Emergency Dispatcher Fired For Facebook Drug Joke 631
kaptink writes "Dana Kuchler, a 21-year veteran of the West Allis Dispatch Department, was fired from her job for making jokes on her Facebook page about taking drugs. She appealed to an arbitrator, claiming the Facebook post was a joke, pointing out she had written 'ha' in it, and noting that urine and hair samples tested negative for drugs. The arbitrator said she should be entitled to go back to work after a 30-day suspension, but the City of West Allis complained that was not appropriate. Is posting bad jokes on Facebook a justifiable reason to give someone the boot?"
no (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably not, but by the time it's sorted she'll be bankrupt
Of course it's justifiable -- we live in the age of corporate fear. There's no longer a need for anything to actually happen -- all that's required is for a corp to assert "fear of [whatever]" (litigation, disparagement of business, loss of competitive advantage) for them to justify any extension of control over their employees.
Just look at the way the bastards try to intrude into your home by telling you you'll be fired if your housemate doesn't stop smoking within 90 days. Why??? -- "fear of increased insurance costs".
Craven sons of bitches.
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize this was not a corporation ? It was a the police department, technically a government-run, tax-funded public service.
Isn't their JOB to PROTECT people's constitutional freedoms (like the freedom to tell a joke ?) as opposed to censoring people ?
The article doesn't say if the joke was made during working hours. If she was on the job, in uniform they could make a claim that the joke was conduct unbecoming of somebody employed in law enforcement or something, but surely when she takes that uniform off and walks out the door she's a private citizen with all the rights of such ?
Soldiers can't be charged with conduct unbecoming for bad behavior unless they are in uniform, so why should it be different?
Of course this is just speculation since we don't KNOW if she was in uniform but essentially - if she was off duty, then she wasn't representing the department and if there is any "embarrassment" her behaviour it is only toward herself - so this would seem a crucial point of consideration I believe.
Disclaimers: IANAL. IANAA (I Am Not An American).
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
You think the police's job is to protect people's freedoms? You must be Swedish
The Swedish? Defending freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so [wikipedia.org]
Re:no (Score:5, Informative)
Soldiers can't be charged with conduct unbecoming for bad behavior unless they are in uniform, so why should it be different?
Actually, they can under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It applies to all US service members regardless of location, in and out of uniform.
I don't see why something similar wouldn't apply to other nations militiaries or other government organizations...
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
How is it unjust? If you join the military (at least in the US), you did so voluntarily. You chose, of your own free will, to sign over your time (and if need be, your health and/or life) to the military to be used as the leadership sees fit. Part of being in the military means that you are on call all the time, and on the hook be called up at any moment and sent into combat. Going and doing stupid things like getting in trouble with the law impairs your readiness to deploy, hence the additional charges.
Don't like it? Don't sign up. And don't get me started with my take on pacifists.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>How is it unjust? If you join the military (at least in the US), you did so voluntarily. You chose, of your own free will, to sign
>over your time (and if need be, your health and/or life) to the military to be used as the leadership sees fit.
Idiots deserve justice too.
Anyway your argument is false. When there is a draft (you've had them, we've had them) we don't exclude draftees from military law on the ground that the did NOT volunteer but were FORCED to become soldiers and give up their freedom of
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
Congratulations, you just gave three examples of where things turned out groovy. On the flip-side, I will give you examples of where empires have laid waste to populations (both internal and example). Don't believe me, think Hitler, Stalin, Mao just to name a few. Try being a pacifist to a Muslim extremist, and I am pretty sure they will literally hand you your head: think Daniel Pear. Your examples only work because the British are reasonable people. You might not believe that, but they are. When you are on the other side to psychopaths on a mission to cleanse the world of , throwing you your hands is a guarantee of death for not just you, but your family, your clan and possibly your .
