Your Freedom of Speech and My Freedom to Fire You

her former employer wasn't paying for the blog site.

if american airlines fired her solely for the reason she alleges (she provides an audio file which purports to be a recording of her supervisor terminating her over the phone), she's very likely gonna clean their clock.

it also would explain why they keep havin to file bankruptcy.

heres a link: Link in the left column you'll find a link to the offending pix.

Here's the rub...

Although (in most cases) your employer can fire you for anything from misconduct to the fact that your farts reek, you need to ask yourself how much you want your place of work shoehorned into your personal life.

Personally, I've turned down jobs that require a drug test. Yeah, I work on computers...why do you need to know if I use drugs on my personal time? Because it's company policy? Bah, you can jam that policy straight up your ass. I could see if it were a job where there was a potential for harming others (driving a forklift for example) but it crosses a line where a company insinuates itself in your personal dealings to a degree where they start to dictate what you can and can't do. I find that unacceptable and unless I were extremely desperate for a job would never work for a company like that.

I *can* see the position of the airline to a certain extent, but it looks like she took measures to ensure the anonymity of the company she worked for. I'm not defending what she did, but I can't really defend the airline's position either.

It might be IBM sucks...you're fired! Today.
It might be Bush sucks...you're fired! Tomorrow.

-- B

As far as the stewardess - their issue was photos from the workplace. A lot of workplaces have rules against cameras. I've actually even seen a fast food place call the cops on 2 customers who were having a birthday party and refused to put away their camcorder.

The issue is not someone being fired for bitching about their boss's monkey fetish - that to me (and many) would make perfect sense. It is when people are canned for simply mentioning work, or in this case, posting photos, unaware that they are doing something they could be fired for. Certainly, I wouldn't think that mentioning something non-top-secret about a job of mine would be firing-worthy.

What really needs to be done in these cases, is that employers NEED to have clear policies on this sort of thing. Many have no policies, or policies that are so over-restrictive as to be inpactical. Employees should *NOT* be fired if what they posted is not malicious/overly revealing of company secrets, unless the employer has previously communicated a clear policy to that employee about what is and is not allowed.

Instead, what they seem to be doing is making up the rules as they go along, and that's what's got people pissed. You shouldn't have to fear even mentioning where you work on your blog, unless you're a CIA agent, in which case your employer has most likely communicated a clear secrecy policy to you.

american airlines fired her solely for the reason she alleges (she provides an audio file which purports to be a recording of her supervisor terminating her over the phone), she's very likely gonna clean their clock.

Delta Kingbee.  She worked for Delta (if it is Ellen Simonetti as Bahu's article indicates)

http://news.com.com/I+was+fired+for+blogging/2010-1030_3-5490836.html

One thing everyone needs to realize is that your freedom of speech is a right protected only from GOVERNMENT control. Congress shall pass no laws that abridge the freedom of speech. Nothing in there saying a company has to respect those rights. Our constitutional freedoms are actually pretty limited in where they apply... they prevent laws from being passed that restrict those freedoms, they do not protect us from other people and non-state organizations from retaliating when we say something they don't like.

Sure it's a crappy thing to do, and it'll generate no good will with their employees or the public, but it is entirely their right to fire you for just about anything they like. The only thing they can't do is fire you based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Say your boss is a jerkoff though, and you're probably gone.

Basically, never write anything about a person or group of people you wouldn't be willing to say to their face.

I heard there was a teacher that got canned because a picture of her meeting up with a guy she was having an affair with in front of the school aired on the show "Cheaters".  I bet a lot of people would say that was unjustified but a lot would say that is proof that this teacher is bringing unsavory behavior to the work place and that might influence her students and upset those who pay her salary (I don't know if it was a private or public school).

She wasn't doing anything unsavory during work hours.  She wasn't even the one who posted or aired pictures but she got fired.  I bet there wasn't a specific rule that said "Don't meet up with your boyfriend near the school or you will be fired".

Use common sense people.  Bitch about your job all you want privately.  Do it in a public venue and you risk consequences.  That is called reality.

Use common sense people. Bitch about your job all you want privately. Do it in a public venue and you risk consequences. That is called reality.

Exactly. The constitution protects your right to say what you want.....but you have to be prepared to accept the consequences. The constitution says you can call your boss an asshole, but it doesn't say that your boss can't fire you.

her former employer wasn't paying for the blog site.

