Active Now

Malizz
Discussion » Questions » Jobs » Should someone lose their job over this?
DCLXVI

Should someone lose their job over this?

Posted - November 6, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 34436
    Deflection....
      November 7, 2017 4:09 AM MST
    0

  • 135
    What is good for the goose is good for the gander, if the lady gets sacked for bringing her company in disrepute then what should be the penalty for bringing her country into disrepute?
      November 7, 2017 11:04 AM MST
    0

  • 34436
    Trump does not for a company. "We the people"can fire him in 2020. But not because a politican made someone mad...they would all be fired. Lol
      November 7, 2017 11:29 AM MST
    0

  • 44649
    If she was flipping off the President, she should be given a key to the City.
      November 6, 2017 4:08 PM MST
    5

  • 10052
    I found this on Huffpost: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/woman-flips-off-donald-trump-fired_us_

    "Virginia is an employment-at-will state, meaning employers can fire people anytime and for any reason. But Briskman said what’s been particularly infuriating is that a male colleague kept his job after recently posting lewd comments on his Facebook page that featured Akima LLC as his cover photo. She said this colleague was reprimanded for calling someone “a f*cking Libtard as$hole” on Facebook, but was allowed to delete the post and keep his job."

    It sounds to me like this woman would be wasting her time and money with a lawsuit, and will be better off working elsewhere. Here's hoping that karma gives this fascist company what's coming to them. 

      November 6, 2017 4:10 PM MST
    3

  • 135
    As someone above commented 'She violated company policy', makes you wonder why they bother making a company policy if they can just fire people anytime and for any reason. Laws that allow companies to treat their staff like that have no place in today's society. 
      November 6, 2017 4:58 PM MST
    1

  • I think it's BS on an employers part myself.  Just like when some guy got fired for making a drunken spectacle of himself on his own time at a Buffalo Bills game a few years ago.
    However it's like Ansley said.  It's Employment at will and in the end I think an employer as an owner of a business has the right to hire and fire anyone for whatever reason they want even if it's a stupid one. 
      November 6, 2017 5:07 PM MST
    0

  • 135
    An employer may have a legal right to fire someone but anyone who fires someone in a situation like this is not acting morally (in my opinion of morals) given the very real hardship that the employee may suffer from such action being taken. If I was in the position to offer this lady a job then I would, based on her integrity alone.
      November 6, 2017 7:37 PM MST
    1

  • As stated I think it's BS on there part and ignorant, however I still think employment-at-will is the best and least problematic way to go.
      November 6, 2017 7:48 PM MST
    1

  • 135
    I realise that we see this differently, from my point of view there are or at least should be responsibilities on both employer and employee and the E A W only places responsibility on the employee. Especially when you consider the hypocrisy of the company when:

    'Because Briskman was in charge of the firm’s social-media presence during her six-month tenure there, she recently flagged something that did link her company to some pretty ugly stuff.
    As she was monitoring Facebook this summer, she found a public comment by a senior director at the company in an otherwise civil discussion by one of his employees about the Black Lives Matter movement.
    “You’re a f------ Libtard a------,” the director injected, using his profile that clearly and repeatedly identifies himself as an employee of the firm.
    In fact, the person he aimed that comment at was so offended by the intrusion into the conversation and the coarse nature of it that he challenged the director on representing Akima that way.
    So Briskman flagged the exchange to senior management. Did the man, a middle-aged executive who had been with the company for seven years, get the old “Section 4.3” boot? Nope. He cleaned up the comment, spit-shined his public profile and kept on trucking at work.
    But the single mother of two teens who made an impulsive gesture while on her bike on her day off?

    Adios, amiga.

      November 6, 2017 8:07 PM MST
    1

  • Yeah we do differ, and that's okay.
    It's not her company to dictate and no one owes us anything. Though I agree that based on this limited info gathered the employer sounds like an azzhat POS.
      November 6, 2017 8:13 PM MST
    0

  • 135
    At least we can agree on that point, a grade one azzhat. 
      November 6, 2017 8:22 PM MST
    0

  • 19937
    In fairness, according to the article, the employer gave her the opportunity to delete the photo and she refused.
      November 6, 2017 9:30 PM MST
    1

  • 135
    Not in the article I read www.washingtonpost.com/local/she-flipped-off-president-trump--and-got-fired-from-her-government-contracting-job/2017/11/06/4cf1af9a-c2da-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a945211fb059 but even if they did, what she does in her off duty hours as long as she is not breaking any laws has nothing to do with the company unless it is linked to them, which this is not.
    .
      November 7, 2017 12:04 AM MST
    1

  • 11089
    In my experience, employers are sometimes looking for a reason to fire marginal employees. I don't know if that's true in this case, but it can explain discrepancies in who does and doesn't lose their job for comparable offenses.
      November 7, 2017 3:54 AM MST
    1

  • 7280
    Not on the job and not in any uniform---it would appear that her status was that of a private citizen who exercised her right to make a public comment.

    Maybe, as an employee of a government contractor, there is some provision in The Hatch Act that she ran afoul of.  

    The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of that branch,[1] from engaging in some forms of political activity. It went into law on August 2, 1939. The law was named for Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico. It was most recently amended in 2012.[2]

    (Wikipedia)
      November 7, 2017 11:26 AM MST
    0

  • 3463
    With all the things Trump has done, he is lucky that all she did was flip him off.
      November 7, 2017 11:28 AM MST
    1