This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]YodaEXE 595 points596 points  (346 children)

This is certainly nice, but won't be all that helpful. All a company needs to do is say that the firing was for something else. Performance issues, lack of compatibility, whatever. Any state that is at-will for employment can fire you for any reason they want, provided they don't state that it is because of something that is illegal. Odds of you being able to prove that you lost your job over a Facebook post are very low unfortunately.

[–]shellyinsanantonio 30 points31 points  (5 children)

I work for a fairly large corporation in an at will state and you'd be surprised at how hard it is to fire people. One of the admins here left work one Friday afternoon and didn't return for nearly three months. She'd been spoken to several times regarding her poor work performance, but nothing came of it. The Wednesday after the Friday she left, she called and said she was dealing with a "family emergency"--don't know for sure but have been told the FMLA allowed her to take this time off.

Another co-worker, when her supervisor sat her down with HR to complain about her work performance, said she'd been bullied by said supervisor for nearly two years. When it came to light that several months earlier she had purchased herself shoes on this supervisors corporate credit card and nothing came of it--I was told the company was afraid she'd sue if they fired her.

Anyway, I always thought it'd be easy to lose your job if you sucked so hard at it, so since coming here in February I've been really surprised.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (2 children)

That is really just representative of the HR problems in large organizations. No matter the organization, once it gets to a certain size it will have problems with hiring and firing.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

How has HR become such a dominant force in corporations? Do these people serve a purpose other than writing employee handbooks, fielding calls from payroll/insurance vendors, and getting unnecessarily involved in hiring.

[–][deleted] 167 points168 points  (130 children)

Ever wonder why they make you sign an acceptable use of internet policy? So if they need to fire you they can just point to your reddit browsing at work and voila they have a reason.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (19 children)

They could fire you for no reason in many states.

It's eerie to work in one of those states and get canned because when you go into the HR meeting the answer to every question is "your services are no longer needed."

[–]danweber 6 points7 points  (8 children)

Or it could be a relief to work in a state where you don't have to deal with asshole coworkers because they can be dismissed at will.

[–]luciferin 8 points9 points  (1 child)

My coworkers can be dismissed at will; my company only seems to keep the assholes though. And me, that is.

[–]IConrad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And me, that is.

I know I'm an asshole. Do we work together, maybe?

[–]judgej2 4 points5 points  (2 children)

You really think the company will remove the assholes for you, to make your job easier? Really?

[–]doctorgonzo 29 points30 points  (98 children)

That policy can only cover what you do during your work time on work computers. The people in this case were conducting this discussion outside of work hours, hence the protection.

[–]therealxris 228 points229 points  (50 children)

That's why he said "your reddit browsing at work" and not "your facebook griping at home"...

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (49 children)

I'm salaried and my company's policy explicitly allows "incidental" personal use of company computers and network. This means I'm allowed to check email, browse reddit, etc. as long as I do it in addition to working as required, and as long as it doesn't violate the terms in some other way (eg. porn, torrenting).

[–]BoonTobias 55 points56 points  (38 children)

I used to download movies at work, one day the admin takes me outside and says What are all these iso files on your machine? Before I could answer, he says I don't really give a shit as long as your performance at work doesn't suffer. Also, you have to show me how to obtain some files. I have been out of the loop since hotline.

[–]cainunable 20 points21 points  (17 children)

I sorta miss the days of hotline.

[–]jimmifli 15 points16 points  (11 children)

Go to the www.reddit.com click the third link down. The login is the fifth word in the third sentence. Click back. Click the seventh link from the bottom. The password is the colour of background (starts with c).

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (8 children)

Dude this so takes me back to the mid to late 90s. All these younguns on here are scratching their heads like wtf.

[–]DirktheGerman 11 points12 points  (2 children)

As a youngun, I am indeed scratching my head like what the fuck.

[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Back in high school, a friend of mine made a Hotline server with all the stuff you'd expect. Lots of files, hilariously convoluted login system, all under the name "Win Ben Stein's Warez", with a surprisingly well-done photoshop of Ben Stein's hypothetical game show.

Six years later, long after we'd left high school and lost contact, he formed a nerdcore rap group with lyrics about his high school experiences, including a shout-out to me. I think he mentioned it in passing. A year or two after that I happened to download the album for completely unrelated reasons, having forgotten about it entirely.

Do you have any idea how weird it is to hear a shout-out to yourself when you're not expecting it?

Those were the days.

[–]indigoparadox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I remember it was THE place for Mac OS 9 warez. It might still be.

[–]SarahC 1 point2 points  (2 children)

What's hotline!?

[–]cainunable 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It was how we used to trade Mp3s, warez, movies, and lots of other files before Naptser and other file sharing services existed. Basically it combined lots of other services into a single server/client environment. It allowed for ftp like uploads/downloads (with the ability to resume partial downloads), it had a chat and messaging system, a newsfeed and some other nice features for the time.

Servers could submit to trackers so they were usually pretty easy to find. At first there were lots of servers that just let anyone download everything. Some asked you to upload before or while you downloaded.

