I feel bad for that bicycle seat. Her? Not whatsoever. Sometimes being a nasty pig gets you fired.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Where does her company's handbook say that they govern your conduct outside of work hours? If I were to choose to flip the President (or anyone) the bird while off work and I didn't represent myself as a member of my company, I'd sue the living crap out of anyone who used that as justification to fire me.

---

My company's claim to my actions starts at 8 and ends around 5. Corporate ownership of an employee is not capitalism, it's slavery.

Oh whatever, you don't have a right to your job no matter much people want to believe that. NFL players are learning that, you will too.

I don't have a right to my job, no, and my employer has no right to my free time. What I do between 5 PM and 8 AM is my business, so long as I don't represent myself as speaking for the company during that time frame. So long as what I'm doing during my off hours doesn't interfere with what I do during the workday, frankly, it's none of my boss's [BLEEP] business.

---

Exactly. You can treat the robots like that when we are replaced

---

They weren't wearing anything that could possibly link them to the company. I would probably be amused if i saw my employee get caught doing this if no company branding. Since when did companies get to control you in your own free time? Orwell would be proud.

Agreed. If i were her employer, I would've given her a high five.

---

She exercised her right to freedom of expression.  The private company that she worked for exercised their right to fire her for violating their rules.

---

Since employment is voluntary she can do what she likes and so can they. Why should an employer be forced to retain an employee they don't want? Oh, I forgot you guys dont really like the concept of ownership, no communist ever does.

My company's claim to my actions starts at 8 and ends around 5. Corporate ownership of an employee is not capitalism, it's slavery.

Are you suggesting the NFL's drug policy, which extends beyond the playing field and applies in jurisdictions where such usage is legal, constitutes an act of slavery?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

That's such a beautiful lesson to teach the already weak-minded children of today - it's okay to flip off someone you don't agree with instead of engage in a rational, logical conversation with people who don't think like you but are nonetheless just as valid a human being as you? Guess which of those actions require more fortitude and intelligence? It's not the bird.

---

Oh whatever, you don't have a right to your job no matter much people want to believe that. NFL players are learning that, you will too.

I don't have a right to my job, no, and my employer has no right to my free time. What I do between 5 PM and 8 AM is my business, so long as I don't represent myself as speaking for the company during that time frame. So long as what I'm doing during my off hours doesn't interfere with what I do during the workday, frankly, it's none of my boss's [BLEEP] business.

---

They weren't wearing anything that could possibly link them to the company. I would probably be amused if i saw my employee get caught doing this if no company branding. Since when did companies get to control you in your own free time? Orwell would be proud.

Agreed. If i were her employer, I would've given her a high five.

That's your prerogative, that's how a free society works.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That's such a beautiful lesson to teach the already weak-minded children of today - it's okay to flip off someone you don't agree with instead of engage in a rational, logical conversation with people who don't think like you but are nonetheless just as valid a human being as you? Guess which of those actions require more fortitude and intelligence? It's not the bird.

That would be fine if our current president was able to or interested in engaging in a rational, logical conversation about the issues, but he either can't or he wont. Instead, he resorts to name-calling, bullying or he goes off on a braggadocious tangent in order to divert from the question he was asked, because he doesn't know the answer or even the policy. When dealing with people like this, the opposition gets frustrated and ends up sinking to his level. That's just human nature. It's like trying to discuss foreign policy with a toddler.

---

---

My company's claim to my actions starts at 8 and ends around 5. Corporate ownership of an employee is not capitalism, it's slavery.

Are you suggesting the NFL's drug policy, which extends beyond the playing field and applies in jurisdictions where such usage is legal, constitutes an act of slavery?

Yes and no. If a person's quality of work is going downhill, a company has the right to fire them for it. If their work is going downhill because they're crackheads off the clock, then it stands to reason that a company could indirectly fire them for being a crackhead. If a person shows up to work impaired by drugs or alcohol, the employer has a right to fire them on the spot for any number of reasons. Likewise, if an employee is at work and has drugs in their possession, and the presence of those drugs can be proven in a way that doesn't involve physically searching the employee, they're gone. If the employee's work quality is good, they're not coming to work impaired and they're not bringing drugs to work, they should be able to sit at home and snort coke from 6 PM to 3 AM if they so choose. This is, of course, assuming they're not out at a club wearing their company polo and cutting lines with their business card.

