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.