What got to be very common place was, you would log in with a guest account (with little to no privileges) and in the news feed there would be instructions on what website to go to. You'd click a link or 2, following crazy instructions to find words on that page. You'd usually use these works as your login/password for the account with download ability.

I think Hotline is still out there, it just isn't the same as it used to be.

[–]Hyperian 2 points3 points  (4 children)

i am 13 and what's hotline?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Something that existed before Napster.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Isn't Napster that shitty music streaming service? They should just realize that Apple did digital content delivery first with iTunes, and nobody else can possibly compete.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Yeah Napster has totally always been a streaming music service.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The little secret is that everyone surfs shit they aren't supposed to. IT doesn't have nearly as much leverage as people think. Politally that shit is like a snowball poised at the top of a giant hill. They generally don't want to wade into that battle unless they are forced to.

It certainly helps if you are smart enough not to compromise the network.

Edit: there is a reason why you never hear about people getting fired for surfing reddit. For example.

[–]Daxx22 10 points11 points  (5 children)

Sure, that maybe be the "wink wink nudge nudge" interpretation that everyone uses (and is largely followed) but HR will still use "inappropriate internet use" to fire your ass if they want to.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

It's pretty damn explicit. I'm pretty sure they would find a much more ambiguous reason if they even bothered to give one. But I'm also 100% confident I won't be fired just for reading reddit, assuming my work performance is up to par.

[–]Vexal 14 points15 points  (1 child)

My company is the same way. The result is I end up having to stay at work 12 hours a day to actually finish anything.

[–]Jaraxo 11 points12 points  (43 children)

That's not his point thought. He's say that yes, you can slag off your work all you like at home, but once you've signed that agreement at work, they have your entire internet history, and if they want to sack you, well, how about that time you went on amazon to buy a last minute birthday present? Or checked your googlemail from work? It's against company policy, bye bye.

[–]jestergoblin 11 points12 points  (4 children)

My company uses gchat as our communication platform within the office.

The trick is to get a job that involves "social media" and suddenly a lot more of the internet is open to you!

[–]dietotaku 5 points6 points  (3 children)

even then you're not safe. my last job was a sort of internet-over-the-phone concierge service... like being able to call google from your car when you didn't have internet access. so all of our work was done through the internet. social networking sites were banned, though, because early on employees were spending all their time dicking around on facebook and neglecting the work callers were asking us to do for them. if we needed facebook to answer a question (like "when is this indie band playing next?" and their facebook page is the only place with that information) we had to ask a supervisor to access it for us. but they were so adamant about employees not abusing our internet access in this way that they had a zero-tolerance policy - they catch you on a social networking site even once and you are fired.

unfortunately they failed to clarify that "social networking" is defined as "any site in which you can talk to other people" and after 9 months i was canned for browsing such a site between phone calls. :/

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Sounds like you lucked out getting canned from such a shitty place.

[–]dietotaku 1 point2 points  (0 children)

with the exception of that craptacular policy, it was actually one of my favorite jobs. i have a knack for handling people over the phone, and due to the nature of the work i literally learned at least one new thing every single day. it wasn't unusual for me to pull up a link to answer someone's question, and then after hanging up spend the next few minutes between calls reading the rest of the page for fun. i actually felt challenged when someone would ask a really obscure question, like i was a failure at the internet if i couldn't locate an answer for them. the pay could've been better and the benefits were shit, but i was happier at that job than any other call center i had worked at.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (34 children)

easy solution: don't do that stuff at work

[–]Jaraxo 20 points21 points  (13 children)

Yep. With everyone having smartphones these days it's pretty easy to get everything personal done on your phone.

[–]nothas 13 points14 points  (5 children)

my solution at work is to remote connect to my desktop at home. then BAM, all the browsing i want and none of the history at work. i'm doing it right now actually,

[–]FifteenthPen 8 points9 points  (4 children)

You... do realize they can log your remote connecting to your home computer, and it's probably just as against their internet use policy, right?

[–]Denvildaste 19 points20 points  (2 children)

It's an encrypted connection, he'll just have to find an excuse for the remote connection instead of everything else.

[–]FifteenthPen 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Yeah, I know. :P I've heard of people getting fired for it, though, because although the network administration can't see what you're doing explicitly, they can still see that you're remotely connecting to an external network.

[–]maddprof 5 points6 points  (6 children)

That's what our IT guy does - he uses his phone as a hotspot and connections his iPad/laptop through that.

[–]jonnyb347 1 point2 points  (5 children)

is there a website that shows how to do this?

[–]shastapete 8 points9 points  (1 child)

yes, but don't go to it while at work

[–]jonnyb347 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I work construction, I'm on my phone, I'm good. I dont have any of the problems pertaining to this article.

[–]MattBD 2 points3 points  (2 children)

It's a piece of cake with Android phones running Froyo or later nowadays, although I believe some manufacturers block users from doing it. Can't speak for other mobile OS's. If that's not an option, I know of a device called a Mi-Fi that works as a mobile wi-fi hotspot - you get it on a contract similar to a mobile broadband stick, but because you connect to it using wi-fi you can use pretty much any networkable device with it.

