jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (31 posts)

Woman Fired for Flipping the Bird to Trump ?

  1. ahorseback profile image78
    ahorsebackposted 13 days ago

    So she flipped off the presidential motorcade , a reporter shot a photo of her , She apparently was so proud that she put the photos on her face book  profile and twitter feed .    When she reported for work at a PR firm , she was called into the office and lost her job !

    See , There really is universal justice ?

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 13 days agoin reply to this

      She wasn't fired for flipping him off, she was fired for putting the photo on her FB for the world to see her attitude.  While I don't agree she should have been fired, it does make at least SOME sense; a PR firm doesn't need that kind of thing going public.

      We're in a world where everyone knows everything through social media - while a firm has no business in the private lives of its employees, public image is somewhat of another matter.

      1. ahorseback profile image78
        ahorsebackposted 13 days agoin reply to this

        That is exactly why she was fired ,  PR matters , even simply socially .  I feel strongly that public behavior does matter  and should .  Its a good lesson for all .

        I believe strongly , the company had every right .

    2. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 13 days agoin reply to this

      The firing is beyond ridiculous, c'mon now.....

      1. ahorseback profile image78
        ahorsebackposted 13 days agoin reply to this

        So you don't feel in any way that her public behavior is a reason for firing , That , is exactly whats wrong today .     Social  and public behavior matters and when ones name is attached to  a company , they have every right to act accordingly .

        How can you defend her act  resulting in the firing , seriously ?

      2. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 13 days agoin reply to this

        gmwilliams, your "...beyond ridiculous" declaration reads like you mean the employee's firing. If that is correct then my first question has to be; "If an employee is a representative of a business, don't you think a business has a valid concern for what that representation can portray?"

        In this case, being reported as involving a Public Relations firm, don't you think an employee's public presentation can reflect on the employer?

        I think details matter, and the important detail here is that the employee promoted a negative image publicly. I do not think the firing is ridiculous at all. I think it was a case of poor judgement by the employee that had consequences.

        Just imagine all the possible services, or products a firm might be marketing to the public that could be negatively impacted by a public perception influenced by such a public display of attitude by an employee. If I owned a PR firm  promoting conflict resolution or anger management, or dozen's of other similar types of services, I sure as hell wouldn't want the image of that employee's response in my customer's minds when I try to convince them to buy my services.

        GA

        1. abwilliams profile image44
          abwilliamsposted 13 days agoin reply to this

          All valid points GA but, I still come back to my initial reaction to this (as a Business Owner)
          Yes, she screwed up and she needs to be made to understand why her actions were out of line, in so many ways. Once she does, she'll understand there can be no second chances. If there's a next time, she's gone!

          1. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 13 days agoin reply to this

            And I agree with you abwilliams. Now what do we do. ;-)

            I also think this may have been handled with a reprimand or such.

            But... my point was that it was not ridiculous for the firm to fire her. I know no more details than the picture that has traveled the net, that she purposely posted this on a public social platform, the OP's mention that she was fired, and that her employer was a PR firm.

            What I don't know is; how aggressive she was in her posting, how sensitive her employer's business was to such negative publicity, or whether this was her 'first offense'. For all I know, her employer could specialize in the type of examples I mentioned, which would definitely impact a customer's impression of the business.

            My bottom line, on the surface - the firing wasn't a ridiculous consequence of her actions.

            GA

            1. ahorseback profile image78
              ahorsebackposted 13 days agoin reply to this

              Having owned my own and run other peoples business' for years , I can tell you that if a person is fired , It is almost never for one offence or one reason .   Either way  , If you as a business owner saw dollars going down the tubes because of your employee - You too would fire them . Anyone would or ...........maybe one  really can't run a business after all . And lot's of states have "any reason or no reason firing laws.


              Politics or not .

              1. GA Anderson profile image83
                GA Andersonposted 13 days agoin reply to this

                I understand your perspective ahorseback, your points are not foreign to me. The states you refer to are called 'At Will' states.

                If you have researched the OP's topic, then maybe you know whether this employee is a repeat offender, or if the firm's business was financially sensitive to this type of publicity. I don't know any of that, but from the few details I have heard, I think the firm took a valid stand. Whether it amounted to over-kill or not is a call I can't make.

