Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

2 workers fired after controversy over disrespectful Arlington Cemetery photo


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#61 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:42 PM

what they did was stupid, immature and disrespectful to all veterans.
That being said; the company is over reacting and will probably and justly be sued, they should have to pay, their coompany could have taken some other disciplinary action instead. Yes those girls did something dumb but not illegal, not enough to fire someone without cause. People make mistakes everyone here who says being fired is what they deserve should remember that they weren't fired for every mistake they made at work, no one is perfect. This is why social media is bad, a bunch of anonymous losers hiding behind a keyboard complaining led to two people losing their jobs and possibly careers, that's not right or fair.

Given the law on termination of employment in Massachusetts, a lawsuit would not appear to have any likelihood of success.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#62 That's What She Said

That's What She Said

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,515 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:54 PM

Yea I'm not buying the whole momentary lapse in judgement, young people being stupid excuse. If someone, without her knowledge, took that picture and put it up online then sure, but she posed for the picture, then decided to put it up on Facebook later, and on top of that, tried to defend her actions. Wasn't until things got out of hand that she offered up an apology.
  • 1
Why not Zoidberg? (\/)(°,,,°)(\/)

#63 KelownaCanucksFan

KelownaCanucksFan

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 625 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:59 PM

Given the law on termination of employment in Massachusetts, a lawsuit would not appear to have any likelihood of success.


I forgot that the US still has antiquated labor laws, in Canada it would be different.
  • 1

Posted Image
Thanks to GoaltenderInterference for the sig!


#64 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,676 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:30 PM

This is why social media is bad, a bunch of anonymous losers hiding behind a keyboard complaining led to two people losing their jobs and possibly careers, that's not right or fair.


How is it bad when the two uploaded their pictures onto a social media platform in the first place?

Don't want to come off as an idiot? Don't upload it in the first place.
  • 0

#65 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,676 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:33 PM

I forgot that the US still has antiquated labor laws, in Canada it would be different.


Really? I present to you two Canadian sources for dismissal stemming from social media misposts:


http://www.theglobea...article4346982/

Can an employer fire employees for what they do outside office hours? With very few exceptions, an employer can fire an employee for just about anything. It just comes down to whether the employer owes the employee severance or if the employee’s conduct is so egregious, the employer can dismiss the employee for “cause” with no severance at all.


After the riot, I’m aware of at least one business that fired a well-liked and long-standing employee because she was photographed looting Sears. Her picture was one of scores uploaded to websites dedicated to catching the rioters and it found its way to the pages of the Vancouver Province and Vancouver Sun.


Whether the business she worked for had to pay four weeks severance or no severance was not as important as firing her. The business just wanted that person gone because of the damage her continued employment was having on the company’s reputation. The clients of the business read the papers too.


So one lesson all employees should learn is that whether they are receptionists, servers, salespersons or any other employee who directly engages with the public, they are the face of the company and an ambassador for its brand and image. If their photographs are all over the newspapers looting a department store during a riot, customers could well associate an employee’s “after-hours activity” with the employer.



http://business.fina...-get-you-fired/



Even before social media, when a university lecturer was convicted of fraud in the early 1980s in an insurance claim unrelated to his employment, a court concluded that it was cause for dismissal. The reason? It could undermine confidence in the school and deleteriously impact both upon its enrolment and funding.


[...]


In all of the cases cited above, the conduct related to the nature of the employees’ roles. However, even when the misconduct bears no relation to a person’s job functions, it can still be cause for discharge if the employer’s interests, such as its reputation, are affected.


The broad panoply of offsite misconduct that could be cause for discharge is too broad to be catalogued and is limited only by workplace norms and employees’ imaginations. But whether at work or outside, the test is the same: If misconduct is sufficiently serious to threaten an employer’s reputation or wellbeing, it can be cause for dismissal without severance.


The two fired people did directly work with the public - the one taking the photo was a program director, and Lindsey was her subordinate. Reputation was damaged to the company, as seen in the multiple posts from people on Facebook blasting the company for hiring people of low character.

Edited by Common sense, 22 November 2012 - 02:34 PM.

  • 0

#66 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,118 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:59 PM

If your employee said "This is just us, being the douchebags that we are, challenging authority in general", would you want them working for you? Simple question.

As long as they do their job they can be a moronic social media rebel all they wish. With obvious exceptions mentioned in my previous post, I don't see why other employers care. People are so sensitive and susceptible to these touchy-feely events.
  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#67 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,901 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:10 PM

You have freedom of expression... you do not have freedom from consequences.


What is the difference?
  • 0

#68 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,118 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:14 PM

What is the difference?

Probably something said by Obama.
  • 0

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#69 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 November 2012 - 04:14 PM

I forgot that the US still has antiquated labor laws, in Canada it would be different.

Not necessarily since this occurred on company time on a company paid trip. It might well be considered "just cause" depending upon the varying employment laws in the provinces.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.