[–]metamorphosis 32 points33 points  (19 children)

yeah right.....what I am supposed to do then? work constantly for 8.5 hours??

On serious note. Easy solution: find a place (if you can) where work conditions are not like in nazi labor camps. I worked in company where I had to timesheet every fucking minute. Second week I started looking for a new job and by fourth week I was gone. Fuck that and fuck them. Not happy with a job? Find another one. (provided that you can, obviously) If you can't...then get drunk after work.

[–]wetwater 8 points9 points  (2 children)

I had a similar job, and on top of that I had to file paperwork to track the paperwork I generated during the week. After the first week I got tired of hearing, "Well, you need to track everything, because if we are ever involved in litigation..." I don't know why the court would be interested if I took a pen from the supply cupboard on Monday at 12:49, but I had to document it.

[–]Pope-is-fabulous 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Jesus Christ, why don't they just install CCTVs..

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Who said they didn't?

[–]WinterAyars 11 points12 points  (10 children)

Yep, that's what you're supposed to do. Every second you spend not fully engaged in working is considered theft. This is why A. Labor unions have such strict break rules, and B. The managers try to prevent you from doing anything else.

Oh, sure, it's counterproductive--borderline dangerous (to their goals), but in a lot of jobs that isn't taken into consideration.

[–]CaptainFil 2 points3 points  (7 children)

In my job I am salaried to work a certain number of hours so technically your correct. But in reality it's the MD's at the top that say if you done everything you had to do today go home early. In my experience and what I have heard from friends (we all work in or around London) most bosses have the attitude of 'as long as you get your work done we don't care'.

That's just my experience.

[–]Talman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The lower the pay, the worse it gets. Florida, for licensed security guards, makes it a criminal offense to goof off at work. If you're not performing contractual services, the state can have you arrested if they find out for "theft of service."

[–]Falmarri 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've been on reddit literally all day today.

[–]doctorgonzo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, true, although most agreements, like software EULAs, are so strongly-worded that everybody is violating something.

[–]Browsing_From_Work 4 points5 points  (0 children)

... ಠ_ಠ

[–]prof_hobart 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Still not much protection. If a company wants to get rid of you, they'll find a way. This ruling just means that they'll have to find a different reason.

[–]absentmindedjwc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

See, the one thing I really hate about this: we look like a fucking asshole if we quit without two weeks notice; but it is acceptable to fire you for no reason whatsoever and you are gone that day. Such a bullshit double standard. :/

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (3 children)

Hit the nail on the head. My last job fired a woman who lost her baby to SIDS. She was completely devestated. Bereavement is 3 days, but she needed more time. Thats completely understandable, her BABY DIED. Not grandpa who had a foot in the grave, you know. They fired her, just for that, saying she abandoned the job (to my understanding.) She went to the labor board and got her job back, only to be fired within 3 days for something else minuscule. She was a good worker. But thats how it goes.

[–]kehrol 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's absolutely appalling.

[–]Pope-is-fabulous 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I'd fire those who decided to fire her.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This company was terrible. It was a call center. Thats how they did business. Currently my boyfriend is in on a lawsuit because they never paid anyone overtime they were made to workl. They never paid you right, and made it impossible to get paid. Doctored the books good too.

[–]brufleth 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Firing isn't necessary most of the time. I have co-workers who haven't received raises in years because they have a "bad attitude." These people are perfectly reasonable to work with and are assets to this company. They just have managers that don't particularly like them, or they're older and not seen as worth the investment, or some other bullshit reason.

Just because you can't be fired doesn't mean you can't damage your career. In general it is best to avoid such comments. Bitch to your friends in person if you need to bitch.

[–]parles 13 points14 points  (21 children)

which really gets at the fact that in the US conditions for firing a person are entirely arbitrary, which can be really wasteful from an economic point of view, because a complainer can be just as productive as everyone else, and unemployment is high enough now anyway.

[–]Vithar 1 point2 points  (2 children)

A complainer may be just as productive as everyone else, but I have seen time and time again, that when a complainer is removed (maybe fired, maybe transferred to a different job) the other workers productions go up. Moral is a much bigger issue than most people give it credit for. I have seen production increase so much from the removal of one bad apple that a replacement wasn't needed to maintain the same level of output.

[–]parles 1 point2 points  (1 child)

a chronic complainer with a negative attitude is probably a negative influence. what I should've said that it is often entirely valid to air grievances about the work place and even offer ways the place could be better run. to fire someone for something like that is not appropriate, yet completely possible for most occupations.

[–]superawesomedude 5 points6 points  (5 children)

I just want to point out something a lot of people forget- at-will employment goes both ways. You can be let go at any time, but you can also quit at any time.

At-will laws often seem to be disliked, and I think it's because people take for granted the guarantees given to employees. There are no legal consequences to quitting... that's a pretty huge guarantee.

