Your Freedom of Speech and My Freedom to Fire You

Let's have a freedom festival! Yay! You're still fired!

Published on October 5, 2005 By greywar In Current Events

This is mainly in response to this article here.

Your freedom of expression is not exclusive. Freedom does in fact extend to businesses as well folks.

Your employer can refuse to spend it money on anything it likes. That is *it's* freedom of expression you see. You can be legitimately fired for saying things on your blog that you would be fired for saying on a street corner.

If you work at IBM and you stand out on the street telling people how much IBM sucks and that your boss blows chimps for fun and your boss walks by... guess what? You are fired and it is perfectly justified. Blogging is the exact same thing.

You have the freedom to say what you like and your boss has the freedom to fire your dumb ass.

Here is the thing... If you wouldn't say it to your boss's face, maybe you shouldn't put it on your blog? If you do thats fine just be prepared to take responsibility for your actions.

Frankly, you have to be some sort of moron to bitch about work on a blog your employer reads that can conclusively be tracked to you.

Honestly, I hate screeds claiming to be about freedom of speech that are really just rants against businesses and capitalism. Just say, "Workers of the world unite!", rant against the "Bourgeoisie Establishment" and wave the damn Hammer and Sickle. At least that I can respect for it's honesty.

Comments (Page 2)

ParaTed2k

on Oct 05, 2005

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.

Mr. Frog! Congratulations, you actually get it. If you don't want to accept the terms of employment, you have choices. Either try to negotiate more acceptable terms or say, "Thanks but no thanks.

People act like they have no choices in life.

greywar

on Oct 05, 2005

Unless they are shoving the poop back up the chute.........

that is foul....

Tova7

on Oct 05, 2005

Correct me if I am wrong (of course you will

)

Doesn't a military member sacrifice MANY of his/her basic constitutional rights when they put on the uniform?

The military is part of the gov. and the DOD tells them they can't protest in uniform, right? So for a time they sacrifice their free speech rights....and if they live on a military installation can security forces enter their residence without a warrant? Can they be ordered to open their home? Can they be ordered to talk to a counselor/social worker/civilian authority by a commander?

Just makes you go hmmmmm

Mr_Frog

on Oct 05, 2005

Mr. Frog! Congratulations, you actually get it. If you don't want to accept the terms of employment, you have choices. Either try to negotiate more acceptable terms or say, "Thanks but no thanks.

Yep, that's exactly what I was trying to say. First it's a drug test, next, you have to drive Dodge/Chrysler cars to work or park way out in the sticks (see: DaimlerChrysler parking policy stories from a few months back). Next thing you know, they're monitoring what you say on your blog, or firing you because you smoke.

Do *you* want to work for a company that takes that much interest in your personal life? I know I sure don't.

-- B

stutefish

on Oct 05, 2005

Of course they're making up the rules as they go along!

The first generation to see the Internet is still alive. The Internet disrupts social paradigms and systems of human interaction that have been in place for thousands of years.

It may well be another hundred years or so before we've even begun to figure out a new set of rules that even comes close to the stability and security that our old social rules gave us.

Everybody gets all excited about new technology and stuff, but this is the the tradeoff right here: an extended period of turmoil and confusion, as the technological progressives refuse to consider that society might not actually benefit from rapid change, and the technological luddites refuse to consider any kind of change at all, and the rest of us are generally too busy with our daily lives to really get involved in directing the evolution of our society.

So yeah, people who meddle in the Internet are going to find that they don't always get the results they expect, or the treatment they think they deserve.

You're in a business relationship with your employer. You wouldn't want to do business with someone who's not on the same page with you about your career goals and personal life. You certainly wouldn't want to do business with anybody who, through carelessness, malice, or greed was actively undermining your career goals and personal life.

And your employer is no different. So all you airline stewardesses out there need to ask yourself some hard questions. For example: What is more important to me: this newfangled "blog" thing, or a pleasant and profitable business relationship with my employer?

Because I guarantee that your employer is asking themselves the very same question about you, and their business goals don't really depend on your blog.

Or look at it this way: What company would hire a freelance reporter that insists on writing a weekly column about all aspects of his life, accessible to millions of readers, and free from any obligation to consult with his employer about what he says?

In reality, freelance reporters work as freelance reporters. You either work for the person paying you, or you work for yourself. Most employers are pretty strict about that rule, and most employment contracts include a cause prohibiting side jobs and moonlighting. Things that blur the line, such as blogs, tend to make employers nervous. So again, you gotta ask, what's more important? The blog, or a business partner that's getting nervous about your contributions to the partnership?

latour999

on Oct 05, 2005

I think one of the problems here is simply the fact that most corporations are basically Stalinist entities.

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.

I don't totally agree with this as it applies to business. For example, most of my co-workers know I'm a socialist. Are you saying that the management should have the right to fire me for my political opinions, even though I am doing my job to a good standard? I'm saying that we should be "judged" by our performance at work, not our opinions. As long as we aren't revealing company secrets (unless said company secret is they are dumping toxic waste into the drinking water) or being an asshole about things, there is no reason to fire anyone as long as the work is good.