Though I understand your goal and applaud your POSSIBLE conviction (I say that because unless you have a 10,000 man army storming down your roads, you can't say for sure what you will do), sometimes an active resistance is a better solution than passive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The early Christian church did not fight back against the oppressions of Rome. They were killed by the thousands in gladiator stadiums, torn apart by animals, and crucified for their faith. But they did not resist with arms. They did not fight back with armies or even political campaigns. They fought back with love, forgiveness, and peace. And in less than four hundred years, they defeated one of the strongest empires the world has ever seen.
The Christian church in China did not resist with politics or
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it unjust? If you join the military (at least in the US), you did so voluntarily.
Yeah, I've seen this argument a few times.
"They moved there, it was their choice, they should have known better"
"It's voluntary, they knew what they were getting into"
"She married him, it's her own fault"
"Well he jumped off the bridge, so of course he died"
That last one is a suicidal crazy fucker. Yeah, he killed himself. But I don't think there's really a solid line distinguishing the difference between being pushed into a bad situation and going there of your own free will. Sure, some people go out and do stupid things. They deserve to be punished for it, otherwise there will be idiots everywhere (more so). But some people don't have any other choice. I know a few kids who's best option in life was to join the military. Too stupid for college, too poor to make it on their own, and not mature enough to left alone with booze. They could have failed out of college and racked up a lot of debt, or startup a failing business, but they were destined for the military.
We can't absolve people from the consequences of their actions, but neither can we ignore the environment that influences their actions.
The world just isn't as simple as that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't like it? Don't sign up.
Of course, that utterly ignores that people cannot help where they are born, or the people they are born to, and so the military is the only choice for employment for many, many people.
And don't get me started with my take on pacifists.
You're proud of your prejudiced attitude? Wow.
Why would you genuinely have a problem with people who do not want to hurt other people? Unless you think it is OK to hurt people for your own personal gain. Or what you perceive as your gain, which in reality is actually the gain of the major owners of corporations (i.e. banks),
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that I can get charged with an ADDITIONAL crime purely on the grounds of the fact that during the day I work for a branch of the government is utterly ludicrous and unjust.
The military is more than just "work". It involves a different level of commitment than a civilian job, and different laws apply.
Nobody with any REAL courage would consent to a life of "following orders with discipline".
There are two forms of patriotism: Defend the country, or make it worth defending. The lifestyles are different, but both goals are admirable. It's your military - if you don't like how they are being used, then you need to consider getting involved in politics.
Re:no (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely, 100% wrong. They can. The fact that the individual works for a public service and not a private corporation is actually worse for their case, not better for it.
Re:no (Score:5, Informative)
Soldiers can't be charged with conduct unbecoming for bad behavior unless they are in uniform, so why should it be different?.
in the British Army Yes they can, and the other services here too under Section 69 C of the Army Act 1955 in that they brought the Army in the disrepute
in this way a soldier can be charged by civilian authorities, get find guilty and THEN get done by the Army AS WELL under 69 C
it's a form of two charges for the same crime in a sense. As i was a soldier and have had this done for some drunken road sing collecting antics whilst serving in Germany in 1988 i know this well. and it's a VERY common thing to happen when you have been charged by the civilian authorities. sometimes you don't even need to be charged by the civilians to get this military charge. the investigation is enough to bring the wrath of section 69 C down upon you.
thus uniform NOT required at all for charges under military law.
Re:no (Score:4, Funny)
As i was a soldier and have had this done for some drunken road sing collecting antics whilst serving in Germany in 1988
I read "drunken road sing collectin' antics" in a Brit soccer hooligan accent in my head several times, wondering what new English slang I'd come on and then I realized you meant road signs. =(
Re:no (Score:5, Interesting)
My insurance company made us sign an affidavit that all covered persons were non-smokers. If we did not sign they would increase our employee premium by 40%.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds reasonable to me. Smokers are basically killing themselves, so naturally their hospital costs will be higher. Let THEM pay for the increased costs, not me and other non-self-destructive persons.