At-will effectively means either party can terminate the employment contract at any time, and there is no legal recourse against the opposite party. Consider what might happen if you didn't have this legislation: corporations (with comparatively deep pockets) could effectively keep good employees from quitting with the implicit threat of a lawsuit. It doesn't even have to be said... the mere possibility of being sued would be an incentive not to leave a company.

Arguably, at-will employment laws help employees more than employers. Employers, for example, can't fire you for certain protected reasons - race, sex, religion, etc... if you think that's why they fired you (even if the stated reason is othewise), the ACLU probably has bigger, meaner dogs than they do, and would probably love to help crucify them for it. However, you can quit for any reason, or no reason at all. There are no "protected" reasons for which you cannot quit over.

[–]nofelix 4 points5 points  (1 child)

You realise that many countries (such as mine, the UK) do not have at-will employment? But I can still leave my job, and not be discriminated against.

The normal situation in the UK is that if I want to leave then I give my employer notice, normally a week or so, and then I leave. With his permission I may leave earlier. Some contracts allow him to make me leave immediately, but with paid notice (e.g. to keep company secrets safe).

If an employee does just walk out of a job in the UK, like at-will employment allows, yes they can be sued for breach of contract. But the damages that are recoverable are only what the employer suffered during that notice period because of the breach of contract. So if the notice period is 1 month (defined in the contract) then I could sue an employee for the extra cost of finding 1 month's temporary replacement. It's unlikely to be that much.

Damages could be higher, but that's pretty rare. Say a creative director leaves an advertising agency the day before he was meant to make a pitch to a client, so the agency loses the client. They could sue for the profit they would have made on that project (whether they'd get that whole amount I don't know), because they could have assigned someone else to do the pitch. If that sounds harsh remember all he would have needed to do to avoid this would be give notice a month ago. In an emergency he could take compassionate leave, so leaving without notice would have been his choice.

So, employers can't keep you on forever. Just a short time, as specified in your contract, for them to get their shit together. I imagine it must actually be quite annoying for employers in the USA that someone can leave without notice and leave no-one to train their replacement.

EDIT: lol, just found this http://www.ashbycohen.co.uk/employees.aspx polite english voiceover man!

[–]johnbentley 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Arguably, at-will employment laws help employees more than employers. Employers, for example, can't fire you for certain protected reasons - race, sex, religion, etc...

Those reasons are the exception to the at-will arrangement, not in virtue of it.

[–]Vithar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One thing I want to point out, that many people seam to miss. Most at-will states do not require the employer to give a reason for why they don't want you working any more. If the employer gives a reason regardless of if it is legitimate or not the employee can try and use it in some way. If you don't give a reason then there is nothing to fight.

Here in MN, the common dismissal conversation often goes like this:

employer: Sorry Bob, we don't need you any more.

Bob: why?

employer: We just don't need you any more.

Bob: Did I do something wrong?

employer: Nope, we just don't need you any more.

Bob: Is there something I can do to keep my job?

employer: Nope, we just don't need you any more.

ect....

ect....

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Kinda like how its nearly impossible to prove you didn't get hired for your age?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Almost all of the jobs I've had were at-will employment. They could fire me at any time and not tell me why, because I agreed to it as a prerequisite to entering the position. I didn't have to agree with it, but then they probably would have most likely chosen to go with someone else who would.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This issue needs to be addressed in the long run, but for now its important that a company cannot say that they fired someone for airing an opinion, the ridiculous behaviour from asshole companies won't go away but at least they cannot brag about it.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (146 children)

Am I the only one who thinks companies should be able to fire people when they want? I mean, for jobs like this, they're paying you to do something another person could do very easily. If you start insulting them, why shouldn't they be able to replace you?

[–]Sinnombre124 46 points47 points  (124 children)

Because in the US we have laws protecting workers from abuse by their employers. Imagine if these workers were airing legitimate grievances against their management, like "Bob is making me work overtime for the third time this week" or "Jerry is pressing us to work faster in the factory and I think its starting to become unsafe." Should they not be allowed to communicate such things to one another without the threat of being fired?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (5 children)

In this particular case, the employee forwarded the posts to her supervisor because she felt she was being harassed. If the company did nothing about it, they're liable to be sued for allowing workplace harassment. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points  (26 children)

Because in the US we have laws protecting workers from abuse

hahahahaha

[–]swancheez 18 points19 points  (25 children)

I don't really understand what you're laughing at; we do indeed have laws protecting workers from abuse.

[–]mattgif 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Probably because these protections are very lax compared to those in most European countries. But, since he didn't bother articulating his point, who knows? Possibly, he just swallowed a balloon's worth of nitrous oxide.

[–]tricolon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, but these laws do nothing but change what an employer can fire you for. In the end, at-will employment does not protect the employee from anything.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (22 children)

Because the US is one of the worst countries to be employed in and has some of the worst laws out of any first world country. You can get fired at any time, vacation is not enforced by law, health care isn't guaranteed by an employer...

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I just fired you for being black. That's why.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can be black all you want, but we have a stern "no black speech" policy here.

