Heroes

Generally an unmoderated forum for discussion of pretty much any topic. The focus however, is usually politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: Heroes

Unread post by rstrong » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:25 am

Vrede too wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:04 am
Did you see my post above? What do you think?
Somehow I missed it.

As I said, Akima LLC used the most offensive employee rights and freedom of speech stomping reasoning possible.

She hadn't committed a crime. It WAS freedom of speech, and it had nothing to do with the company and her position in it. Even if one claims bad publicity for the company, it's only because the company's actions made them part of the story.

Akima LLC has declared that employees may not express an opinion - even one having nothing to do with the company - on their own time and outside of the company - if it contradicts the CEO's opinions.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 20412
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Heroes

Unread post by Vrede too » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:29 am

Do you object when KKKers and Nazis get fired? I don't.

I think her mistake may have been the Twitter and Facebook boasting, not the bird itself.
Speaking of Rudy, WTF?

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: Heroes

Unread post by rstrong » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:43 am

Vrede too wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:29 am
Do you object when KKKers and Nazis get fired? I don't.
If they have a spotless record at work - no racism, no threats - and haven't committed any crimes outside of work, then I'd hold my nose and object. It's an evil, but it's a lesser of two evils.

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”
- Noam Chomsky

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 20412
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Heroes

Unread post by Vrede too » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:45 am

Freedom of expression doesn't apply to employees and backlash against employers for what their workers do is real. I'm not going to patronize a business that I know employs racists and Nazis, period. Bosses make business decisions and always will. When I got my account deleted because of Mr.B's stalking it was because the possibility of work repercussions for my unrestricted radicalism is a fact of life. Not that I knew that he would contact my bosses or that they would fire me, but it wasn't worth any risk to me.
Speaking of Rudy, WTF?

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 11330
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Heroes

Unread post by O Really » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:54 am

With regard to firing the nazis/racists, I've got three words: "negligent hiring/retention."
If you know or should know that your employee is, for example, a KKK member and at some point he attacks a black employee, it won't matter who started it or what the circumstances might have been, the employer going to be in trouble. There is of course a difference in a person getting fired because of some plausible risk or something dragging the company name around vs. just doing/saying something the employer disagrees with. But in either case, it's not generally protected activity. Except maybe in the states where they've passed a vague "smoker's law" that says an employee can't be fired for engaging in legal behaviour."

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: Heroes

Unread post by rstrong » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:09 pm

There's also a wee bit of a difference between being an Nazi and insulting a politician.

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 11330
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Heroes

Unread post by O Really » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:30 pm

rstrong wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:09 pm
There's also a wee bit of a difference between being an Nazi and insulting a politician.
There is that.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 20412
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Heroes

Unread post by Vrede too » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:32 pm

rstrong wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:09 pm
There's also a wee bit of a difference between being an Nazi and insulting a politician.
I agree, but the difference shouldn't matter to the principle you're defending.

Supposedly, it was not just for "insulting a politician", but that it was "lewd or obscene" and that it violated the existing social media policy. I can't know if that's true, and her accusation of unequal treatment suggest that it isn't, but IF that's the case I can see the boss' perspective. No one, especially a government contractor, wants to deal with butthurt Trumpettes.

My link has more details than yours.
As the photo circulated online, Briskman decided to tell Akima’s HR department what was happening when she went to work on Monday.
Sounds like she knew that her action was going to be linked to the company. Otherwise, it's a weird thing to do.
By Tuesday, her bosses called her into a meeting and said she had violated the company’s social media policy by using the photo as her profile picture on Twitter and Facebook.

“They said, ‘We’re separating from you,‘” said Briskman. “Basically, you cannot have ‘lewd’ or ‘obscene’ things in your social media. So they were calling flipping him off ‘obscene.’”
That's their story, whether fully honest or not.
Briskman, who worked in marketing and communications at Akima for just over six months, said she emphasized to the executives that she wasn’t on the job when the incident happened and that her social media pages don’t mention her employer. They told her that because Akima was a government contractor, the photo could hurt their business, she said.