I agree. I'm not a smoker but I certainly enjoy self-destructing.. and I don't expect others to pay for it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, absolutely. The only thing that I'm left wondering is why go after smoking when it's not the largest cost, though? I would much prefer that companies go after the biggest costs to save us the most money...that just makes sense, right? We'd sign affidavits attesting to the fact that we don't eat fast food, transfats, more calories per day than is good for us, and we work out strenuously at least 5 hours per week. We should be required to keep our weight within a reasonable body-mass index...it's killing
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Smokers already do pay for it many times over through taxes.... they also die younger, costing less in pensions. If smokers were not around, you'd have to pay more tax.
Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they had other reasons, but needed an excuse to lay her off?
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
'nuff said. That's a lotta retirement money the get to keep.
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Interesting)
This also happens to be exactly why I keep my Facebook free of anyone from work. People seem to think that they need to "friend" anyone they met even briefly and then wonder why it gets them into trouble. You can't be fired for things you said on your Facebook page if your page is set to private and nobody from work can read it. It's that damned simple.
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:4, Funny)
This also happens to be exactly why I keep my Facebook free of anyone from work.
I take this one step further by not having anything to do with Facebook. That's after I've made sure I have no friends of course. That'll learn 'em!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I try to minimize *any* contact with my coworkers outside of work, for several reasons.
In the first place, spending non-work time in contact with my coworkers would risk the development of personal friendships with some of them more than others, which would create a conflict of interests, opening up the door for unintentional favoritism, compromising my ability to perform my job duties objectively and putting me in a diffic
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I realize it's not officially against (most employers') policy to be friends with a coworker (to *date* coworkers, of course, is almost universally frowned upon, but mere friendships are usually tolerated), but it's still not a good idea.
HR (well, actually the Legal dept) frowns on office dating, but management loves having subordinates getting married to each other. It's so much harder to leave a company if you have to leave your other half behind or have to leave in pairs.
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
You think setting your profile to "private" will make sure that only your friends see your status? That's cute.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Informative)
I've never worked on the dispatch side of things, but there is a huge difference between a good dispatcher and a bad one. The good ones are true multitaskers; they not only know what goes on during a fire/EMS call, but can tell what's happening just by the sound of someone's voice, and can manage to keep track of five or six separate incidents at one time. Many of them are former fire/EMS/law enforcement who either retired or had to quit for medical reasons.
Most dispatchers pull 12-hour shifts, often overnight. It's a stressful job where you're sitting at a desk all day trying to help coordinate a response to life-threatening situations solely by radio. I'd imagine it's a little like air traffic control, actually.
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:4, Funny)
You keep using that word [google.com]. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Funny)
>Is your o, a, b and l keys broken?
Any reason you typed 'is' and not 'are' there? I assume those keys work on your keyboard, as you use them elsewhere, so why make that basic mistake while nit-picking someone else's comment?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm taking this way off topic but I've got karma to burn and I feel like bitching about this somewhere..
One of my girlfriends is in the habit of speaking in acronyms. Not just in text messages but vocally. By far the most annoying one is when she wants to say "By the way" she says "Bee Tee Dubs" which not only saves no syllables but also bastardizes the word for copying an audio recording into an alternative vocalization of the letter W.
I have repeatedly assured her that no sane person speaks in such a mann
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree with him. "Pry" is how you get two things apart that are stuck together. It's stupid and lazy. If he doesn't have the time or energy to spell "probably" (or even "prolly") he should just lurk rather than waste my time trying to figure out what he actually said. Bad grammar? Sure, go for it. Typos? Everybody makes them. WTF or IANAL? Of course, everyone knows what those acronyms are. "Pry" for "probably"? That's just retarded.
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Funny)
English isn't my native language, so I'm probably missing something here, but what construct is "21 year veteran with mandatory raises is pry a nice chunk of change"?
English is my native language and I have no idea WTF he means by "pry".
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Being so stupid as to say dumb things on Facebook
It wasn't a dumb thing, it was a joke. It was clearly marked as a joke. The physical The "dumb thing" is that the humourless irony-deprived grey flannel dwarf who reported her did not understand it was a joke.