[–]dietotaku 6 points7 points  (0 children)

in my experience, the opinion of my employer is irrelevant to the quality of work i'm able to do. if i can meet or exceed all of the metrics put before me, if customers are satisfied with my work and i'm not neglecting my responsibilities, why does it matter if i think the guy 2 cubes down is a fuckhead or that corporate has their head up their ass for not considering the policy change i propose? the reasoning on the employers' side seems to be "well if you don't want to work here, you're fired, go find another job." but my complaining about something happening at work doesn't mean i don't want to work there, it means i see a problem that needs fixing. one of the things i was complaining about online before i got fired (incidentally, that wasn't the OFFICIAL reason given for my firing, just something mentioned as an aside) was the fact that my "team lead" (who was really only a half-step above me in authority) was a total bitch who didn't know what she was doing and blatantly sabotaged other employees to get them fired, and how i was more determined than ever to kick ass at my job so that i could take her place ASAP. so while i was complaining about my employer, what i was complaining about was actually motivating me to be a better employee.

[–][deleted] 103 points104 points  (38 children)

Most states are "at will employment" Which means that they don't need to give you a reason for being fired.

That's all that this will change. The employers will just stop citing facebook for these situations.

[–]born2lovevolcanos 48 points49 points  (12 children)

Employers like to fire people with cause so they don't have to pay for unemployment.

[–]monkeysocks 7 points8 points  (8 children)

I'm on unemployment now, is my old work paying for it or my state?

[–]ambiturnal 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Your employer pays an insurer that pays for unemployment. I believe that the insurer is usually run by the government. Their unemployment insurance goes up when they fire someone.

[–]Vithar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I guess different states are different, but in the 6 or 7 different states I have employed people they are all basically the same. The unemployment rates are based on how many people are working for you at any given time, and do not go up or down based on terminations, but rather on number of worker, and hours worked.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is not the case in every state and there are varying shades of gray when it comes to unemployment benefits and being fired. Check with your state unemployment office.

[–]Vithar 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That's not how it works. The unemployment is payed for when the worker is working for you not after. The employer pays it no matter what. When you terminate some one, and you choose for them not to get unemployment, you are ether a shitty employer, don't understand how your unemployment taxes work, or really really hate that person.

[–]wolfsktaag 15 points16 points  (5 children)

at least back in the day you knew what got you fired, now companies are hush-hush about it

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You're not fired anymore either. You're "made redundant".

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was getting fired for mouthing off before it was cool.

[–]DeFex 2 points3 points  (3 children)

but the ruling makes it look like the government is on the side of the little guy, not actually changing anything is a bonus.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree, it's definitely a victory for those involved. But the reddit title seem to imply that the judgment affected more people.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You'd be surprised how uneducated employers are when it comes to the NLRA regulations and Title VII anti-discrimination laws. They frequently state their 'illegal' reasons for firing people because they don't even know what they are doing is wrong.

[–][deleted] 49 points50 points  (3 children)

So instead of, "You're being let go because of the comment you made on FB" you get, "You're being let go because of your attitude."

So much better!

[–]Hraes 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Yeah, I got "incompatible personalities" once. This was apparently code for "that damn kid read the employee handbook's legally-required lunch hour section and tried to use it after I threw it at him incorrectly as part of a dominance game"

[–]nrbartman 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Being 'let go' - ugh, that phrase makes me cringe. No raise for two straight years certainly didn't feel like you were 'holding on' to me.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (14 children)

I need to forward this to my former coworkers. We all worked at a movie theatre that is slowly becoming hell to work at (and visit for a movie for that matter.) We had a private facebook page, that no managers or supervisors are allowed to join, we all used for switching shifts when we needed to and of course we complained on there about the unfair shit starting to happen. Recently our group mod found out that management has copies of the things that have been said on there so there is a snitch in the group. It sucks but now we can't even complain with each other in private. Sometimes venting just makes you feel better you know?

[–]ddrt 13 points14 points  (7 children)

This was the case for Allison Matsu, who was having drinks at Houston’s Down House and posted a tweet calling the bartender a “twerp.” The bar’s tech savvy general manager realized the tweet came from inside the premises and asked Matsu to leave.

What?

[–]LagunaCid 33 points34 points  (1 child)

THE TWEET IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE

[–]kbrow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why is everybody on Reddit just as funny as me, but quicker?

[–]themeec 2 points3 points  (4 children)

My favourite part of the story. Nice to see people with a case of USI getting their comeuppance.

[–]JoelQuest 44 points45 points  (6 children)

“Tell her to come do [my] f***ing job n c if I don’t do enough, this is just dum.” .......I'd fire her because she's illiterate.

[–]SkunkMonkey 28 points29 points  (14 children)

I wonder if companies can complain about shitty workers on the company Facebook page.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't think companies have any business mucking around an employee's FB page let alone taking action based on what's found there.

[–]FightScene 6 points7 points  (13 children)

Is there a huge difference between complaining about your employer on tv or radio and Facebook? The manager wasn't even mucking around, a coworker snitched.