Did i ever say that they were? Who gives two small damns who paid for it? The article is not about her case in particular but lets talk about hers anyways. She took pictures in uniform on company property that her company deems inappropriate which she then posts in a public place. Her boss sees it and fires her for inapproriate pictures in uniform adding inappropriate commentary later. Fine.

You know why she should be fired? Because she was in the company uniform. She was presenting herself as part of company. Once you cross that line the company has a ton of leeway as to what it says is appropriate.

She complains that she was unaware of the rule. Tough shit. Ignorance is not a defense if the employer doesn't feel charitable. "Don't shout 'Fuck off McDonalds!' during the lunch rush in uniform isn't in the MickeyD's handbook either but claiming ignorance of the policy won't save your job. She walked on the edge of good sense and lost. Now she is whining about it.

Her employer didn't make her take pictures of herself and post them. She did. She doesn't feel like owning up to that. She is a smacktard.

 

Employees should *NOT* be fired if what they posted is not malicious/overly revealing of company secrets, unless the employer has previously communicated a clear policy to that employee about what is and is not allowed.

Try that out when someone releases company secrets of yours! "Oh I didn't do it "maliciously" or "too much"! Be real. As for the ignorance defense see above.

 

in front of the school

Jill you have hit it on the head here. The issues for these folks are the things they do get the company involved. You are begging to be fired that way. You would have a case if they fired you because you put pictures of yourself in a skirt and blouse on the net but NOT when the skirt and blouse are the company's uniform.

It's just that easy.

Try that out when someone releases company secrets of yours! "Oh I didn't do it "maliciously" or "too much"! Be real. As for the ignorance defense see above.

I didn't mean for "malicious/over realing" to be an AND operator. I intended an OR operator there ... That is, if it is malicious OR overly revealing, firing might be justified. Obviously employees can be ignorant and reveal sensitive company info without realizing it, and in that case you don't want those kind of ignorant employees working for you.

Obviously employees can be ignorant and reveal sensitive company info without realizing it, and in that case you don't want those kind of ignorant employees working for you.

Employees should *NOT* be fired if what they posted is not malicious/overly revealing of company secrets

 

Lotherius - ok so which of those two quotes is the right one?

The Constitution is a document where We the People tell the federal government what it can and can't do. It has NOTHING to do with what a private citizen (including those we work for) can and can't do. That is what laws, social norms and community standards are for.

Nothing a company does to anyone can ever be "unconstitutional".

Personally, I've turned down jobs that require a drug test. Yeah, I work on computers...why do you need to know if I use drugs on my personal time? Because it's company policy? Bah, you can jam that policy straight up your ass. I could see if it were a job where there was a potential for harming others (driving a forklift for example) but it crosses a line where a company insinuates itself in your personal dealings to a degree where they start to dictate what you can and can't do. I find that unacceptable and unless I were extremely desperate for a job would never work for a company like that.

I think part of the logic of drug testing is that the company wants a return on their investment. What I mean is, they are paying you to work for them and they want to be reasonably sure you'll be available to continue that work for them. By using drugs on your off time, you are running the risk (arguably minimal) of being caught and arrested which would cause a disruption to your ability to continue to work for them. Now, the same argument can be used to support an alcohal test, since it may be just as likely (or even more so) that you might be arrested for drunk driving than it is for drug use. But drinking is legal, so they can't really get away with that without more justification (I would guess trucking companies and airlines might be able to get away with checking more thoroughly into a person's drinking habits, but I don't know for sure).

As for the topic at hand, I have to agree with the basic point here - freedom of speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of the opinions you hold.

Nothing a company does to anyone can ever be "unconstitutional".

Unless they are shoving the poop back up the chute.........

Lotherius - ok so which of those two quotes is the right one?

Notice the "not" in the second statement? That means - fi what they posted is NOT malicious and it is NOT overly revealing of company secrets, then they shouldn't be fired unless there was a clear policy otherwise.

Negations change meaning, and if you overlook them, you can get confused ..

And, to answer an implied question from before... "overly revealing" is of course subjective... What I meant was, revealing that your company's watercooler happens to sit near your desk, is not a very sensitive company secret. Revealing that your boss met with someone from a rival company for 6 hours today, could very well be a company secret. Somewhere inbetween is a very, very, ambiguous line.

