Friday, December 09, 2016
Leftist hate speech again
One Alabama man has lost his job after gloating over the “deplorables” who lost everything in the Gatlinburg wildfires. Hundreds of structures were burned, tens of thousands of people were evacuated and 14 people were killed.
His social media post: “Funny story. I was recently in Gatlinburg. Had a terrible time. I felt the place was a cesspool of consumerism and a bastion of the worst aspect of southern culture. Turns out a wildfire just burned most of the town to the ground. Good riddance, Gatlinburg. And good luck you mouth-breathing, toothless, diabetic, cousin-humpin,‘ mountain-dew chugging, moon-pie-munchin,’ pall-mall smoking,‘, Trump-suckin’ pond scum. (Chuckles and smiles like the smarmy liberal elitist I am.”
Express Oil Change and Tire Engineers, his now-former employer, said in a statement, “We are absolutely disgusted at what was posted, and want to emphasize that a person of this character does not represent who we are as a company. Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have been affected by the fires throughout the East Tennessee region, along with communities that were affected throughout the Southeast due to the recent drought. We want to offer our sincerest apologies that remarks like this were made.”
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I am NOT happy this man has lost his job - as it is not appropriate for an employer to punish employee speech or opinion when speaking as an individual.
If this man was not a "Public Face" of the company, his remarks had very little chance of actually affecting his employer's bottom line. That someone would be so vindictive as to publicize his employer in the hopes of getting him fired, they would be behaving just like the Liberals who's tactics we supposedly hate so much.
Yes, call him out on Twitter or Facebook for his egregious remarks, but let's not stoop to the level of the Left when we oppose someone or find their behavior deplorable.
When companies begin to monitor their employees political ideologies, they become the epitome of fascism.
I am tempted to go with Stan B except for the fact that what the guy posted shows what he has as an opinion of his fellow man and if he is in any kind of service industry proves he is unfit to provide service to others because he can and will readily despise them.
He will therefore not provide the level of service he could and may even act in a vindictive manner against those he should be serving which could end up dragging the reputation of the company he works for through the sewer that is his attitude.
Better he learn to modify his attitude in the school of hard knocks than he keep working where he is with such a poor view.
Stan has a point about firing someone for politics but the underlying attitude behind that political view say fire the bastard.
Whats ever become of Free Speech anymore Do we now have speech codes of worlds prophited becuase some sniveling little snowflake might get their delicate little feelings hurt? SNOWFLAKES GO PACK TO YOUR PLAYPENS NOW
Why does it hurt when I pee?
I am NOT happy this man has lost his job - as it is not appropriate for an employer to punish employee speech or opinion when speaking as an individual.
The counter to this would be whether his profile listed and he advertised on that profile as being employed by the company.
If you want to make statements like this, make sure your profile is devoid of any references to your employment, clubs, social groups, etc. That is the only way that people can know that you are speaking as an individual and not as an employee / club member.
When companies begin to monitor their employees political ideologies, they become the epitome of fascism.
I would agree yet many companies have in place social media policies that dictate that if you are going to be on social media that you disassociate yourself from the company.
While I get what StanB is saying, there are two critical things to remember:
1) Companies have policies in place for people who even speak to the media that they not identify themselves as an employee of a company lest they be seen as a spokesman for that company. I don't see an issue with that policy transferring over to social media.
2) In this case, the company was not monitoring the man's account. The post was brought to the attention of the company by other customers. It is therefore clear that the man had the name of the firm on his account and his comments would reflect on the company.
The bottom line is that while I support the right of the man to say stupid and ridiculous things, I also support to company's right to say "we don't want someone who thinks that people losing their homes and dying working for us."
Speech can be "free" and have consequences as well.
Free speech is a right. Being employed is not a right. Except for the legally protected classes, employers can choose who they want, for any reason they want. If you want to be stupid and rant like that, count the cost.
Employers have the right to free the future of employees whose conduct reflect badly on them. If this smarmy elitist liberal wanted to comment he could have done so in a manner that his company would not have been associated but since his post was sent to his employer this was not the case. Social media is a disease of the modern world and I personally want no part of it.
MDH
Response to Stan B:
I see your point about leftist tactics of censoring speech. Even repugnant speech. That said, as an employer, name revealed or not, I just cannot continue to employ someone that has such poor judgement. Both in thinking something so stupid but then to post it publicly. I'd fire them for stupidity alone. This is a person that WILL harm my company, they just need a bit more time.
