tvashtarkatena Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 The supreme court recognizes employers right to limit free expression on the job. You can fire a telemarketer for telling customers to fuck off. You can fire a nurse for telling patients to fuck off. You can also fire a bus driver for telling other drivers, president or not, to fuck off. Personally, I think firing is be too draconian for a first time offense like this, but... ...if her employers took repeated steps to get her to stop her unacceptable behavior and she didn't, then firing is the only option left. Quote
archenemy Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 I understand all this. But I still think it is interesting to note that she was not fired for her previous indiscretions--only the one against the President. Quote
underworld Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 how is that interesting? ealier the complaint was that she shouldn't have been fired, instead warned. now that we agree she had been previously warned - it's 'interesting' that she is just now being fired. pick a side. whether it was the president or not, she behaved in a manner that her employer disallowed. she was warned, she continued to do it. boo hoo all you want - but that's life. the employer pays an employee to do what their job. not do whatever the hell they want. ...like spraying... Quote
archenemy Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 how is that interesting? ealier the complaint was that she shouldn't have been fired, instead warned. now that we agree she had been previously warned - it's 'interesting' that she is just now being fired. pick a side. whether it was the president or not, she behaved in a manner that her employer disallowed. she was warned, she continued to do it. boo hoo all you want - but that's life. the employer pays an employee to do what their job. not do whatever the hell they want. ...like spraying... Wow, thanks for the life lesson. And thank goodness I am not at work right now, I'd sure feel mighty guilty after that tongue lashing. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 how is that interesting? ealier the complaint was that she shouldn't have been fired, instead warned. now that we agree she had been previously warned - it's 'interesting' that she is just now being fired. pick a side. Recognizing that someone can appropriately be fired after repeated warnings doesn't require picking a side in this individual case; it does not require deciding, as ninth party observers, whether this particulary bus driver should have been fired for this particular flipped bird. I wouldn't know whether she should or should not have been fired...I'm not her boss, and I wasn't there. Quote
underworld Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 of course it doesn't require picking a side. but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't. i'm happy here to pick a side. if the facts are as they are reported, i stand by the firing of her. Quote
underworld Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 what if she flipped of michal jackson? yeah, i'd still think she needed to be fired Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.