Stop being an apologist for the implementation of a regime of "thought crime." Please stop.
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree that her remarks, joke or not, merit termination, but I do agree that her behavior was stupid.
People need to learn this and learn it well: Whatever you post on the internet is forever and irrevocably attached to you and will be used against you in every way possible. This is not like other, earlier forms of communication because in other, earlier forms of communication remarks were not preserved and were mostly limited to a small set of known recipients.
This is why your internet handle should not be your name. This is why routine anonymity is a good thing for everyone. Yes, her employer acted badly and yes, whoever reported her is a humorless jerk. You cannot build a society on the assumption that there are no jerks and everyone has truth and justice as their primary motive!
Don't post anything on facebook, or any other site, unless you want it to be known by all future employers, the police, all future boy- and girl-friends, your mother, your current or future children, historians attempting to demonize you, etc., etc.. It is no exaggeration to say that what she did was stupid and that she, and everyone, ought to know better. A joke among friends is one thing, a joke to your boss's face is quite another; and (like it or not) when you post on facebook you are talking directly to your boss, and your mother, and the cops, and so forth and so on.
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, you just reminded of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and a few other places where people had to watch (and still do watch) what they say because they were never entirely sure whether or not the person they were talking to would be an informer of some sort. It didn't matter if those remarks were not preserved, or limited to a small set of known recipients. You just never really knew, and self-censored what you said.
By claiming her behaviour is stupid, and saying that you should watch what you say unless completely anonymous (what happens if anonymity on the internet is eroded?), you're really targeting the wrong person/party. Her behaviour is not stupid. Her behaviour is perfectly natural in a society that (supposedly) promotes and protects freedom of speech. The real target of your ire and denunciations of stupidity should be the corporate and (in this case) government desire to undermine these freedoms, and promote self-censorship. The real stupid thing here is the idea that she should not be free to say what she wants. As the parent said: Stop being an apologist for the implementation of a regime of "thought crime."
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:4, Interesting)
The GP isn't describing the perfect situation. The GP is describing the current situation. And that is, anything and everything you put on the internet becomes instantly indexable, instantly accessible knowledge for everyone--friend, foe, employer, future husband/wife, children, etc.
To deny that this is the case is to deny reality.
Funny, you just reminded of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and a few other places
Well, gee, maybe that's because those places aren't nearly so different from us as we'd like to pretend on television. Quit deluding yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As the parent said: Stop being an apologist for the implementation of a regime of "thought crime."
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this? She's upset that her right to free speech is not being respected. But she wants to go back to work for an institution that doesn't respect the right of people to manage their own biochemistry as they see fit, or to buy sex from a consenting adult. If she really cared about freedom, she would have stopped facilitating the arrest of non-violent people a long time ago
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What needs to be pointed out here is that
Your right to free speech does not mean that you are protected from the consequences of what you say.
There is no question that Dana The (Ex-)Dispatcher had the right to publish her jokes on Face Book. That does not absolve her of the consequences of demonstrating that she is too stupid with respect to professional off duty behavior to continue to work for that police department.
Maybe she can get a job with another police department that has lower standards.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The real stupid thing here is the idea that she should not be free to say what she wants.
I think this is a case of "it depends." I think, for one, we need to come to a consensus on what sort of privacy you should be able to expect on a social networking site. Should you consider it private communication or public? And even if it is private, there are certain situations where it doesn't matter. If you work for the public and say or do something - in private or not - which puts into question your integrity or ability to perform your job, you should have no expectation of privacy unless that priv
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's relatively rare, and limited to only the small number of dispatchers working in very large departments. It was not unreasonable for the other poster to assume the other direction based on the preponderance of dispatchers he may have met or talked to.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The sad truth is that we're all guilty of this regime where jokes are not acceptable anymore. We all demanded 100% security. Nobody protested after 9/11 (because that would be unpatriotic). Even on the other side of the oceans, nobody protested against the crazy screams for more security.