The NFL has a slightly different set of rules in my mind because of PEDs. If a player is proven to have taken PEDs or be linked to those who manufacture or sell them, it is very much the NFL's business, as their off-the-field actions create an unfair competitive advantage when on it.

---

Are you suggesting the NFL's drug policy, which extends beyond the playing field and applies in jurisdictions where such usage is legal, constitutes an act of slavery?

Yes and no. If a person's quality of work is going downhill, a company has the right to fire them for it. If their work is going downhill because they're crackheads off the clock, then it stands to reason that a company could indirectly fire them for being a crackhead. If a person shows up to work impaired by drugs or alcohol, the employer has a right to fire them on the spot for any number of reasons. Likewise, if an employee is at work and has drugs in their possession, and the presence of those drugs can be proven in a way that doesn't involve physically searching the employee, they're gone. If the employee's work quality is good, they're not coming to work impaired and they're not bringing drugs to work, they should be able to sit at home and snort coke from 6 PM to 3 AM if they so choose. This is, of course, assuming they're not out at a club wearing their company polo and cutting lines with their business card.

The NFL has a slightly different set of rules in my mind because of PEDs. If a player is proven to have taken PEDs or be linked to those who manufacture or sell them, it is very much the NFL's business, as their off-the-field actions create an unfair competitive advantage when on it.

Let's assume it's not PED's and it has no effect on the employee's production.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Yes and no. If a person's quality of work is going downhill, a company has the right to fire them for it. If their work is going downhill because they're crackheads off the clock, then it stands to reason that a company could indirectly fire them for being a crackhead. If a person shows up to work impaired by drugs or alcohol, the employer has a right to fire them on the spot for any number of reasons. Likewise, if an employee is at work and has drugs in their possession, and the presence of those drugs can be proven in a way that doesn't involve physically searching the employee, they're gone. If the employee's work quality is good, they're not coming to work impaired and they're not bringing drugs to work, they should be able to sit at home and snort coke from 6 PM to 3 AM if they so choose. This is, of course, assuming they're not out at a club wearing their company polo and cutting lines with their business card.

The NFL has a slightly different set of rules in my mind because of PEDs. If a player is proven to have taken PEDs or be linked to those who manufacture or sell them, it is very much the NFL's business, as their off-the-field actions create an unfair competitive advantage when on it.

Let's assume it's not PED's and it has no effect on the employee's production.

As long as it's not being brought to work or affecting the employee's job performance (yes, being in jail and/or rehab counts as affecting job performance), it's none of the employer's business. The caveat to that is at-will employment, in which case an employer is free to make personnel decisions on just about any basis they choose to.

---

Pretty sure I'd get fired for publicaly making political statements that put my company in a bad light. Its the world we live in.

---

They weren't wearing anything that could possibly link them to the company. I would probably be amused if i saw my employee get caught doing this if no company branding. Since when did companies get to control you in your own free time? Orwell would be proud.

Since employment is voluntary she can do what she likes and so can they. Why should an employer be forced to retain an employee they don't want? Oh, I forgot you guys dont really like the concept of ownership, no communist ever does.

Well, it depends on her state (I didn't look to see what state she lives in).  In some cases, she may have grounds for a lawsuit but I get what people are saying.  Standards of conduct, rabble, rabble.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

I fired an employee who broke my rules about the Jags tickets I purchase and let my employees use. They are for their personal use only and they are told that. This dude sold two of the tickets. To opposing fans none the less. I terminated him the following Monday. Companies are allowed by law to enact rules and regulations that if broken become legitimate reasons for termination.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Let's assume it's not PED's and it has no effect on the employee's production.

As long as it's not being brought to work or affecting the employee's job performance (yes, being in jail and/or rehab counts as affecting job performance), it's none of the employer's business. The caveat to that is at-will employment, in which case an employer is free to make personnel decisions on just about any basis they choose to.

You're exactly right about at-will employment.  An individual can be terminated at any time for any (non-discriminatory) reason.  That being the case, a public gesture such as giving the President the finger, isn't a very bright thing to do.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

As long as it's not being brought to work or affecting the employee's job performance (yes, being in jail and/or rehab counts as affecting job performance), it's none of the employer's business. The caveat to that is at-will employment, in which case an employer is free to make personnel decisions on just about any basis they choose to.