Virginia is an employment-at-will state, meaning employers can fire people anytime and for any reason.
It's not like it was a 20 year career.
But Briskman said what’s been particularly infuriating is that a male colleague kept his job after recently posting lewd comments on his Facebook page that featured Akima LLC as his cover photo. She said this colleague was reprimanded for calling someone “a fucking Libtard asshole” on Facebook, but was allowed to delete the post and keep his job.

“How is that any less ‘obscene’ than me flipping off the president?” she asked. “How is that fair?”
If true, she has a legitimate beef, though probably not any legal grounds.
Image

Someone posted this graphic on Juli Briskman's Facebook page after she flipped off the president's motorcade. Briskman was amused.
:lol: :thumbup:
Briskman, a Democrat, said she plans to look for a new job with an advocacy group that she believes in, like Planned Parenthood or PETA.

Despite getting fired, she said she has no regrets about the attention her public show of displeasure with Trump received. In fact, she said she’s happy to be an image of protest that resonates with many Americans.

“In some ways, I’m doing better than ever,” she said. “I’m angry about where our country is right now. I am appalled. This was an opportunity for me to say something.”
Sounds like the action and even the firing was worth it.
Last edited by Vrede too on Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Speaking of Rudy, WTF?

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 11330
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Heroes

Unread post by O Really » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:52 pm

I think you're right that it was the social media that got her, not the bird itself. I've never seen a social media policy that included physical gestures.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 20412
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Heroes

Unread post by Vrede too » Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:01 pm

O Really wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:52 pm
I think you're right that it was the social media that got her, not the bird itself.

At least that's their story, one we can't dispute without knowing more.

I've never seen a social media policy that included physical gestures.

I wouldn't know, but I think the bird is generally considered to be "lewd or obscene".
Speaking of Rudy, WTF?

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: Heroes

Unread post by rstrong » Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:47 pm

I'm going by information in the story I linked to.
...Briskman, who worked in marketing and communications at Akima for just over six months, said she emphasized to the executives that she wasn’t on the job when the incident happened and that her social media pages don’t mention her employer....

...She wasn’t wearing company apparel and was never linked to the company, especially since a male employee was not fired after offensive comments...
[...]
As she was monitoring Facebook this summer, she found a public comment by a senior director at the company on an otherwise civil discussion by one of his employees about Black Lives Matter.

“You’re a f****ing Libtard a**hole,” the director injected, using his profile that clearly and repeatedly identifies himself as an employee.
So not company linked, and at the very least there's a double standard here. Along political lines.

You've played the "what if Nazi" card. I can play the reverse:

Would you object if Akima LLC fired anyone who expressed support for Black Lives Matter on their own time and non-company-linked social media? If Chick-fil-A fired anyone for attending a same-sex marriage? If Papa John's fired anyone with a vote Democrat sign on their front lawn at home?

All three issues have been opposed on morality grounds by corporations. They'll declare it equal to your moral stand against Nazis. Heck, the President has already done exactly that. All three stands kowtow to alt-right Republican sensibilities, giving the same "Butthurt Trumpettes bad for business." excuse.

Nor can there be any government-related exemption. There's millions of government employees in the US. Add government contractors' employees - Boeing, GM, Microsoft and countless more, and you're talking a substantial fraction of the US with no freedom of speech.

Now consider that Trump has called for boycotts of Apple over encryption. Boycotts of Starbucks, Macy’s, Univision, Mexico, Oreos, Fox News, and Glenfiddich scotch over things like supporting the wrong tennis player and changing a cup design. They too can justify a "no contradicting Trumpettes" policy.

Where does it stop?

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 20412
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Heroes

Unread post by Vrede too » Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:03 pm

rstrong wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:47 pm
... So not company linked,

Why did she go to HR at all, then?

and at the very least there's a double standard here. Along political lines.

If her account is accurate, I agree and said so in my OP.

You've played the "what if Nazi" card. I can play the reverse:

Would you object if Akima LLC fired anyone who expressed support for Black Lives Matter on their own time and non-company-linked social media? If Chick-fil-A fired anyone for attending a same-sex marriage? If Papa John's fired anyone with a vote Democrat sign on their front lawn at home?

