Hiding behind the Internet. No anonymity.

  • Thread starter Thread starter turbo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Internet
Click For Summary
A young woman is facing potential discipline or termination after publicly criticizing her co-workers on social media, calling them "imbeciles." This incident highlights the risks of expressing negative opinions online, especially for someone in a position of authority. While some argue that employees should be free to vent without repercussions, others emphasize that public comments can harm workplace morale and reflect poorly on the company. The discussion raises questions about privacy and the boundaries of free speech in professional settings. Ultimately, the incident serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of online behavior in the workplace.
  • #31
Proton Soup said:
it's not so much about women as about society. but since you ask, i will cite Debra LaFave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Lafave

Lame argument.

I found it better to be a humorous statement.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
rootX said:
Lame argument.

I found it better to be a humorous statement.

Oh, I see. A snarky comment generalising women was supposed to be humourous.
 
  • #33
The comment, to me, was not critical of women, but rather how the job market treats women in some areas. Affirmative action laws practically guarantee that the fact that she is a woman is a factor to consider in keeping her. In this situation, of course, it was a relatively insignificant factor that was outweighed by the fact that this woman alienated all of her coworkers, her boss, and the company in general.

Also, any comment we make on this forum will be a generalization. Unless someone other than turbo knows the woman personally?
 
  • #34
Char. Limit said:
Also, any comment we make on this forum will be a generalization. Unless someone other than turbo knows the woman personally?
She is young and cute but not too bright. She posted those comments to her personal page during work hours when she was on the clock and supposedly "working". Apparently the concepts of surveillance, messages stored on servers, etc, were foreign to her.
 
  • #35
Georgina said:
They shot their mouth off in a very public place. I'd be more than happy to help them pursue other career goals.
So if I'm in a bad mood and upset with my coworkers I should avoid going to say some bar where someone may over hear me saying mean things about them to my friends?
 
  • #36
TheStatutoryApe said:
So if I'm in a bad mood and upset with my coworkers I should avoid going to say some bar where someone may over hear me saying mean things about them to my friends?
That can sometimes be enough to set the stage for being fired. While that by itself isn't grounds, it may cause your superiors to put you under the magnifying glass. Usually they can find enough to pin on you to fire you, if they really want to. It's always a risk you take. Word of mouth isn't strong, but in writing, that's sheer idiocy.

Using the internet on work time is usually grounds for termination all by itself. Being stupid while you do it...priceless.
 
  • #37
A bar and facebook are different things. For one thing, unless the bartender is a security freak, there are no records of your comments in a bar. Facebook is different. Also, yes, you should always watch what you say over the Internet. Remember, that stuff is on there your whole life, for anyone to look at. You can't say the same about spoken comments in a bar.
 
  • #38
Evo said:
That can sometimes be enough to set the stage for being fired.
I wonder how many people publicly vented about their coworker saying mean things about them. How many do you think would be fired for discussing internal company issues in public places?

Evo said:
Using the internet on work time is usually grounds for termination all by itself. Being stupid while you do it...priceless.
That of course is a different story than simply venting in a public place. I know it is what happened in this particular instance. I am only unsure of the idea that people ought to be punished because they vented about work in a public location. Or rather got caught venting.
 
  • #39
Char. Limit said:
A bar and facebook are different things. For one thing, unless the bartender is a security freak, there are no records of your comments in a bar. Facebook is different. Also, yes, you should always watch what you say over the Internet. Remember, that stuff is on there your whole life, for anyone to look at. You can't say the same about spoken comments in a bar.
Anybody could overhear what you say in a bar and they could remember it for the rest of their life as well as any person whom they wish to share the information with. The only difference is evidence. I am also much more likely to overhear the comments made by a coworker of mine at the local pub than I am to casually come across their page on facebook.
 
  • #40
Evo said:
That can sometimes be enough to set the stage for being fired. While that by itself isn't grounds, it may cause your superiors to put you under the magnifying glass. Usually they can find enough to pin on you to fire you, if they really want to. It's always a risk you take. Word of mouth isn't strong, but in writing, that's sheer idiocy.

Using the internet on work time is usually grounds for termination all by itself. Being stupid while you do it...priceless.

I wonder what if employer will be at loss for firing you? Cases where it will be very hard to replace you. How much employer can tolerate in those cases?
 
  • #41
TheStatutoryApe said:
I wonder how many people publicly vented about their coworker saying mean things about them. How many do you think would be fired for discussing internal company issues in public places?
Depends on the company and the sensitivity and the boss. A fantastic manager I worked with, a truly wonderful person was fired because a coworker reported him to HR for making what he considered an "off color joke" He told HR he was racially offended. The manager was fired immediately.

The true story was that the person that reported him was a new hire that was going to be terminated because they failed training and they made it up, other people that were there said it wasn't true. Didn't matter, the company would rather fire a valuable employee with a spotless record rather than have to deal with an accusation.
 