Response to Bird of Paradise:
Well... to answer your question... free speech only applies to infringement by the government. But you knew that, didn't you? Or at least you should have.
You have the right to say what you want. I have the right to treat you accordingly.
Also, it sounds like you mistakenly equated "dealing with a jerk" to "having hurt feelings." They're not synonymous.
I agree with all here. If I had an employee that spewed such vitriol in his lounge to a few friends, that's entirely up to him. But if he did so in public or on public socialist media that impacts my company then it's a different story. Nobody needs an employee that hurts his own company image.
Just like truckies that have a "How's my driving?" sticker on the back. Doing anything stupid is detrimental to both themselves and their employer. In many cases, the truckie hasn't done anything wrong but his company still receives vexatious calls. The boss then needs to gather any evidence and weigh it up. But on social media, things said are easily recorded and duplicated for mass dissemination.
Who didn't cringe when Firefox dismissed CEO Brendan Eich because he supported and donated to Prop 8 - the pro-traditional-marriage law in California - even though over half the state AGREED with him (as demonstrated by the passage of the law)? That was a man who lost his job over speech (a political donation) that his company found "unacceptable!"
Who doesn't come unhinged when the left demands that their employees remain silent (or toe the line) on a variety of social issues? (mostly in the arena of LGBT "rights," but also on abortion, unlawful immigration, welfare, minimum wage, etc)
I am of the opinion that this man - speaking and writing away from his place of employment - was free to say what he wanted, and his employer's response should have been "talk to HIM about it!" And our response should have been just that!
Our society's commitment to free speech is tested and proven NOT by how well we defend popular, banal speech. It is measured on how well we defend the most vile, horrific speech from the lowest, most loathsome individuals!
As long as this guy did his job competently, did not disrupt his workplace, and went home at night after providing top customer service to every individual, we really shouldn't demand he lose his livelihood and become another ward of the state!
StanB,
The difference was that CEO Brendan Eich had identified himself as the CEO of Mozilla when he made those statements. As the CEO he represents the company and the shareholders found that those statements damaged the company.
If Eich had made the statements as a private citizen, I would be with you. The courts would be with you. Alas, as the statements made by Eich and this guy were made using and under their company name, the company is free to end that association.
As you bring up his workplace, are you of the opinion that his comments would not have disrupted the workplace? How does the company say "go see HIM," and then say to workers "don't see him while you work with him or on his breaks?"
I agree with you that as a society we must protect vile and horrific speech, but that doesn't mean that there are not consequences to that speech. If you want make vile comments, if you want to make racist statements, if you want to celebrate and mock the deaths of people, if you want to celebrate people losing their homes and use my company's name, I think I am well within my rights to say "you can't work here. Hit the road."
A person is free to make those statements but in essence you seem to be saying that a company who is identified as employing the person must continue their association with the individual at the expense of workplace harmony and at the expense of their business.
I am not sure that is a great idea.
Once again, if the guy had made the post as an individual and not posted the name of his company, I would be with his right to make the comments (no matter how stupid they are.) The moment he brings in the company, the company has a "say" in the matter as well..
6:05,
I think your comment was excellent. But I do have one quibble with it.
If I remember correctly, Brendon Eich did not make any statements about same-sex marriage. Rather he made a single personal donation (not Mozilla money) to a pro-Proposition 8 organization. This was only discovered due to LGBT fascists trolling through donation data looking for people to punish for their "thought crimes."
Liberals reject the constitution unless it allows them riot,llt and burn and call it Free Expression
Use the Name Luke,
I remember the case differently, but if you are correct then I support Eich's being able to donate to whatever cause he wants and say whatever he wants in a forum where his name is not attached to the company.
It seems clear to me: a private account where the company is not mentioned should be protected from retribution from the company. An account that brings the company into the post is fair game for a company to protect its name.
Anyone who loses their job becuase they said something that offends whining little snowflakes should sue over this its clearly a violation of Freedom of Speech
Darzee the Tailorbird,
"Freedom of speech" applies to government actions, not to actions by private citizens or groups. Then again, we suspect you know that and are just being ridiculous.
Post a Comment