So... Try joking to a security officer at an airport that you had a love explosivion last night with your girlfriend. Merely mentioning half the word "explo..." will make you miss your flight.
We all demanded security - so,
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
We all demanded 100% security
No we didn't; I didn't at least. At every opportunity I quoted "nothing to fear but fear itself," said that if we caved into fear than the terrorists had won, and pointed out that about the most dangerous thing you could do was get an an automobile. I called the misnamed PATRIOT act the "cowardly government is scared shitless act". And I wasn't alone.
Obviously, I think that people should use their brains
If brains were dynamite most people wouldn't have enough to blow their noses.
Re: (Score:3)
I wrote my elected representatives, too, for all the good it did. But then, I voted against Bush 4 times, too -- twice in the primaries and twice in the general elections. That guy was the pied piper of sheep, that's for sure.
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Being so stupid as to say dumb things on Facebook without realising her words could come back to bite her might be good grounds for not employing her in the first place.
I think you'll find that [the Universe/saying dumb things] pretty much covers [everything/everyone]
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:5, Funny)
I think you'll find that [the Universe/saying dumb things] pretty much covers [everything/everyone]
Shutup woman, get on my horse.
Re:Sounds unreasonable (Score:4, Funny)
Obama wrote that he was addicted to marijuana in his autobiography and wrote "ha" after it?
Why people use their real names: (Score:4, Informative)
Why oh why do people use their real names on this Net we call Inter? It just isn't worth the potential aggravation.
Why people use their real names:
Section 4.1 of Facebook terms and conditions:
-- Terry
Re:Why people use their real names: (Score:5, Funny)
Someone has actually read the terms and conditions on Facebook? I am at the same time impressed, horrified and disgusted.
Freedom of speech should be a law ;) (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously I understand from a business point the reason. But that doesn't make it right.
Kinda along the lines of no bathroom breaks, mandatory overtime without compensation, and your everyday harassment from bosses.
It always seems like when a company goes too far to try to limit negative publicity all they get is a mountain of bad press.
Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;) (Score:5, Interesting)
If the former, that would certainly change the nature of *my* job in fundamental ways.
I work at a public library. At work (and in the presence of the public), I'm not supposed to express an opinion on basically *anything* (well, anything of substance; I can talk about the weather). Religion, politics, history, education, science, you name it. This goes to extremes in my line of work. When a patron asks me for books on how the fall of Rome resulted in the creation of angels (yes, this is a real example), I'm supposed to try to help them find books on that, without comment. In practice this means books on angels and books on the history of Rome. I know very well that the books on the history of Rome won't say anything about the creation of angels and the books on angels won't say anything about the fall of Rome, but I cannot *tell* the patron this. I have to keep a straight face while I help them find the books.
So my job would be pretty radically different if on-the-job free speech were legally mandatory.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
as a federal employee she is not allowed to put up political signs in her yard, for instance
Once upon a time I was a Fed, and that's not true, UNLESS you work for one of the super-secret agencies, but they have all kinds of looney-toons rules that don't apply to the other agencies.
The Hatch Act DOES apply in some specific circumstances outside the job, but putting up a partisan sign in your yard is not one of them. That's OK (again, for "regular" Feds, not NSA/CIA/Secret Service folks).
had to link due to stupid lameness filter [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But, again, it doesn't appear to me that this gives the people running the place the right to fire someone for wearing a political shirt while not at work, but I guess
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And anyone who works in the legal field knows that this is an abnormal thing that happened. I also suggest that there is more to that story, too. So just because the possibility exists that you could get sued for something because it happened to someone somewhere once upon a time, let's throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Remember when that lady sued McDonald's because the coffee was too hot and it burned her? Everyone over-reacted by serving cold coffee. Well guess what. They were making a decision
Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;) (Score:5, Insightful)
So I assume she was getting paid for those 16 hours of every weekday (and 48 hours of weekends every week) where she was required to abide by some company "behaviour code"?
Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;) (Score:5, Insightful)
Businesses should fire people who are too stupid to understand the impact of their actions on their company.
Ah yes, the good, old "you're just a slave after all" argument.
Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;) (Score:5, Interesting)
True enough. Just because you're free to say anything you want, doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to spout off without discretion.
Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;) (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right. As much as I hate what's happened to her, this can't be a black & white situation.
What if an employee at an abortion clinic spends her evenings and weekends attending anti-abortion rallies? What if she spends her time organizing those sorts of rallies?
What if a secret service agent assigned to keeping the President alive spends his personal time popping off about how much he hates the President?
Two examples. Extremes, yes. But they show that there are circumstances where private actions are so radically inappropriate for an employee that continued employment is... inadvisable. I'm not saying her case is one of those, but as much as it rubs me the wrong way, I can see the shape of the argument behind her dismissal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right about the constitutional right part, but dead wrong about the whole 'perception and image' bullshit. People take themselves and one week of 'bad pr' way too seriously. A company should have the integrity to stand behind a 21 year veteran. Period.
Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;) (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, yes.
My company pays me from 9 to 5 and that does NOT give them the right to invade my live the rest of the time. In return, I will not meddle with their buissness outside office times. What happens at the office, stays at the office, and what happens outside, happens outside. Thats a matter of basic decency.
Of course there is a good measure of flexibility to this rule, but that works both ways. If my boss doesn't mind leaving me an hour early from time to time, the less I mind the occasional overtime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wholeheartedly agree.
It seems the concept "working" has become a bit warped in our society. If you formulate it differently things look entirely different:
"My employer pays me for my skill and service which I'm willing to deliver for the price I'm being paid. We both have a contract and agreement where we stipulate which service he wants me to provide to him and for which compensation I will dedi
Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;) (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, the City of West Allis is a "government", not a "business", and its emergency dispatchers are government employees, not private employees in some sort of dispatching industry. The First Amendment has been held to apply to state and local governments since 1925 [wikipedia.org], and applies to some extent even when the government is acting as employer [umkc.edu].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then their job contract should specify public-image requirements for their behavior outside of their on-the-clock hours. Let's see how well that goes over.
Sounds like the excuse.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like the excuse.... (Score:5, Informative)
she had already been taken through 4 of the mandatory 5 steps to dismissal
"Kuchler was already on thin ice with the city, having gone through four of the five disciplinary steps required by the collective bargaining agreement with the local clerical union: a verbal warning, written warning, one-day-suspension, and three-day-suspension."
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/05/police_dispatcher_fired_for_st.php [sfweekly.com]
so it seems that for whatever reason, her bosses didn't think much of her...
Re:Sounds like the excuse.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which makes this whole story sensationalist. It's not like "make a drug joke, get fired", it's "be on the verge of being fired and pile on the straw that broke the camel's back". Nobody really wants to have people in that position for long, either you want the employee to really straighten themselves out or you want them out, no in betweens. There's no goodwill at that point.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that it's not a straw on the back of the camel. It has nothing to do with the camel. The camel lied about a straw. There is no straw.
If the government lies in order to fire an employee, that is an important story. Whoever made that decision and the ones supporting them have no integrity and are not worthy of trust.
Cause (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. The cause is conservative Americans. There wouldn't be a problem and we wouldn't try to prohibit Americans from doing so many things if Americans weren't conservative.
We brought this on ourselves (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, we wouldn't even have this problem if we didn't try to prohibit Americans from so many things...
We brought this on ourselves with our own rhetoric (not just right-wing religious crap that results in things like the war on drugs, legalized discrimination against gays, and a steady erosion in women's rights, but right-wing libertarian rhetoric about the supremacy of the market for solving all the world's ills and making businesses more powerful than democratically elected governments, and left-wing political correctness that had people fired for speaking controversially about certain topics).
