taken in context.

And as for the firing the level of professionalism expected goes up as you go up in. A manager at my work was fired for making racist remarks about Natives on his facebook page. He also had many Native people reporting to him.

As far as civil rights goes, the only ones that relevant here are the women who would have to work with this swine.

#37

[quote]Aero51 wrote:
I think 2 weeks suspension would have been fair.
[/quote]

I feel as though we are all in agreement that a company has the right to punish an employee for the actions they take outside of the work environment, and now we are more discussing to what level this punishment should be. Would you say that is accurate?

#38

As some have said, the employer didn’t follow him around. He went out of his way to project himself onto broadcast television. It’s not like his employer sent a drone to his home with a camera pointed into his bedroom window and decided to fire him for how he argued with his wife. The employer has the right to fire someone. The laws vary state by state, but as long as the termination action is within the law and follows company HR policies, there is no issue here.

I would hate to see the government create laws that would make it harder to fire people in private enterprise. It is already so easy for a terminated employee to file a wrongful termination suit that termination is approached with very risk aware delicacy at most companies.

#39

If a female did this to a male reporter, would she have also been fired?

#40

Since I cant keep up with all the posts (and cant see half of them anyway) Ill sum up my thoughts

  1. I think he should be punished, but publically announcing his name and permanent termination is too extreme. People do far worse things and get away with it. The fact that his workplace and name were disclosed means he may have a lawsuit in his favor on his hands. I would pursue it if I was in his position.

  2. I never mentioned anything about a right to a job. I don’t even know where that came or how that could be interpreted.

  3. People forget with social media today it is easy to act like a punk “Oh he should have done this, he should have done that, blah blah blah” but in the end most of us have probably done things that an employer wouldn’t like when we were younger or in college. The only difference here is it is caught on TV and put on facebook/twitter. I feel like, for some reason, people conveniently forget the things they’ve done in their life that were less than stellar for a stupid opportunity to bash someone over the internet.