  • #42
Evo said:
Depends on the company and the sensitivity and the boss. A fantastic manager I worked with, a truly wonderful person was fired because a coworker reported him to HR for making what he considered an "off color joke" He told HR he was racially offended. The manager was fired immediately.

The true story was that the person that reported him was a new hire that was going to be terminated because they failed training and they made it up, other people that were there said it wasn't true. Didn't matter, the company would rather fire a valuable employee with a spotless record rather than have to deal with an accusation.

I think the manager deserved a better company (Assuming that the manager did not receive fair treatment and was not given opportunity to defend himself). Some people get offended too easily and have big mouths! Plainly annoying
 
  • #43
rootX said:
I think the manager deserved a better company. Some people get offended too easily.
The idiot new hire thought it would save his job, but he got fired for not passing training anyway. The terrible thing was that a truly fine individual got fired for no reason because of a false accusation.
 
  • #44
If I were that manager, I would have sued the individual for slander and the company for... is there a legal term for "failing to allow a defense"?
 
  • #45
@GeorginaS…..As an HR person, what do you think about the initial post of the thread, namely the part in which the husband of an employee is exposing “information” such as “She is a young, clueless girl who already has two kids fathered by two different men and is currently pregnant with the child of yet another man” about another empoyee in a public website?

If I understand the flow of this thread correctly, Turbo’s first post happened prior to the girl being fired, that is she was still an employee.

Regards,

C77.
 
  • #46
You don't need to be an HR person to see that since the husband doesn't work for the company, he doesn't owe a thing to any of their employees except one, and the mouthy employee isn't/wasn't the one.

And no, an employee isn't directly or indirectly responsible for the actions of their spouse.
 
  • #47
Char. Limit said:
If I were that manager, I would have sued the individual for slander and the company for... is there a legal term for "failing to allow a defense"?

Depending on the state, the firm might not even need to give a reason for the firing, so not clear if there would even be a case.

As for the slander... sure, but what are you going to manage to collect from some idiot who failed his basic training and can't even keep a job? It's probably not worth the cost of an attorney.
 
  • #48
Condor77 said:
@GeorginaS…..As an HR person, what do you think about the initial post of the thread, namely the part in which the husband of an employee is exposing “information” such as “She is a young, clueless girl who already has two kids fathered by two different men and is currently pregnant with the child of yet another man” about another empoyee in a public website?

If I understand the flow of this thread correctly, Turbo’s first post happened prior to the girl being fired, that is she was still an employee.

Regards,

C77.

Neither turbo nor his wife are identifiable on this site. Nor is the young lady in question. He didn't name names or provide any specific identification. We do not know who any of these people are. This website is not associated with turbo's wife's workplace. If this were turbo's wife's company online bulletin board, his wife would be in my office having a discussion with me.

And speaking to your spouse when you arrive home is an entirely different scenario than Facebook as is going to your local pub after work and grousing about the people you work with. Those are hardly like-comparisons. In neither of those situations are you committing negative commentary about your workplace/co-workers to print and publishing it under your own name on a world-wide accessible venue. I don't know how people a) have an expectation of privacy in that circumstance and b) can't distinguish that from a private conversation held in one's own home.
 
  • #49
Proton Soup said:
it's not so much about women as about society. but since you ask, i will cite Debra LaFave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Lafave
That women provided important services to the society. When I was in the 9th and 10th grade we had a very hot women teaching a English course. At least half of the males in my class used to have sexual phantasms about her. I think none of us would really minded doing things with her. Consensually :P
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Sexual phantasms? O.O

I think you mean "sexual fantasies".
 
  • #51
Char. Limit said:
Sexual phantasms? O.O

I think you mean "sexual fantasies".

or "Sexual phantastical orgasms"
 
  • #52
Char. Limit said:
Sexual phantasms? O.O

I think you mean "sexual fantasies".
You got that right man. That is what I meant.
 
  • #53
Georgina said:
... an entirely different scenario than Facebook as is going to your local pub after work and grousing about the people you work with. Those are hardly like-comparisons. In neither of those situations are you committing negative commentary about your workplace/co-workers to print and publishing it under your own name on a world-wide accessible venue. I don't know how people a) have an expectation of privacy in that circumstance
You do not legally have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bar either or any other sort of public place at all for that matter. Websites such as facebook and myspace are not publications. They are not the same as a newspaper or weekly rag. They are not even the same as having your own website with a blog. They are sites for informal gathering and socializing that happen to be (mostly) public. In that way that are not that different from a bar, club, or the barbershop/salon. As I noted earlier the only real functional difference is evidence. Despite it being a "world wide accessible venue" generally speaking no random person at your work or in your community is more likely to know about what is on your facebook than what you said about them at the pub last night. Perhaps even less so. So while there may not be an expectation of privacy there ought at least be some expectation that one not need to be and act as though one is at work at all times in any public locale (including the internet) unless perhaps one has intentionally set themselves up as a representative of their company.
 