All three issues have been opposed on morality grounds by corporations. They'll declare it equal to your moral stand against Nazis. Heck, the President has already done exactly that. All three stands kowtow to alt-right Republican sensibilities, giving the same "Butthurt Trumpettes bad for business." excuse.

Nazis are haters by definition and she lewdly expressed her hatred for the POSPOTUS. I don't think your examples of non-hateful support are the same thing.

Nor can there be any government-related exemption. There's millions of government employees in the US. Add government contractors' employees - Boeing, GM, Microsoft and countless more, and you're talking a substantial fraction of the US with no freedom of speech.

Again, the claim is that it was about "lewd or obscene", not just for opposing the POSPOTUS, and social media use restrictions are common inside and outside of government.

Now consider that Trump has called for boycotts of Apple over encryption. Boycotts of Starbucks, Macy’s, Univision, Mexico, Oreos, Fox News, and Glenfiddich scotch over things like supporting the wrong tennis player and changing a cup design. They too can justify a "no contradicting Trumpettes" policy.

I think it's offensive for a government official to call for punishing speech.

Where does it stop?

With companies that have and enforce wrongheaded policies getting heat for doing so, and that being more problematic for them than not doing so. I'm sure that this one is getting heat, I'm just not going to join in unless I learn more.
If I was in DC, I'd be organizing a mass bird-flipping bike ride past the WH with her leading the way, but I'd encourage those with jobs to not post pics of themselves without clearing it with the boss, first.
Last edited by Vrede too on Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Speaking of Rudy, WTF?

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: Heroes

Unread post by rstrong » Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:08 pm

There's another issue:

Suppose the employees of all those companies similarly tow the company line while Democrats are in power. No supporting Republican issues like the NRA, the bombing of brown people etc.. But they CAN post about Black Lives Matter or same-sex marriage or Hillary.

And then the Republicans are elected. Will those employees be required to go back and remove all posts that would offend alt-right sensibilities?

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 20412
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Heroes

Unread post by Vrede too » Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:17 pm

Again, visible hate and lewdness are different from your examples. A company can say to the public that they're tolerant of political differences without repercussions, but it's harder for them to justify tolerance for hatred and obscenities.

Here's an example for me - I could have probably expressed support on social media for BC/BS insurance vs. Mission Hospital as long as I wasn't revealing insider info. However, if I did so with a profanity-laced tirade against Mission, they would have rightfully fired me.
Speaking of Rudy, WTF?

User avatar
rstrong
Captain
Posts: 5889
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Winnipeg, MB

Re: Heroes

Unread post by rstrong » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:07 pm

Vrede too wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:03 pm
Would you object if Akima LLC fired anyone who expressed support for Black Lives Matter on their own time and non-company-linked social media? If Chick-fil-A fired anyone for attending a same-sex marriage? If Papa John's fired anyone with a vote Democrat sign on their front lawn at home?

Nazis are haters by definition and she lewdly expressed her hatred for the POSPOTUS. I don't think your examples of non-hateful support are the same thing.

Again, Chick-fil-A has taken a stand against same-sex marriage. The CEO of Papa John's has taken a number of partisan stands in favor of Republican issues. Heck, he just blamed NFL players kneeling for poor pizza sales and poor earnings growth. He EARNED his neo-Nazi support.

It's not just Mr.B declaring that his positions aren't base on hate. There's no shortage of CEOs and politicians and cable news hosts declaring that it's the Black Lives Matter and other civil rights movements that are the haters. No less than the President of the United States declared they and the Nazis equal, and no-one around him would dare contradict him.

You don't think they're the same thing. I don't think they're the same thing. But many do, and the law will find little difference
.

Nor can there be any government-related exemption. There's millions of government employees in the US. Add government contractors' employees - Boeing, GM, Microsoft and countless more, and you're talking a substantial fraction of the US with no freedom of speech.

Again, the claim is that it was about "lewd or obscene", not just for opposing the POSPOTUS, and social media use restrictions are common inside and outside of government.

Likewise, Chick-fil-A will find any support for same-sex marriage to be "lewd or obscene." Others find the same for Black Lives Matter, with plenty of claims of their being anti-cop and now terrorists. A university that banned Democrats because "Democrats can't be Christian" is an absolutely mandatory campaign stop for Republicans. You name the civil right, and you can still find someone in power who considers it "lewd or obscene."

