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.

You assume they want it quiet, they might not.

---

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

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.

Indeed he would, but you are absolutely wrong that companies can't fire you for stuff done on your own time. Every hospital I ever worked at has made it quite clear they can and will do this to their employees.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

Look, the nasty pig worked for a company that carried out government contracts.


SHE FLIPPED THE GOVERNMENT A [BLEEP] BIRD FINGER!!


As the POTUS once said a time or two. "You're fired!!".

---

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

 

 

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.

Why should an employer bother to go through such a process?  She chose to make a statement by giving the President the finger, which she had the legal right to do.  Her employer chose to make a statement by terminating her for the action, which it the legal right to do.

I applaud the company's decision.  All too often nowdays, people seem to think they can act without consequence.  Hopefully she learned a valuable life-lesson.

---

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

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.

Why should an employer bother to go through such a process?  She chose to make a statement by giving the President the finger, which she had the legal right to do.  Her employer chose to make a statement by terminating her for the action, which it the legal right to do.

I applaud the company's decision.  All too often nowdays, people seem to think they can act without consequence.  Hopefully she learned a valuable life-lesson.

And I condemn their cowardice. If an employee chooses to flip off the President while wearing her company sweater, fire her. If she's on her own time and not representing herself as a member of the company when doing so, who cares? Employment begins at 8 and ends at 5.

---

Why should an employer bother to go through such a process?  She chose to make a statement by giving the President the finger, which she had the legal right to do.  Her employer chose to make a statement by terminating her for the action, which it the legal right to do.

I applaud the company's decision.  All too often nowdays, people seem to think they can act without consequence.  Hopefully she learned a valuable life-lesson.

And I condemn their cowardice. If an employee chooses to flip off the President while wearing her company sweater, fire her. If she's on her own time and not representing herself as a member of the company when doing so, who cares? Employment begins at 8 and ends at 5.

Clearly they do and they took steps to remedy the problem.

---

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

Why should an employer bother to go through such a process?  She chose to make a statement by giving the President the finger, which she had the legal right to do.  Her employer chose to make a statement by terminating her for the action, which it the legal right to do.

I applaud the company's decision.  All too often nowdays, people seem to think they can act without consequence.  Hopefully she learned a valuable life-lesson.

And I condemn their cowardice. If an employee chooses to flip off the President while wearing her company sweater, fire her. If she's on her own time and not representing herself as a member of the company when doing so, who cares? Employment begins at 8 and ends at 5.

She violated her contract. Why do you keep ignoring that?

---

And I condemn their cowardice. If an employee chooses to flip off the President while wearing her company sweater, fire her. If she's on her own time and not representing herself as a member of the company when doing so, who cares? Employment begins at 8 and ends at 5.

She violated her contract. Why do you keep ignoring that?

Was she wearing a company sweater? Was she shouting, "F you on behalf of my employer"? Did she post it to the company's LinkedIn page and caption it with, "This is what X company thinks of Trump"? No?

Then it's none of the company's business. Things done on an employees private time that aren't under the guise of employment should not be subject to employer sanctions. It's the same reason that the guy who cussed out the Chick-Fil-A employee should still be employed. Social media is toxic in this regard. It used to be "that crazy guy who came in here shouting at me." Now that shouting match is on Facebook and YouTube, and someone recognizes that guy and gives out his name, and others jump in with his address and employer. The employer is now caught in the crosshairs, and that's when the employee's rights end up violated.

Being an employee is not cause for termination of employment. I don't get what's so complicated about that.

---

She violated her contract. Why do you keep ignoring that?

Was she wearing a company sweater? Was she shouting, "F you on behalf of my employer"? Did she post it to the company's LinkedIn page and caption it with, "This is what X company thinks of Trump"? No?

Then it's none of the company's business. Things done on an employees private time that aren't under the guise of employment should not be subject to employer sanctions. It's the same reason that the guy who cussed out the Chick-Fil-A employee should still be employed. Social media is toxic in this regard. It used to be "that crazy guy who came in here shouting at me." Now that shouting match is on Facebook and YouTube, and someone recognizes that guy and gives out his name, and others jump in with his address and employer. The employer is now caught in the crosshairs, and that's when the employee's rights end up violated.

Being an employee is not cause for termination of employment. I don't get what's so complicated about that.

Being an employee who has a contract that states she cannot publicly embarrass the employer who then does in fact publicly embarrass the employer is cause for termination of employment. I don't understand why you don't seem to want to understand that simple fact. Oh wait, it's devastating to your gripe, so I guess I do.

---

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

She violated her contract. Why do you keep ignoring that?

Was she wearing a company sweater? Was she shouting, "F you on behalf of my employer"? Did she post it to the company's LinkedIn page and caption it with, "This is what X company thinks of Trump"? No?

Then it's none of the company's business. Things done on an employees private time that aren't under the guise of employment should not be subject to employer sanctions. It's the same reason that the guy who cussed out the Chick-Fil-A employee should still be employed. Social media is toxic in this regard. It used to be "that crazy guy who came in here shouting at me." Now that shouting match is on Facebook and YouTube, and someone recognizes that guy and gives out his name, and others jump in with his address and employer. The employer is now caught in the crosshairs, and that's when the employee's rights end up violated.

Being an employee is not cause for termination of employment. I don't get what's so complicated about that.

You’re upset with the employer because she signed a contract which dictates behavior out of the work place, but only when it negatively affects the employer, because she wasn’t at the work place when she displayed negative behavior? Seems like you should be more upset that she signed a contract which tells her how to behave when she isn’t working than the employer for upholding the contract.

---

He's never had to sign a contract with any company he's worked for - that much is clear.

---

Why should an employer bother to go through such a process?  She chose to make a statement by giving the President the finger, which she had the legal right to do.  Her employer chose to make a statement by terminating her for the action, which it the legal right to do.

I applaud the company's decision.  All too often nowdays, people seem to think they can act without consequence.  Hopefully she learned a valuable life-lesson.

And I condemn their cowardice. If an employee chooses to flip off the President while wearing her company sweater, fire her. If she's on her own time and not representing herself as a member of the company when doing so, who cares? Employment begins at 8 and ends at 5.

Cowardice?  There was nothing cowardly about the manner in which she was discharged.  The company made no effort to create an excuse or conceal their true reasons for doing so. 

You clearly don't agree with the company's actions, which is your privilege.  Their legal right to terminate however, is indisputable.  Again, this is really no different than the NFL's (or any other professional sports) policy regarding off-the-field conduct.

---

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

The only cowardly act was her, giving the President of the United States, the finger. What a child.

---

Good, liberals getting a taste of the fascism they love so much. Democrats always want to be treated differently than the rest of us.

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"