  • #54
TheStatutoryApe said:
You do not legally have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bar either or any other sort of public place at all for that matter. Websites such as facebook and myspace are not publications. They are not the same as a newspaper or weekly rag. They are not even the same as having your own website with a blog. They are sites for informal gathering and socializing that happen to be (mostly) public. In that way that are not that different from a bar, club, or the barbershop/salon. As I noted earlier the only real functional difference is evidence. Despite it being a "world wide accessible venue" generally speaking no random person at your work or in your community is more likely to know about what is on your facebook than what you said about them at the pub last night. Perhaps even less so. So while there may not be an expectation of privacy there ought at least be some expectation that one not need to be and act as though one is at work at all times in any public locale (including the internet) unless perhaps one has intentionally set themselves up as a representative of their company.
I'm sure you are familiar with "employment at will" in the US.

In the United States, employees without a written employment contract generally can be fired for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all;

In legal terms, though, since the last half of the 19th century, employment in each of the United States has been “at will,” or terminable by either the employer or employee for any reason whatsoever.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
Evo said:
I'm sure you are familiar with "employment at will" in the US.



http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

Yes. And you can not be fired for "any reason". You can theoretically be fired for "no reason" but if you can point me to any individual has has ever actually been fired for no reason at all then please do so. There are, nominally, laws against firing people unfairly. The only problem with fighting an unfair dismissal is that you have to have proof and you have to convince a judge that it was unfair. There are specifically protected categories such as whistleblower, sexual discrimination, ect but the law is not at all limited to those categories.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
TheStatutoryApe said:
Yes. And you can not be fired for "any reason". You can theoretically be fired for "no reason" but if you can point me to any individual has has ever actually been fired for no reason at all then please do so. There are, nominally, laws against firing people unfairly. The only problem with fighting an unfair dismissal is that you have to have proof and you have to convince a judge that it was unfair. There are specifically protected categories such as whistleblower, sexual discrimination, ect but the law is not at all limited to those categories.
Actually, over the years I have known people that were fired for no specific reason other than they weren't liked, or for being negative about work, or "didn't fit in", didn't like to go drinking with the guys on friday night. Not a suck up. It happens.
 
  • #57
Evo said:
Actually, over the years I have known people that were fired for no specific reason other than they weren't liked, or for being negative about work, or "didn't fit in", didn't like to go drinking with the guys on friday night. Not a suck up. It happens.

There were reasons though, you mention them yourself (my emphasis above). They may not have had to actually give the reason but that does not mean that there wasn't one. I'm sure that you will agree that a person who is fired because they did not sleep with the boss will still be protected even though the employer did not specify it as the reason for dismissal. The only issue to surmount is proving it. So if you are fired for a reason which you feel was inappropriate or unfair you can sue. Your case will be heard. You may not win, perhaps are not even very likely to win, but it can be done and a judge may decide in your favour.

Here's a site that discusses this very issue (the ability of employers to fire for blogging). Here is a section specifically related to my argument...
Some states provide legal protection for activity outside the work place. For example, California Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit employers from interfering with their employees' political activities. If you blog about something political in California, these laws may protect you.


In addition, we believe that two relatively new provisions of the California Labor Code that address "lawful conduct during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises" could be used to protect employee bloggers. On their face, the provisions prohibit employers from disciplining employees for anything that goes on outside of work so long as it's legal (including, presumably, blogging). See Cal. Labor Code §§ 96(k); 98.6. So far, however, courts have not construed the law so broadly. Some courts and the Attorney General have ruled that these provisions merely help enforce existing rights -- such as the right to privacy -- rather than give employees any additional rights. See Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp., 120 Cal.App.4th 72, 86-88 (2004); Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corp., 113 Cal.App.4th 525, 534-36 (2003). While the issue is not settled, these rulings suggest that Section 96(k) and 98.6 apply only if, in the course of terminating you, the employer violated some right that you have under other laws (for example, by interfering with your political activities, or libeling you).

Some states other than California (Colorado, New York, and North Dakota) have also enacted statutes that prohibit employers from terminating employees for engaging in lawful activities outside of work, including political activities. But these laws also have broader exceptions than California's and some do not apply to disciplinary actions other than firing. The District of Columbia, Connecticut, and some cities (for example, Seattle, Lansing, and Madison) also prohibit discrimination on the basis of political or expressive activity. For links to these laws and a discussion of the protections they provide, see the Workplace Fairness FAQ on Retaliation for Political Activity.

This is the best source I have found so far. Most of the hits I am finding are not very useful.