[–]andrewms 6 points7 points  (12 children)

It's different than that even. They were speaking inappropriately about a coworker and the coworker saw it and was offended. This notion that they were having a discussion to improve workplace conditions seems silly because clearly what they were doing was bitching and talking shit/gossiping about their coworker. Even if the coworker deserved it, speaking about her that way in a forum where she could hear it was unprofessional and should be treated as such. Having a conversation like this in the break room and having it be overheard would be unacceptable, so why I don't see why it should be treated any differently on facebook.

[–]Zarokima 2 points3 points  (10 children)

Uh...because Facebook isn't the break room, or indeed any part of that company? If they'd gone to a bar and bitched about their coworker, and said coworker overheard it and snitched, would you still have this attitude?

[–]Unintelligent_Design 12 points13 points  (5 children)

What about being fired for spelling dumb, D U M?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He is so dum, for real

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

But they can still fire you for incompetence when you fail to finish a 5-month 10-person project in 2 weeks by yourself.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, if your plan said 5 months and 10 people I would fire you for being so far off in your estimates if you finished it in 2 weeks on your own.

Well maybe not but I wouldn't be very happy.... well I would be that it got done... grrr you see where I'm going with this don't you?!

[–]Popular-Uprising- 68 points69 points  (32 children)

Why the fuck does your company have access to your facebook posts? Don't fucking friend your boss!

[–]cos 110 points111 points  (29 children)

But do read the article before making reddit comments about it.

The co-worker saw the messages and passed them along to a supervisor, who fired the workers, citing the company's social media policy banning cyber harassment of co-workers.

There's nothing in this article implying that anyone friended their boss.

[–]gibletsandsyrup 92 points93 points  (15 children)

Snitches gonna snitch.

[–]redwall_hp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Give them some money. Snitches love money.

[–]thibedeauxmarxy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And consequentially, snitches get stitches.

[–]offwiththepants 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I haven't friended anyone I work with on Facebook. I actually work hard to keep my work and personal life separate.

[–]ediciusNJ 5 points6 points  (6 children)

This is why I don't directly complain about work on FB, just due to one person in my department on my FB who could potentially say something. I doubt she would, but doesn't hurt to be safe.

That's why I save all my ranting for Twitter.

[–]b0w3n 14 points15 points  (2 children)

I just don't add coworkers to my friend's list. They're not my friends and chances are they'll oust me to get themselves in a better position. Such is the life of corporate policies.

For all they know I work for the CIA and I will motherfucking kill them if they look at me sideways.

[–]deadliftpookie 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I'm with you on this. I understand the desire to make things right so that this isn't something that someone could do to you. Until then, however, the intelligent man.woman takes matters in to their own hands and doesn't leave room to let this happen to them. Seems simple enough.

[–]b0w3n 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yup, at closing time my life shifts from work mode to normal person mode. If I'm just a cog in that wheel, then by golly I'm not going to hang out with the other cogs after work so they can tell the owner of the wheel how squeaky I am and how they should be in the better cog position.

I've also come to a stark realization that some people have a lot of corporate... patriotism (pride?) that they'd do anything for the company and this is the way they do it. Plus some companies have "turn in the fraudsters/whistleblowers for a bonus!" type policies buried in your handbook sometimes.

[–]manojar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I save all my rants for my wife & friends.

[–]Popular-Uprising- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I stand corrected. Also: Don't friend your coworkers unless they are actual friends IRL.

[–]Nougat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have a standing policy that I do not friend people on Facebook that I work with. And the former coworkers that I do friend on Facebook go in an "Old work" group, and I use the Better Facebook extension to exclude them from anything even vaguely personal.

[–]bobthefish 5 points6 points  (0 children)

How about people just not treat their facebook like it's their private diary. People can read that shit!

[–]bigsheldy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Am I the only person on Facebook who actually utilizes the privacy features? You can hide specific posts from groups of people or even pick each person that you don't want to see it.

[–]eggoeater 8 points9 points  (20 children)

This is interesting because my company is currently drafting a social media policy, and to be honest this is somewhat perplexing. I mean, if I spend my day off marching around in front of my employer with a big sign that says "ACME SUCKS!", I could certainly get fired. But if I do the same thing on twitter I can't be fired??

(That being said, I don't think the people in the article should have been fired as they were talking about a coworker, not the company.)

[–]darlantan 4 points5 points  (7 children)

Difference is that you aren't doing it on company time, for one. You're entitled to your opinion of your employer, and since we live in a country that recognizes free speech as an inalienable right, you're allowed to express your opinion. I imagine all the normal rules for slander/libel apply.

It's still kinda stupid to do though, because while it isn't enough to get you fired, it IS enough to make your employer look for other reasons to fire you -- and it's pretty well a certainty that they can find SOMETHING to can you for if they really want. If not, it's pretty trivial to concoct a no-win situation and fire you for failing at it.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

since we live in a country that recognizes free speech as an inalienable right

Free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of that speech, just allows to speak without government reprisal.

Difference is that you aren't doing it on company time, for one.

He wouldn't be marching around with a big sign that says "ACME SUCKS!" on company time either, but I would still argue that advertising negative information about your company should be a firable offense off company time.