Whether social media use restrictions are common inside and outside of government, those restrictions need restrictions. People should not have to give up freedom of speech, given a reasonable policy of not linking their social media accounts to their company. And the response "I don't speak for them and they don't speak for me" when someone else makes the connection. Insulting the President is pretty much Freedom of Speech bedrock.

CEOs don't get punished when their corporations commit fraud or break other laws. It seems even more dystopian that the lower level employees must have their off-hours non-company-related speech strictly controlled.

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 11330
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Heroes

Unread post by O Really » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:30 pm

Gotta remember that "freedom of speech" as a right relates to governmental restriction on political speech. That does not give protection from the social consequences of choosing to exercise that freedom. If they're willing to put up with the bad publicity, Chik Fil A could indeed fire an employee for being publicly in favor of gay marriage or hell, in most places still they could fire him/her for being gay. Most employers don't do that, though, for a variety of reasons - one of which is they might have to prove their reason wasn't a pretense for some other form of unlawful discrimination. On the other hand, most employers don't want to get dragged into negatively controversial issues not related to their business.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 20412
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Heroes

Unread post by Vrede too » Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:36 pm

Actually, when faced with protests Chick-fil-A repudiated Dan Cathy’s homophobia and stopped funding anti-LGBTQ lobbying groups, and I’m unaware of it penalizing employees for their views on the issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil ... ontroversy
You can bet that any affected in the way you suggest would have run to HRC or other LGBTQ groups and we would have heard all about it.

I’m not sure what you expect of me here. It is and always has been perfectly legal for bosses to limit off-duty speech, Akima LLC apparently had an existing policy against “lewd or obscene”, and her going to HR was either an admission that the company would be linked to her act or was for some reason a provocation by her. So, dependent on the contract or policy handbook, there is no free speech issue here legally, none.

If bird-flipping and other obscenities started appearing on the social media posts of your coworkers, do you think that your boss would do nothing?

Just as people have 1st Amendment protections from government action to limit speech, businesses have 1st Amendment protections from government action to limit free association, restricted only by civil rights protections against discrimination that have their own constitutional and legislative backing. Your “those restrictions need restrictions” ain’t gonna pass and would probably be found unconstitutional if they did.

So, the only controls on your slippery slope fears are employee or public action, but they’re pretty good ones. If a company crosses the line to the places you imagine, employees can revolt or choose not to work there in the first place, or there can be massive public outcry. I’m all for these and I’ve frequently shared my bitchy notes to employers, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen one from you. However, I’m not sending one yet because:
1) There’s something weird about her having gone to HR.
2) A lewd gesture is different from a ‘Boo Trump’ sign, and there’s apparently content-neutral extant company policy on the issue.
3) She chose to brag with her Twitter and Facebook profiles.
4) We only have her word for it that there was unequal treatment of a different obscene social media employee poster.
5) She seems happy, is most irked by #4 rather than the the fact of being fired and hasn’t called for action against the company.

"I don't speak for them and they don't speak for me" sounds lovely, but hasn’t and won’t ever stop boycotts and other public actions against companies that retain the really bad actors like Nazis, Klan and other known racists, but the public doesn’t and shouldn’t get riled up about less extreme and hateful employee views.

I’ll be happy to write Akima LLC if I learn more that changes these facts, but I’m not there yet. With all the time you’ve spent arguing with me today, have you written them yet?
Speaking of Rudy, WTF?

User avatar
O Really
Captain
Posts: 11330
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Heroes

Unread post by O Really » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:49 pm

You tawkin' ta me?

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 20412
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonvile, NC

Re: Heroes

Unread post by Vrede too » Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:05 pm

O Really wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:49 pm
You tawkin' ta me?
No, we agree and have elaborated on each other's points.
Speaking of Rudy, WTF?

JTA
Commander
Posts: 3898
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:04 pm

Re: Heroes

Unread post by JTA » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:35 pm

An Oldie but Goodie:

You aren't doing it wrong if no one knows what you are doing.

Post Reply