She worked for Delta (if it is Ellen Simonetti as Bahu's article indicates)

my apologies to american airlines.

delta--and all the rest of us--would be better served by managers who spent less time wasting their time with this kinda nonsense and more time figuring out how to keep their business operating in the black without weaseling outta their contractual obligations to their employees.

it doesn't make a whole lotta sense to use tax monies to subsidize a business with such questionable managerial priorities. i guess it's easier to deal with something like this than it is to run an airline.

Personally, I've turned down jobs that require a drug test. Yeah, I work on computers...why do you need to know if I use drugs on my personal time? Because it's company policy? Bah, you can jam that policy straight up your ass.

Mr. Frog! Congratulations, you actually get it. If you don't want to accept the terms of employment, you have choices. Either try to negotiate more acceptable terms or say, "Thanks but no thanks.

People act like they have no choices in life.

Unless they are shoving the poop back up the chute.........

 

that is foul....

Correct me if I am wrong (of course you will )

Doesn't a military member sacrifice MANY of his/her basic constitutional rights when they put on the uniform?

The military is part of the gov. and the DOD tells them they can't protest in uniform, right? So for a time they sacrifice their free speech rights....and if they live on a military installation can security forces enter their residence without a warrant? Can they be ordered to open their home? Can they be ordered to talk to a counselor/social worker/civilian authority by a commander?

Just makes you go hmmmmm

Mr. Frog! Congratulations, you actually get it. If you don't want to accept the terms of employment, you have choices. Either try to negotiate more acceptable terms or say, "Thanks but no thanks.

Yep, that's exactly what I was trying to say. First it's a drug test, next, you have to drive Dodge/Chrysler cars to work or park way out in the sticks (see: DaimlerChrysler parking policy stories from a few months back). Next thing you know, they're monitoring what you say on your blog, or firing you because you smoke.

Do *you* want to work for a company that takes that much interest in your personal life? I know I sure don't.

-- B

Of course they're making up the rules as they go along!

The first generation to see the Internet is still alive. The Internet disrupts social paradigms and systems of human interaction that have been in place for thousands of years.

It may well be another hundred years or so before we've even begun to figure out a new set of rules that even comes close to the stability and security that our old social rules gave us.

Everybody gets all excited about new technology and stuff, but this is the the tradeoff right here: an extended period of turmoil and confusion, as the technological progressives refuse to consider that society might not actually benefit from rapid change, and the technological luddites refuse to consider any kind of change at all, and the rest of us are generally too busy with our daily lives to really get involved in directing the evolution of our society.

So yeah, people who meddle in the Internet are going to find that they don't always get the results they expect, or the treatment they think they deserve.

You're in a business relationship with your employer. You wouldn't want to do business with someone who's not on the same page with you about your career goals and personal life. You certainly wouldn't want to do business with anybody who, through carelessness, malice, or greed was actively undermining your career goals and personal life.

And your employer is no different. So all you airline stewardesses out there need to ask yourself some hard questions. For example: What is more important to me: this newfangled "blog" thing, or a pleasant and profitable business relationship with my employer?

Because I guarantee that your employer is asking themselves the very same question about you, and their business goals don't really depend on your blog.

Or look at it this way: What company would hire a freelance reporter that insists on writing a weekly column about all aspects of his life, accessible to millions of readers, and free from any obligation to consult with his employer about what he says?

In reality, freelance reporters work as freelance reporters. You either work for the person paying you, or you work for yourself. Most employers are pretty strict about that rule, and most employment contracts include a cause prohibiting side jobs and moonlighting. Things that blur the line, such as blogs, tend to make employers nervous. So again, you gotta ask, what's more important? The blog, or a business partner that's getting nervous about your contributions to the partnership?

I think one of the problems here is simply the fact that most corporations are basically Stalinist entities.

As for the topic at hand, I have to agree with the basic point here - freedom of speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of the opinions you hold.

I don't totally agree with this as it applies to business. For example, most of my co-workers know I'm a socialist. Are you saying that the management should have the right to fire me for my political opinions, even though I am doing my job to a good standard? I'm saying that we should be "judged" by our performance at work, not our opinions. As long as we aren't revealing company secrets (unless said company secret is they are dumping toxic waste into the drinking water) or being an asshole about things, there is no reason to fire anyone as long as the work is good.