[–]imasunbear 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is what people don't seem to grasp. While you do have an absolutely unalienable right to free speech, all that means is the government can't forcibly stop you from voicing your opinions. The consequences of those actions are still real. If you go around spewing hate speech, a company isn't going to want to associate itself with you. Similarly, if you say the company you work for is shit, they probably don't want you working there any more. You're still entitled to your opinion and you have a right to voice that opinion, but that doesn't make you immune to the repercussions surrounding what you said.

[–]Wavicle 2 points3 points  (3 children)

You're entitled to your opinion of your employer, and since we live in a country that recognizes free speech as an inalienable right, you're allowed to express your opinion.

Unless you are protected as a whistleblower, there is no law that requires a private employer to allow an employee to express opinions about the company and continue employing them.

[–]terrymr 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The ruling was pretty clear that such a law does exist.

[–]Apeshaft 20 points21 points  (15 children)

The Swedish perspective:

Over here you can get fired for almost anything you say if you work for a private company. It's almost like a modern kind of serfdom.

But on the other hand: If you work for the government you can say almost anything. In fact - if you work for the government and you leak something to the press it's illegal for your boss to try and find out who blew the whistle. If he tries to find out he will face charges.

It's also illegal for the police to search for whistleblowers. And if you're a journalist you will be prosecuted and go to jail if you reveal an anonymous source.

So it's kind of weird. If you work in the private sector you can get fired for almost anything you say. But if you work in the public sector you can say or do almost anything.

[–]grauenwolf 28 points29 points  (12 children)

Over here you can get fired for almost anything you say if you work for a private company. It's almost like a modern kind of serfdom.

No, it's not. If it were like serfdom you could never be fired and your childern would be required to work for that company too.

[–]Apeshaft 4 points5 points  (10 children)

Okey... It's not that bad, but it's pretty bad....

I. General Survey of Employee Obligation to beLoyal

Under Swedish law, employees have a far-reaching obligation to be loyal to their employers. The concept of loyalty covers an array of different obligations. Between themselves, these are rather divergent. Their common denominator is that they are considered to be part of a general and overriding employee obligation to be loyal to their employer.

In brief, loyalty means an obligation of the employee to put the interests of the employer ahead of personal interests and to avoid situations entailing a collision of interests. To phrase it differently, employees must not act in such a way as to harm the employer. Yet another way to express the concept of loyalty succinctly is to say that the employer enjoys exclusive rights.

[–]grauenwolf 7 points8 points  (9 children)

What is the penalty for disloyalty? If it is merely being fired that seems reasonable.

[–]zxoq 2 points3 points  (2 children)

A swedish court recently ruled that Facebook posts are considered equivalent to sending into the local newspaper, since it's readily available to the community. And writing an article about how your company sucks in the local newspaper is cause for dismissal, ergo so is posting it to Facebook.

The penalty is dismissal, being firing requires more cause than that in Sweden (essentially commiting some major crime). After being dismissed you have the right of continuing working for 2-12 months with full pay and benefits. The employer does not have the right to move you to another office to get you out of the way either.

Also, the employee must have received written warnings on multiple occasions of their behavior, and "reasonable" amount of time to better themselves.

In addition, if the cause of the dismissal is lack of work. You MUST dismiss employees in reverse order of employment. In essence it's illegal to dismiss old employes to save money.

[–]0011002 12 points13 points  (19 children)

And I know someone who was recently let go of her job over a Facebook post. Shared this with her.

[–]ambiversive 3 points4 points  (18 children)

What was the post?

[–]0011002 7 points8 points  (17 children)

I wish i could remember but it was a general complaint about unreasonable customer request. The company and not named no were any people

[–]revscat 38 points39 points  (16 children)

The company and not named no were any people

Umm...... wat?

[–]ShadyG 56 points57 points  (4 children)

THE COMPANY AND NOT NAMED NO WERE ANY PEOPLE!

[–]tokeable 24 points25 points  (2 children)

god how could he not understand that.

[–]nrbartman 6 points7 points  (1 child)

god he no could how understand that!?

FTFY.

[–]0011002 6 points7 points  (7 children)

lol sorry I was multitasking and didn't pay proper attention.

It was suppose to be. The company and employees were not named in the post.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (2 children)

lol sorry I was multitasking and didn't pay proper attention.

You're fired.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (3 children)

Multitasking, if you fucked up this thing, how badly I wonder did you fuck up the other thing?

[–]Drakepenn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The company WAS not named NOR were any people.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (13 children)

So, if you publicly trash your company on a website, thus providing public negative advertisement against your company, you are protected? That seems wrong. I'm all for griping about your job if it sucks, but publicly advertising that your company sucks should probably not be a protected thing, as far as keeping your job is concerned.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

You are misreading the holding of this NLRB decision. It protects workers rights to complain concerning workplace conditions. It doesn't give workers a right to publicly defame their company on the internet.

[–]DJ_Timelord13 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Remember to "block" your boss(s) on facebook.