Interestingly, this reminds me of the Dilbert in last Saturdays comics. The pointy haired boss comes in, and says "You've been saying bad things about work on your blog. you're fired." Some random employee replies with something to the effect of: "You can't fire me for what I say on my blog. I have freedom of expression. To fire me would be going against everything the founding fathers stood for! So you can't fire me unless my work isn't good."

"Your work isn't good. You're fired."

In the next pane he is carrying out a box of his stuff. "Stupid founding fathers."

and while I'm on the subject of businesses and capitalism, WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!!!!

stutefish

on Oct 05, 2005

Delicious irony!

Latour is a socialist who believes in freedom of speech. Let us quickly pass over all the people who tried to implement Socialism on a large scale, and discovered that freedom of speech was one of the first things that had to go.

Anyway, latour's employers probably don't give a rat's ass about his personal beliefs, so long as his work is good. But what happens when he has a side gig where he actively undermines his employer? Who would sign up for a business partner like that, no matter how good their work is? Who wouldn't jump at the opportunity to terminate a partnership where one partner was idiotic enough to spend half their time and energy furthering the partnership's goals, and the other half of their time and energy undermining the partnership's goals?

You want to post a series of articles criticizing your business partner, accessible to millions of people? Fine. Freedom of speech and all that. But don't come crying to me when your business partner decides that your heart isn't really in the partnership, and that they'd rather not do business with you any more.

greywar

on Oct 05, 2005

. damn double posts

greywar

on Oct 05, 2005

Are you saying that the management should have the right to fire me for my political opinions, even though I am doing my job to a good standard?

Latour- Where was that said anywhere here? Are your political beleifs along the lines of "My boss blows chimps!"? If so, then yes if your boss happens to read it... thanks for playing. Next time, perhaps you can respond to the issues *in* the article?

Doesn't a military member sacrifice MANY of his/her basic constitutional rights when they put on the uniform?

The military is part of the gov. and the DOD tells them they can't protest in uniform, right? So for a time they sacrifice their free speech rights....and if they live on a military installation can security forces enter their residence without a warrant? Can they be ordered to open their home? Can they be ordered to talk to a counselor/social worker/civilian authority by a commander?

yes to all of these... exactly what is your point besides the obvious bit that folks in the military have a considerably more restrictive life than civlians? As a military member you can't quit over these issues either. Frankly, the military is basically a communist/socialist organization at its heart. As a result it functions very inefficiently.

chiprj

on Oct 05, 2005

The military is part of the gov. and the DOD tells them they can't protest in uniform, right? So for a time they sacrifice their free speech rights

Not being able to show up to a protest in uniform is not an infringement on any rights. It's the difference between expressing your personal opinion and being a representative of the US military and government. I can express my opinion on my own time in almost any way I wish, just not as a representative of the military. If I'm wearing my uniform, I am exactly that.

In fact, a recent order commanding forbidding service members to attend a series of anti-war rallies in California was rescinded specifically because it was not right. It was changed to read that service members were encouraged not to attend for safety reasons. If they want to attend, they can, but have to do it as private citizens, not representatives of the government. Attending in uniform would not only be wrong but would also make them a target for violence. Not all anti-war protesters would be eager for a Forestt Gump type scene.

and if they live on a military installation can security forces enter their residence without a warrant? Can they be ordered to open their home? Can they be ordered to talk to a counselor/social worker/civilian authority by a commander?

The UCMJ offers protection to military members in very much the same way local laws do. Military members constitutional rights are protected. We do submit to drug tests. Warrants are required to conduct searches of housing. Commanders can make stops by on post housing or barracks but it can be for no reason other than to make sure the standard of living is ok. If cocaine was found laying out on the dining room table, it could not be used against the member because we are protected against illegal search and seizure. There is a grey line that gets blurred sometimes. Unit commanders can't target individuals without probably cause, but they can use a 100% unit sweep in order to get at someone they suspect. Vehicle searches to get on post are usually random and you don't have to have it done, you just can't get on base without it. Again, it's not targetting any individual, it's random. Counseling can be ordered by commanders, but again, they have to have cause to do it. And there are military lawyers who serve as advocates to the members on base and those advocates are kept in a separate chain of command from the prosecuting lawyers, in order to keep out any conflicts of interest.

greywar

on Oct 05, 2005

Not being able to show up to a protest in uniform is not an infringement on any rights.

Especially since you enter into a contract giving up those rights when you enlist. Same goes for "indecency cluses" in civlian contracts. Ask Kobe about that shit.

Dr Guy

on Oct 05, 2005

think one of the problems here is simply the fact that most corporations are basically Stalinist entities.

Stalin did not sign contracts, so your analogy is false. There is no forced servitude in the United States any longer. You agree to work for a company based on their rules in exchange for their agreeing to pay you a certain amount. In other words, a contract.

stutefish

on Oct 05, 2005

Wow. I can't believe I missed the whole "corporations are basically Stalinist entities" thing.

In what way are corporations "Stalinist", latour? I'm curious to know the socialist theory that leads you to this conclusion.

Dr Guy

on Oct 05, 2005

In what way are corporations "Stalinist", latour? I'm curious to know the socialist theory that leads you to this conclusion.

The Gulags that pass for lunchrooms?

greywar

on Oct 05, 2005

In what way are corporations "Stalinist", latour?

Obviously they conduct killing purges against employees and their families! hadn't you heard?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!