                GA

                1. ahorseback profile image78
                  ahorsebackposted 12 days agoin reply to this

                  In today's  cultural / political climate ,  corporate decisions are mixed with social media far beyond at any time in the past .   The cultural  war against the corporate America , CEO's , rich  people and  capitalism generally dictates sympathy to the "victim " ,...... that being the "poor woman" who was  fired .

                  All of it in spite of her personal behavior in public ,on her face book site and probably at work .  My understanding is that she actually worked as a PR firm ? Shouldn't that mean something ?  It sure does to the company .

                  Any difference with the NFL players taking the knee and the NFL dropping fifteen or twenty percent of  TV viewing and attending fans ?

                  Just saying personal accountability matters .

                  1. GA Anderson profile image83
                    GA Andersonposted 12 days agoin reply to this

                    Did you think my responses weren't saying "personal accountability matters" too, ahorseback?

                    Regarding your NFL question; I think there is a difference, but that question might be an interesting one to pursue. The difference in the employer's choice of actions would probably be the key. Along with the determination of who was the employer - the team or the NFL.

                    GA

    3. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 13 days agoin reply to this

      This brings up a problem as to how far an employer can stick it probosis in the private business of their employees. But, I can see the point about being prudent and not posting it for the world to see IF she can be identified personally as associated with the company. Did she do that in her Facebook? I don't work with Facebook, as I consider it intrusive.



      I know that this is an article from Huff Post but the article asks about a double standard that applied to this woman, but not to a white male that did the same thing but who takes the position of a rabid rightwinger in his attacks.  Perhaps the company and its managers are right wing, that the Right political violation of the rules is acceptable over that coming from the left. Did this man just get slapped on the wrist and he gets to keep his job with the identical employer?




      https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wo … 652fffa484

      1. ahorseback profile image78
        ahorsebackposted 13 days agoin reply to this

        Huffington post ? Seriously ?   Maybe , just maybe it's a matter of  that old adage ,"How are you gonna act " Socially , privately , publicly ?    There are and should be ramifications for such behavior .      If flipping the bird is okay , why not throwing a rock , a brick , ............nails in the pathway of the tires ?

        After all it's just political opinion  ?

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 11 days agoin reply to this

          "Huffington post ? Seriously ?   Maybe , just maybe it's a matter of  that old adage ,"How are you gonna act " Socially , privately , publicly ?    There are and should be ramifications for such behavior .      If flipping the bird is okay , why not throwing a rock , a brick , ............nails in the pathway of the tires ?"

          "After all it's just political opinion  ?"
          --------
          There is a bit of a difference, throwing rocks is a form of assault and deliberately putting nails on a public thoroughfare is at least malicious mischief, and one can be arrested for it. But 'flipping a bird' does not hurt anyone. So, if I want to express my opinion is thismanner and righties are opposed, I say 'too bad', it is freedom of speech.

  2. abwilliams profile image44
    abwilliamsposted 13 days ago

    PR firm should have called her in, explained that her actions weren't appropriate. This ugly gesture never compliments anyone and she probably needed to be reminded of that (or told for the first time) but, she should not have been fired for it.

    1. ahorseback profile image78
      ahorsebackposted 13 days agoin reply to this

      Why not ? For one half of the customers of the firm , that act is offensive = $ lost in business ?   is a business expected to lose profit for your personal political opinion ?

      1. abwilliams profile image44
        abwilliamsposted 13 days agoin reply to this

        Like I said, she should have been reprimanded, don't think it was a firing offense....unless she was flipping off  and disrespecting her Employer as well.
        Maybe she has never been taught that displaying this type behavior, then taking it further by advertising it...isn't cool! Who knows....everything is so upside down these days!

    2. jackclee lm profile image82
      jackclee lmposted 13 days agoin reply to this

      I agree with you. This is not a firing offense. She should be given a lecture on proper behavior...and her company's policy regarding public postings...

      1. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 13 days agoin reply to this

        Totally concur, this is not a termination offense in the least.   What she did can be construed as childish, even puerile.   To fire someone for that is beyond draconian.