Indeed, we wouldn't have this particular problem if people weren't propagating moronic notions of "property rights" trumping every other constitutional right, including that of free speech (and freedom of association). If freedom of speech applied, as it was intended, everywhere, for everyone, then you couldn't be fired for saying something stupid, be it to your colleagues, your flatmate, your co-workers (outside of business hours), or whoever, in whatever medium.
But we've lost track of that--now people, especially in the United States, promote the notion that "speech has consequences", which is true, but not the way they mean, and not like this. Getting fired for bad jokes is not a "natural consequence" of telling bad jokes any more than landing in prison for saying something the government (or a powerful business leader with friends in government) doesn't like. Both are an artifice to suppress speech and, in this particular case, an excuse to replace one person with seniority with someone else who is no doubt cheaper and more compliant. Scare people into compliance AND replace an experienced worker with a newbie who will work for peanuts: two birds, one stone.
Thanks to libertarian group-think, we are no longer citizens with constitutional freedoms and rights, we are merely peasants, living and eating at the sufferance of our corporate masters. And you know what? Most of us are too busy arguing vehemently for the rights of our masters to do whatever they want in the name of "it's their property, so no 'government' (read: constitutional) constraint should ever apply. Ridiculous, but the country is lousy with people who think exactly that, consequences be damned.
"Love is hate", "no is yes", "war is peace", and we live in a free society. Just so long as you don't actually try to exercize those freedoms against the wishes of your corporate master.
Dangers of public by default (Score:4, Insightful)
With Facebook's constant and behind-the-back changes to make more and more things public by default, it'll be a question of time until somebody gets fired because they posted something for their friends (not including anybody from work), yet people (incl. employment-related) they had never intended to see the message did see it and used it against the poster.
Personally I hate the fact, that I have to keep screening my privacy settings just in case they fucked around with something again and changed it to "Everybody".
Employers need to be slapped down (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as your physical performance on the job isn't affected, your employer should have no right to use what you do outside of work hours against you, unless they're paying you to be on-call (and even then, there should be limits).
End of story.
It all depends on what you mean ... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you take the question as: "Is posting snarky content on Facebook about evading drugs testing sufficient grounds to disqualify you from your job, and hence set you up for justifiable dismissal?", the answer is obviously: "No.".
If you take the question as: "Is posting snarky content on Facebook about evading drugs testing on part of an emergency dispatcher sufficient ground to disqualify said dispatcher from her job", the answer would shift to: "Probably not".
However, if you were to take the question as: "Suppose you are a manager in charge of emergency services. Suppose you catch one of your employees, in a fairly critical position too, writing snarky stuff on Facebook about evading drugs testing. Is that a risk to you? Would it make YOU look bad if she did anything wrong in her job (however unrelated to actual substance abuse)?", then the answer is a definite: "Yes". For that reason said manager will face the choice of (a) actually looking into the matter, forming a personal judgement, and exposing himself and his career tot potential damage just to be fair to an employee or (b) simply firing her and getting a replacement. Which option do you think would make more sense from a CYA perspective and would also make said manager look good, competent, ruthless, and dedicated?
There are no bonus points for coming up with answer (b). So that particular dispatcher is hereby dispatched. Such is the power of new electronic media, classical all-American CYA considerations, and age-old guilt-by-association thinking.
Re:It all depends on what you mean ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, on the plus side, there's no need to feel bad for her. She's likely to file--and win--a substantial lawsuit against the city for wrongful termination which will not only net her her job back (if she wants it) but also her pension and a decent chunk of change for her troubles.
Such is the power of firing people for no reason and ignoring an arbiter who told you that you did so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not likely to happen, so kids it's time to learn the lesson the net taught everyone else long before there was a world wide web - don't use your real name if you want to write anything that may offend the most easily offended person you can think of.
Re:It all depends on what you mean ... (Score:5, Funny)
Activate Slashdot Affect on City of West Allis (Score:3, Informative)
Link to webform email Mayor Dan Devine [west-allis.wi.us] Phone #: (414) 302-8290
Link to webform email Human Resources director Audrey Key [west-allis.wi.us] Phone #: (414) 302-8292
I'm emailing the Mayor a picture of Kim Jong-il.