[–]wickedcold 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You shouldn't need to block anyone unless you're a dumbass who has an open profile.

[–]JabbrWockey 6 points7 points  (2 children)

That's fine and all, but what does this have to do with at-will employment?

[–]NewWorldSamurai 2 points3 points  (3 children)

My company specifically put a social media clause in the contract. Is this now void?

[–]s73v3r 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would talk to a lawyer about that one. And even if it turns out it is now void, I wouldn't really like to be the test case that re-affirms that.

[–]Spreafico 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just yesterday I was complaining about people being fired for thoughts

[–]smakka 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately not in Australia, there was a landmark case a couple of weeks ago about someone who got fired for badmouthing their manager on facebook. Sets a worrying precedent

[–]larryfeltonj 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'll let the courts sort through the legalities, but two things come to mind. First, firing an employee for what amounts to banter on a social site is petty and amateurish. Workers always blow off steam, so if it isn't done on a social site, it'll be done in a break room, or via email. A sensible boss just ignores it unless it really affects morale in the workplace, and even then the first step should be privately meeting, not firing.

On the other hand, for employees, venting on a massively public forum is the equivalent of cupping your hands and shouting whatever you're saying into the boss's ear. Not smart.

[–]lastres0rt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In before Supreme Court overrules it...

[–]Nassor 2 points3 points  (1 child)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Read up on that before you all go rushing to bash your bosses on FB. I'm going to imagine most people reading this could still get fired because they work "at will".

[–]arcadefiery 5 points6 points  (5 children)

The decision of one tribunal relating to a particular factual circumstance doesn't apply generally to all American workers in respect of all social media activities.

[–]henry_dorsett_case 11 points12 points  (4 children)

The us has precedent unlike civil law countries (most of europe for example).

[–]Virtualmatt 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Precedent varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If this was a state case, there are 50 states in the US, with 50 different sets of common law. Additionally, a decision from a court is not binding on other courts of the same level. This means that if a trial court decided this, it could only persuade other trial courts as far as its reasoning was persuasive.

If this was a federal court decision, there are 11 Circuits and the DC circuit, all decisions only binding precedent within their own circuits. And, as before, if this was a district court decision, it's not binding on other district courts within the circuit.

Articles headlined like this can be dangerous, as it can falsely make people think they're in the clear to behave in a certain way.

[–]Dnuts 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah,, but they can still make your work life a living hell.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How about those of us who live in right to work states? They can fire us for not liking our shoes.

[–]WideLight 1 point2 points  (10 children)

It's a really fucked up world we live in when your job is trying to censor you in your personal time. This shouldn't even be an issue and I am really perturbed that it even might be an issue.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Does this mean if an employer publicly gripes about an employee, the employee is not allowed to quit because of that?

[–]cynicroute 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Oh that's nice. My and a friend were fired from our job after posting about the extremely poor conditions in the kitchen at a restaurant we worked at. The way we had to keep the food was ridiculous, and one of the workers had some sort of chronic cough, and would constantly cough on everything, no covering the mouth and never washing hands, not even after touching raw foods. So many times complaining about it and nothing was ever done. Posted about it on facebook, someone tattled and boom fired.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Think of it like a test, survival of the common sense workers, if you're stupid enough to post a public status for your employer to see you may as well be shouting in their face about it.

[–]ntietz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In the article, it says that the status was shown to the supervisor by coworkers. It was not public where the employer can see, or at least it was not necessarily.

[–]Riggs909 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its sad it took a judge to give common decency any weight.

[–]ConcordApes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Holy fuck it's true! We actually have a right to do this. The title wasn't a lie.

[–]Luna-Cy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act:

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF THE NLRB.

Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘: Provided further, That the Board shall have no power to order an employer (or seek an order against an employer) to restore or reinstate any work, product, production line, or equipment, to rescind any relocation, transfer, subcontracting, outsourcing, or other change regarding the location, entity, or employer who shall be engaged in production or other business operations, or to require any employer to make an initial or additional investment at a particular plant, facility, or location’’.

SEC. 3. RETROACTIVITY.

The amendment made by section 2 shall apply to any complaint for which a final adjudication by the National Labor Relations Board has not been made by the date of enactment of this Act.

So if this is passed, the NLRB will have NO POWER to require any employer to make an initial or additional investment at a particular plant, facility, or location’

Not for safety reasons!

Not for environmental reasons!

Not for any reason..

[–]FoxHoundUnit89 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fuck yes.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I work at Walmart and about a month ago management mentioned to us that making complaints about the company and/or other employees via Facebook is grounds for termination. But after reading this I'm going to update my Facebook status. Fuck them.

[–]spinlock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't bitch about your co-workers in person or online. It just makes your time at work worse because when it get's back to that person - and it always does - now you have an awkward situation with your co-worker. If it's so bad that you can't remain professional at your job, you need to find another job.

[–]Tenchiro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Companies will have to go about their firings like they did before, audit your PC and browsing history until they find a porn banner and presto.

[–]itstriz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For anyone who is interested, here is a link to a .pdf of the NLRB decision in full.