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.

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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

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).

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)