Arbitration is Binding (Score:5, Informative)
Arbitration in the US is binding. They can huff and puff and try to blow the decision down, but they are going to lose.
Either she gets her job back or they end up paying her not to do her job.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Arbitration in the US is binding.
Unless it's non-binding arbitration [slashdot.org]. The TFA only says that the woman "appealed to an arbitrator."
actually it doesnt matter ..... (Score:4, Funny)
I think it depends on things not mentioned (Score:4, Interesting)
Is anything publicly visible just grounds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are my first-amendment rights applicable?
No, as they protect you from the government, not from private entities.
So the arbiter ruled - end of problem (Score:5, Informative)
This is a non issue. The arbiter ruled. The person has to go back to work after 30 days.
Sanity prevailed.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well it would be the end of it, except the city has taken the binding arbitration ruling to court to have it thrown out. What it boils down to in the end is one of two things:
1) Does the city feel it's worthhile to fire her and either:
a) pay out a settlement from the resulting wrongful discharge, et al lawsuit,
b) are convinced she won't find some hired gun foaming at the mouth to make mega-bucks suing a retarded local government;
OR
2) Does the city deluded think they can win a wrongful discharge suit,
Feel safer? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the one hand, they tried to remove an employee in a critical job who had been linked - via a Facebook comment - to drugs. On the other hand, they tried to remove an experienced employee working in a critical job who had submitted to and passed their drug tests. Who would they replace her with? A less experienced dispatcher who talks about drug addiction in bars and at home but not on Facebook?
STOP! (Score:5, Informative)
Look, if you don't want your job, just quit and go do something you like. Don't troll your employer into firing you, then drag lawyers into it. The only winners there are the lawyers, and that makes Baby Jesus strangle a kitten.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Moot kangaroo court (Score:4, Insightful)
So the city sets up a kangaroo court, is displeased with the results and declares it moot? Generally those contracts where you agree to settle things by arbitration are set up so the big can crush the little with a minimum of effort.
What was the purpose of arbitration if "the city" can simply say it is displeased with the result. I like how the TFA makes it sound like this is a talking city.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"social networking sites"
"private"
Yeah?
Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, private in the same sense as if you were to decide to go to a bar and have a few drinks with your friends while not working it would still be a "private" event in the sense that her employer would have little grounds for firing you even using the "but anyone could see him/her in the bar and we don't condone binge drinking here! We have to protect our corporate image!" argument. Once you're off the clock it is your private time to do with as you please (unless you're getting paid to be on call).
Re: (Score:2)
> Think before you post online, whichever site or mailing list. Too many people post without thinking.
When it comes to FB, it should be:
Think before you add "friends".
Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Think before you post online, whichever site or mailing list. Too many people post without thinking.
Seriously, should I have to do this ? And when I make a joke in public to one of my friends should I first glance over my shoulder to see if there's some HR loon or middle manager stalking me who could use a joke as an excuse to fire me ? That's not the kind of society I want to live in. (It's also in fact NOT the society I live in because luckily I happen to live in a country with decent social protections and unions.) This is the sort of thing we used reproach the USSR for : peoples lives being destroyed because they get reported for saying the "wrong things" without recourse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People joke on the street about taking drugs all the time. I couldn't imagine batting an eye if I heard that walking by a group of strangers.
Some people see the internet as a big newspaper, with all of the authority, authenticity, and formality that entails. Something showing up on the internet is documented in a library permanently. Anyone looking up anything related to that person will inevitably come across that thing, tie that thing back to their employer. The West Allis police department would fore
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I deleted my account over a year ago.
And it's been better ever since.
Seriously, if you don't know how to use facebook properly you're better off without it. It's a useful toy but it's not the answer to all the worlds problems - i'm tired of hearing from people who thought it was and then get all upset when they find it isn't.