You're exactly right about at-will employment.  An individual can be terminated at any time for any (non-discriminatory) reason.  That being the case, a public gesture such as giving the President the finger, isn't a very bright thing to do.

There's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. If an employer feels the need to get rid of that employee, the right way to do it is wait a couple weeks, take responsibilities away, make their days more and more miserable, and if they haven't quit on their own in a month or given you bulletproof cause to fire them (the watercooler is a dangerous place), just unceremoniously eliminate their position, wait a month, invent a new title for the same job and go hire someone. You're stuck paying unemployment, sure, but sometimes unemployment is a whole lot cheaper than dealing with a labor attorney who thinks he's going to get Labor Day renamed after himself by bending you over a chair. It's not hard to make a problem employee go away without having to tiptoe around the disciplinary process or deal with litigious questions about why.

---

You're exactly right about at-will employment.  An individual can be terminated at any time for any (non-discriminatory) reason.  That being the case, a public gesture such as giving the President the finger, isn't a very bright thing to do.

There's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. If an employer feels the need to get rid of that employee, the right way to do it is wait a couple weeks, take responsibilities away, make their days more and more miserable, and if they haven't quit on their own in a month or given you bulletproof cause to fire them (the watercooler is a dangerous place), just unceremoniously eliminate their position, wait a month, invent a new title for the same job and go hire someone. You're stuck paying unemployment, sure, but sometimes unemployment is a whole lot cheaper than dealing with a labor attorney who thinks he's going to get Labor Day renamed after himself by bending you over a chair. It's not hard to make a problem employee go away without having to tiptoe around the disciplinary process or deal with litigious questions about why.

You’d pay an employee several weeks worth of money while slowly decreasing their productivity all in an effort to fire them more discretely? She violated her contract? If they retain her then they give her grounds to argue that it wasn’t in violation of the contract since they kept her for weeks / months. Besides, there’s nothing to argue here. If she chooses to contest this in court, there’s nothing they could’ve done to avoid it.

---

There's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. If an employer feels the need to get rid of that employee, the right way to do it is wait a couple weeks, take responsibilities away, make their days more and more miserable, and if they haven't quit on their own in a month or given you bulletproof cause to fire them (the watercooler is a dangerous place), just unceremoniously eliminate their position, wait a month, invent a new title for the same job and go hire someone. You're stuck paying unemployment, sure, but sometimes unemployment is a whole lot cheaper than dealing with a labor attorney who thinks he's going to get Labor Day renamed after himself by bending you over a chair. It's not hard to make a problem employee go away without having to tiptoe around the disciplinary process or deal with litigious questions about why.

You’d pay an employee several weeks worth of money while slowly decreasing their productivity all in an effort to fire them more discretely? She violated her contract? If they retain her then they give her grounds to argue that it wasn’t in violation of the contract since they kept her for weeks / months. Besides, there’s nothing to argue here. If she chooses to contest this in court, there’s nothing they could’ve done to avoid it.

Whoosh.

The point is that in a highly-publicized, highly-politicized case like this, attorneys will smell blood in the water. There are ways, if the company decides to tread the thin red line of when personal actions begin and employer duties end, to make this go away quietly. The HR equivalent of a public execution is not one of them.

---

Yeah as be careful with social media. As it can come back to bite ya in the rear! As it did that woman!

---

Ready for May Day and May Flowers!

You’d pay an employee several weeks worth of money while slowly decreasing their productivity all in an effort to fire them more discretely? She violated her contract? If they retain her then they give her grounds to argue that it wasn’t in violation of the contract since they kept her for weeks / months. Besides, there’s nothing to argue here. If she chooses to contest this in court, there’s nothing they could’ve done to avoid it.

Whoosh.

The point is that in a highly-publicized, highly-politicized case like this, attorneys will smell blood in the water. There are ways, if the company decides to tread the thin red line of when personal actions begin and employer duties end, to make this go away quietly. The HR equivalent of a public execution is not one of them.

No idea why that’s a whoosh moment. I understood your point. This wasn’t highly politicized until she made it so after being terminated, and you’re using hindsight to make that decision. It’s your opinion that there are better options. I couldn’t do disagree more. She made the picture her profile picture on Facebook , and their contract says not to post incendiary comments to social media. She did and was fired. Waiting only makes it appear as though you’re terminating her for something else, and that would give her grounds to argue that they fired her for something not in her contract.

---