        1. ahorseback profile image78
          ahorsebackposted 13 days agoin reply to this

          So says you about another persons company , reputation and income .   Just one more of those incidents that are really none of any of our business.  Aside from government workers , One company and their  business reputation = company  income .

          When an employee  affects income downward  - whether stealing or by act's such as this , it matters .

          1. abwilliams profile image44
            abwilliamsposted 11 days agoin reply to this

            I'm a Business Owner and if we did not give second chances, we'd have no Employees.  I take no pleasure in saying this, it's just the way things are now. We have a permanent Help Wanted sign that never seems to bring anyone in to apply. The younger employees think they're doing us a favor, when they show up to work and if they show up on time, they think they deserve a raise. We are firing more than we're hiring. It's a shame that it has come to this in America, but it has. From the look of future prospects graduating high school/college, it's not looking any better, any time soon for a return to what we used to refer to as 'Work Ethic'.

            1. abwilliams profile image44
              abwilliamsposted 11 days agoin reply to this

              P.S. I cannot wait until I can retire. I feel for future Business Owners, I don't know how they'll find a way, unless they can do it alone.

              1. ahorseback profile image78
                ahorsebackposted 11 days agoin reply to this

                I hear you loud and clear ,  I spent the last twenty years working alone -for and by myself . The employer /employee scene began in the eighties and  turned my stomach dealing with so many younger generations with no character whatsoever ,  no  ethics , no honesty ,.............And I ,at times , had two dozen employees beneath me .  Most -younger workers don't have the stomach for service and  especially sacrifice to a career . They for the most part  , want to begin at the top of the chain .

  3. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 13 days ago

    Almost all employees can be "fired at will".  That is, for any reason that is not discriminating against a protected class.  if you don't agree with that, support a union.

    If you do agree with it, focus on never saying anything that offends anyone ever.

    1. ahorseback profile image78
      ahorsebackposted 13 days agoin reply to this

      Or leave your politics at home like in our traditional workplace .

      I remember in the early 2003 era working for a boss who said over and over at our management meetings , 'We've got to get this Bush out of office " ....... and looking around the table at his supervisors as if to challenge .  It's a double edged sword.

  4. Aime F profile image85
    Aime Fposted 13 days ago

    The company I work for has a pretty strict social media policy, basically “don’t say anything online that you wouldn’t say directly to a client.” I don’t really follow it but I also realize I have no grounds to be upset if they were to review my public accounts and say “you haven’t followed our rules, we have to let you go.” It is what it is. I don’t really like to feel censored in my personal life because of my work life so I take the “risk,” but again I know it’s a risk.

    People should be able to do whatever they want in their own time but they also need to realize that those things may have consequences that extend beyond that, especially if they’re attaching their name to it. Simply flipping off the president probably wouldn’t have had any further consequences as it was just a passing act and wouldn’t have been connected specifically to her, but she also chose to photograph it and then post that photograph attached to her identity (and her identity is attached to the company she works for). Personally I think it’s funny, and if given the chance I probably would do the same... but I also wouldn’t be surprised if I got canned over it.

  5. FatFreddysCat profile image99
    FatFreddysCatposted 13 days ago

    Stories like this are why I purposely keep my social media accounts as silly and inconsequential as possible. I never post about politics or religion, and for damn sure nothing about my job.

  6. crankalicious profile image94
    crankaliciousposted 13 days ago

    She was fired appropriately. It was maybe a little harsh, but she violated the company's social media policy. The firing had nothing to do with her politics. It had to do with connecting the company to a particular opinion. Once she posted it on her facebook page, she connected her employer to her opinion. Depending on the company's work, they most likely would want to remain neutral in politics so as not to offend potential clients.

    My workplace has a policy against political clothing (like campaign shirts). I can't wear a shirt to work that says "F*** Donald Trump" on it. Seems like basically the same idea working here.

  7. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 13 days ago

    I agree that if she signed up to the social media policy she needed to follow it.  But the policy is intrusive. A similar policy was suggested in my workplace but abandoned because many of us do not use Facebook as a public/work platform but as a space for friends and family only.

 
working