Interestingly, this reminds me of the Dilbert in last Saturdays comics. The pointy haired boss comes in, and says "You've been saying bad things about work on your blog. you're fired." Some random employee replies with something to the effect of: "You can't fire me for what I say on my blog. I have freedom of expression. To fire me would be going against everything the founding fathers stood for! So you can't fire me unless my work isn't good."

"Your work isn't good. You're fired."

In the next pane he is carrying out a box of his stuff. "Stupid founding fathers."

and while I'm on the subject of businesses and capitalism, WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!!!!

Delicious irony!

Latour is a socialist who believes in freedom of speech. Let us quickly pass over all the people who tried to implement Socialism on a large scale, and discovered that freedom of speech was one of the first things that had to go.

Anyway, latour's employers probably don't give a rat's ass about his personal beliefs, so long as his work is good. But what happens when he has a side gig where he actively undermines his employer? Who would sign up for a business partner like that, no matter how good their work is? Who wouldn't jump at the opportunity to terminate a partnership where one partner was idiotic enough to spend half their time and energy furthering the partnership's goals, and the other half of their time and energy undermining the partnership's goals?

You want to post a series of articles criticizing your business partner, accessible to millions of people? Fine. Freedom of speech and all that. But don't come crying to me when your business partner decides that your heart isn't really in the partnership, and that they'd rather not do business with you any more.

. damn double posts

Are you saying that the management should have the right to fire me for my political opinions, even though I am doing my job to a good standard?

Latour- Where was that said anywhere here? Are your political beleifs along the lines of "My boss blows chimps!"? If so, then yes if your boss happens to read it... thanks for playing. Next time, perhaps you can respond to the issues *in* the article?

Doesn't a military member sacrifice MANY of his/her basic constitutional rights when they put on the uniform? The military is part of the gov. and the DOD tells them they can't protest in uniform, right? So for a time they sacrifice their free speech rights....and if they live on a military installation can security forces enter their residence without a warrant? Can they be ordered to open their home? Can they be ordered to talk to a counselor/social worker/civilian authority by a commander?

yes to all of these... exactly what is your point besides the obvious bit that folks in the military have a considerably more restrictive life than civlians? As a military member you can't quit over these issues either. Frankly, the military is basically a communist/socialist organization at its heart. As a result it functions very inefficiently.

The military is part of the gov. and the DOD tells them they can't protest in uniform, right? So for a time they sacrifice their free speech rights

Not being able to show up to a protest in uniform is not an infringement on any rights. It's the difference between expressing your personal opinion and being a representative of the US military and government. I can express my opinion on my own time in almost any way I wish, just not as a representative of the military. If I'm wearing my uniform, I am exactly that.

In fact, a recent order commanding forbidding service members to attend a series of anti-war rallies in California was rescinded specifically because it was not right. It was changed to read that service members were encouraged not to attend for safety reasons. If they want to attend, they can, but have to do it as private citizens, not representatives of the government. Attending in uniform would not only be wrong but would also make them a target for violence. Not all anti-war protesters would be eager for a Forestt Gump type scene.

and if they live on a military installation can security forces enter their residence without a warrant? Can they be ordered to open their home? Can they be ordered to talk to a counselor/social worker/civilian authority by a commander?

The UCMJ offers protection to military members in very much the same way local laws do. Military members constitutional rights are protected. We do submit to drug tests. Warrants are required to conduct searches of housing. Commanders can make stops by on post housing or barracks but it can be for no reason other than to make sure the standard of living is ok. If cocaine was found laying out on the dining room table, it could not be used against the member because we are protected against illegal search and seizure. There is a grey line that gets blurred sometimes. Unit commanders can't target individuals without probably cause, but they can use a 100% unit sweep in order to get at someone they suspect. Vehicle searches to get on post are usually random and you don't have to have it done, you just can't get on base without it. Again, it's not targetting any individual, it's random. Counseling can be ordered by commanders, but again, they have to have cause to do it. And there are military lawyers who serve as advocates to the members on base and those advocates are kept in a separate chain of command from the prosecuting lawyers, in order to keep out any conflicts of interest.