RE: I Thought This was Interesting

RE: I Thought This was Interesting (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

WhoreMods -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/9/2017 10:14:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 i suspect, much like "beauty", even though there are such things as aesthetic standards, "lewd and obscene" is in the eye of the beholder, in this case, the employer. but I suspect the target of the gesture went a long way into making the decision to fire her also. itd be good to see the actual language of the policy. the op is very limited on that. "Lewd and obscene" has nothing to do with it: the woman's been fired for a political gesture her employer finds unacceptable (aimed at a politician she finds unacceptable). They'd look a lot better over this if they admitted that, rather than spinning like Lynda Carter. From the article in the OP: quote: As the photo circulated online, Briskman decided to tell Akima’s HR department what was happening when she went to work on Monday. By Tuesday, her bosses called her into a meeting and said she had violated the company’s social media policy by using the photo as her profile picture on Twitter and Facebook. “They said, ‘We’re separating from you,‘” said Briskman. “Basically, you cannot have ‘lewd’ or ‘obscene’ things in your social media. So they were calling flipping him off ‘obscene.’” [Bold Mine] Because she was fired the way she was fired, and for the reasons they stated, having a male co-worker not get fired for a post some (if not the majority; I've seen no polls, so I'm not claiming it to be so) would consider more "lewd or obscene" should set her up nicely for a lawsuit. So, "lewd and obscene" certainly do have something to do with this particular part of the thread. Only as an excuse, particularly as (as you say) a co worker who was soc-meding a lot lewder has not had his job threatened over it. The "lewd and obscene" excuse is bullshit: this is a political thing, and it's just being spun as about the other as that's a lot more acceptable as grounds for dismissal.

DesideriScuri -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/9/2017 4:17:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Only as an excuse, particularly as (as you say) a co worker who was soc-meding a lot lewder has not had his job threatened over it. The "lewd and obscene" excuse is bullshit: this is a political thing, and it's just being spun as about the other as that's a lot more acceptable as grounds for dismissal. And, as an excuse, it's likely to cost them, to her benefit. Had you read the article in the OP, they guy was reprimanded, but was allowed to delete the post and keep his job. I think they were wrong to can her for flipping off the Presidential motorcade. I don't know if there is any recourse for her if she was canned with that as the reason. But, they brought up the lewd and obscene social media stuff, and applied it, imo, unevenly. To me, that means she's getting a payday out of it (which was what Bounty and I were discussing).

bounty44 -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/9/2017 5:24:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 the questions of employer expectations on employees outside of work is an interesting and complex one isn't it? Indeed. It is a very complex one. Could a priest/minister/rabbi/imam belong to a site like this in their "off hours"? There's a ton of them, really. I'm on the side of: there must be some allowable limits, depending upon the job being done and the form of free speech (association) being exercised. I would not be in favor a police officer belonging to the KKK or Neo-Nazis as I posited, but by the same token, I would not be in favor of a person, sitting on a civilian review board belonging to Black Lies Natter. Peace, Michael i worked with a woman who was a flaming liberal, and we used to argue like heck on facebook, and then cross paths on campus throughout the week. i sometimes wonder had the administration (or any of our students) seen our conversations, what they might have done.

MasterDrakk -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/9/2017 5:26:56 PM)
Yes, many of us are not in favor of rightwing nutjobs who pretend to pass themselves off as of more value than pond scum belonging to society so we understand you, little mikey.

bounty44 -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/9/2017 5:30:02 PM)
so mnottertroll--im curious, you've been banned. what makes you think you don't have to abide by the rules?

MasterDrakk -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/9/2017 5:48:12 PM)
Who is this guy you are always talking about and when was he banned? do you have and proof of such a thing? I understand that many of your ilk have socks and post under them constantly. And I understand that there are some site glitches, people get switched to other profiles, and things missing, and mail not working and all sorts of other things, Now will there be some credible proof this time or will this be the 100s of FBI agents quitting redux part eleven from townhuckster? More importantly the real question I think, will the deranged rightwing nut jobs back ANOTHER pedophile, down there in Alabama?

WhoreMods -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/10/2017 5:02:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Only as an excuse, particularly as (as you say) a co worker who was soc-meding a lot lewder has not had his job threatened over it. The "lewd and obscene" excuse is bullshit: this is a political thing, and it's just being spun as about the other as that's a lot more acceptable as grounds for dismissal. And, as an excuse, it's likely to cost them, to her benefit. Had you read the article in the OP, they guy was reprimanded, but was allowed to delete the post and keep his job. I think they were wrong to can her for flipping off the Presidential motorcade. I don't know if there is any recourse for her if she was canned with that as the reason. But, they brought up the lewd and obscene social media stuff, and applied it, imo, unevenly. To me, that means she's getting a payday out of it (which was what Bounty and I were discussing). A reprimand is a token, at best: I've never held down a job where one was anything to worry about. Hence my saying that his job was not threatened, while she was fired.

DesideriScuri -> RE: I Thought This was Interesting (11/10/2017 7:55:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Only as an excuse, particularly as (as you say) a co worker who was soc-meding a lot lewder has not had his job threatened over it. The "lewd and obscene" excuse is bullshit: this is a political thing, and it's just being spun as about the other as that's a lot more acceptable as grounds for dismissal. And, as an excuse, it's likely to cost them, to her benefit. Had you read the article in the OP, they guy was reprimanded, but was allowed to delete the post and keep his job. I think they were wrong to can her for flipping off the Presidential motorcade. I don't know if there is any recourse for her if she was canned with that as the reason. But, they brought up the lewd and obscene social media stuff, and applied it, imo, unevenly. To me, that means she's getting a payday out of it (which was what Bounty and I were discussing). A reprimand is a token, at best: I've never held down a job where one was anything to worry about. Hence my saying that his job was not threatened, while she was fired. This might be a first. We're arguing the same point. [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875