Super80Fan wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So, basically, it comes down to:

Why is everyone upset that I like and share a picture of Obama portrayed as a monkey? I have First Amendment rights!

vs.

Thank the white, blonde, English speaking God she got fired for giving the finger to our dear leader Trump! "Liberals" just need to shut up and accept that the First Amendment has limitations.

You really don't get it.

Both are perfectly fine and legal.

You really don't get it.

The outrage is disproportionate. You righties were outraged for portraying Obama as a monkey because "free speech" and being called out on racism but are "meh" over this woman being fired for flipping the bird at tRump.

BobPatterson wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

You really don't get it.

Both are perfectly fine and legal. I defend this woman's actions to flip off Trump. That is not what this is about. You can have blown of pictures of Trump or Obama with bullet-holes in their heads on your lawn for all I care. The government can't and won't come after you, just like it should be. That doesn't mean however that your employer has to agree with you/keep you on. It is perfectly within their right to let you go for a valid reason/putting the company in a negative light, especially if you are in a "right to work" state.

Why is that? Why are corporations so special? Why can they fire you and not violate your rights in Right To Works States? Why would anyone defend Corporations when they have special protection given to them by our state governments. Are they Special? Are they above the law? They are obviously above the law in Right to Work States. Why is that, are the people dumb? The corporation has all the power and the people are afraid to Unionize, have they no backbone or are they that ignorant. I have always wondered how people can be that cowardly.

What gives you the ideas that corporations are "above" state or national labor laws?

YOUR 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney "Corporations are people, my friend!" That's what. Because YOUR candidate said that out loud, YOU ALL decided it was acceptable for corporations to be better and bigger than their workers.

BobPatterson wrote:

In the USA a HUGE number of people have been fingerprinted in order to be employed, work with children, etc.

and here employers trying to pull that stunt get laughed out of court, unless they can make a pretty good case, which they almost never can."Money" or "Profit" or "losing turnover" isn´t one. If you have to work in a building on the customer side that has a fingerprint entry system and requires suppliers to use it as well, your boss has to let that order go or get you to agree voluntarily.

I see no reason why everyone should not be fingerprinted.

Lets make a deal, if we ever happen to meet at an a.net meeting or so, i´ll take your fingerprint and make you a nice little latex copy that will fool most scanners and each and every CSI team. Scanners can look for blood vessels under the skin, CSI can´t.
Adding DNA to the national database would also be a good think IMHO.[/quote]

Collecting data without proper justification and being a free democratic society are mutely exclusive. Our supreme court realized as early as 1983 that in the age of Computer technology data collection has potentially threatening dimension because such data collections could be used to comprehensively map individual behaviour. Almost 35 years later the US still hasn´t caught on, luckily most other western countries have. But then again, after the quantum leap the US constitution and bill of rights was at its time, the US hasn´t really been on the forefront of human rights since and, especially when it comes to labor related law, is pretty much among the dead last. Freaking Afghanistan has paid vacation (24 or 25 days), paid maternity leave. But no universal health insurance, just like Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria and the USA....

That is probably why you have Equifax, Yahoo and so on data leaks all the freaking time, and it is fairly rare here. The mindset seems to be the problem.

best regards
Thomas

seb146 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So, basically, it comes down to:

Why is everyone upset that I like and share a picture of Obama portrayed as a monkey? I have First Amendment rights!

vs.

Thank the white, blonde, English speaking God she got fired for giving the finger to our dear leader Trump! "Liberals" just need to shut up and accept that the First Amendment has limitations.

You really don't get it.

Both are perfectly fine and legal.

You really don't get it.

The outrage is disproportionate. You righties were outraged for portraying Obama as a monkey because "free speech" and being called out on racism but are "meh" over this woman being fired for flipping the bird at tRump.

Are we still playing the "I'm a rightie" card? Whatever helps you sleep at night. I defend both but agree that actions have consequences, especially from your employer, where you agreed to follow their rules when you willingly signed up for a job there. Don't like their policies, go to a different company or start your own.

Flighty wrote:

If you stand on a podium making a profane speech to the nation, with your name attached, if your employer doesn't like it, they can fire you. Pretty sure I would have been fired too just if I got photographed in the paper disrespecting the president using a vulgar gesture. I get that you're not necessarily a company representative in your off-time and you aren't being paid for that time. But, a journalist will write that you are such and such at Company X. And then you do represent the company. And that was the case here.

Plus, if you are salaried or any kind of executive, you are kind of paid to fulfill certain responsibilities 24/7. I think the company was within bounds to fire her.

They are able to fire anyone if they do in fact have some kind of social media policy which many companies are now implementing because social media photos and posts can ruin a companies image. I don't know about the US and aware it can vary state by state but in Canada it is often easier to terminate without cause and package the employee off because if you try and fire with cause then you can be sent to court often and then the employer has to prove that they put in effort to coach and improve the employee's performance.

This company is going to face trouble because of another employee saying things controversial on social media and wasn't punished and indeed I think that business are taking it too far and facing backlash.

Teachers have been fired for having a good time at a resort in Cancun (something everyone does) and in Toronto a man was fired for chanting an questionable phrase at a sporting event on camera (he was fired and was re-instated after the public employer was going to be taken to the cleaners in court). I remember a girl I met in Australia specifically told me not to post any photos of her in a bikini on Facebook for that reason and that was in 2009. I have been told to remove a non-controversial comment about my employer on facebook to ensure I didn't get in trouble, the fact is we are all in fishbowls today.

The silver lining to this is that when you feel a company has wronged you as a client if you want to get what you want from them take it to Twitter and bash them. Someone will talk to you about the issue and work resolve it which gives consumers a lot of power.

BobPatterson wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

You really don't get it.

Both are perfectly fine and legal. I defend this woman's actions to flip off Trump. That is not what this is about. You can have blown of pictures of Trump or Obama with bullet-holes in their heads on your lawn for all I care. The government can't and won't come after you, just like it should be. That doesn't mean however that your employer has to agree with you/keep you on. It is perfectly within their right to let you go for a valid reason/putting the company in a negative light, especially if you are in a "right to work" state.

Why is that? Why are corporations so special? Why can they fire you and not violate your rights in Right To Works States? Why would anyone defend Corporations when they have special protection given to them by our state governments. Are they Special? Are they above the law? They are obviously above the law in Right to Work States. Why is that, are the people dumb? The corporation has all the power and the people are afraid to Unionize, have they no backbone or are they that ignorant. I have always wondered how people can be that cowardly.

What gives you the ideas that corporations are "above" state or national labor laws?



As with any other laws, if you don't like labor laws then work to have them changed.

Where I live, we have decent labor laws, not great, but livable. They are sure better than most of the Red States for damn sure. I do not know if you have not noticed our corrupted government such as the US Congress and many state legislatures. We have a corrupted legislature here to some extent, but we cannot be fired at will here. One does not usually have to kiss ass to keep ones job as in At Will states. (At Will). (Corporations wet dream) Seems to me that corporations while not above the law, because the laws were legally passed to accommodate and intimidate. Accommodate the corporation, and intimidate the worker. Now if one is very naive, one might believe in equal rights for workers. Now up North we were heavily Union, made decent pays and benefits until they sent our jobs overseas. Now Trumper blames previous administrations for this situation, and that is somewhat true, but the corrupted congress and the greedy corporations are the true cause. The people who believed this bullshit artist and voted for him are the true Naive, well maybe the dumbest voter and believers.

How did she even get that close to the motorcade anyway?

Here's a cyclist that got too close to Obama's motorcade:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVYngZe7uf8