Which is why they were subject to a disciplinary hearing, which in cases like these is chaired by an external expert who hears evidence and statements from both sides and witnesses and makes a ruling. They didn't just fire them Willy-nilly. The only case they'd have is if they erred in a technical aspect of the hearing, like incorrect notices or misconduct during the hearing. What they did seriously brought their employer's name into disrepute and broke down the trust. Both are dismissable offences in and of themselves...
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which compact crossover would you choose?
Article: Two FHM Writers Fired
- Thread starter LazyLion
- Start date
Which is why they were subject to a disciplinary hearing, which in cases like these is chaired by an external expert who hears evidence and statements from both sides and witnesses and makes a ruling. They didn't just fire them Willy-nilly. The only case they'd have is if they erred in a technical aspect of the hearing, like incorrect notices or misconduct during the hearing. What they did seriously brought their employer's name into disrepute and broke down the trust. Both are dismissable offences in and of themselves...
But mate, just because FHM held a hearing and had people tell them how wrong they are, doesn't mean "it's not a legal issue and has no legal recourse"
Says who? the experts at FHM?
I don't remember them mentioning "FHM" when they made the comments? Yes they work at FHM but I didn't see them using their employer's name.
They broke down "the trust"? oh no, how exactly did they do that?
FHM didn't make the decision. Hence the external chair.
And there is an implied representation on their part, especially considering that they used their personal accounts to promote FHM on previous occasions. The fact that FHM had to make a public statement rebuking the comments highlights this implied representation, whether they were commenting from a personal perspective or not. It is the very definition of bringing a company name into disrepute. As for the trust, it is a very personal issue and if the employer believes that they can no longer trust their senior staff to perform public related requirements, not only is the trust broken but they are no longer able to fulfil aspects of their contracts.
Personally I don't see an issue with the firings. No employer could possibly hope to release a magazine into the public domain with the public firmly turned against the head writers of said magazine. They're not Howard Stern...
And there is an implied representation on their part, especially considering that they used their personal accounts to promote FHM on previous occasions. The fact that FHM had to make a public statement rebuking the comments highlights this implied representation, whether they were commenting from a personal perspective or not. It is the very definition of bringing a company name into disrepute. As for the trust, it is a very personal issue and if the employer believes that they can no longer trust their senior staff to perform public related requirements, not only is the trust broken but they are no longer able to fulfil aspects of their contracts.
Personally I don't see an issue with the firings. No employer could possibly hope to release a magazine into the public domain with the public firmly turned against the head writers of said magazine. They're not Howard Stern...
FlatspinZA
Expert Member
It's all bollocks, just like telling your friend you're going to "rape" them in a first person shooter. Granted, I have never used that term in reference to a game, but then kids do. Maybe they'll think twice about using that word when it's happened to a friend of theirs, but until then...
The point about being a company representative is valid, however.
The point about being a company representative is valid, however.
Yeah, the most they would get is a chuckle I reckon.
I'm amused that you people think getting fired over making ONE SINGLE JOKE, is okay.
I hope none of you guys get hacked, because a few "bad words" on your facebook profile = no job, possibly lose your car/home/etc
I agree that it was tasteless, guys, we all know rape is a problem in SA - but these guys didn't rape anybody, they just posted a bad joke on a facebook page. that's it guys, that's it.
Put yourself in their shoes - imagine your friend said "Man Vodacom raped me this month, my account is over R3000!" to which you reply "time to apply the vaseline lol".
Now imagine your boss sees you taking rape so lightly...a joke about rape?! WOW, HOW COULD YOU? How could you take rape lightly? Not Cool man, not Cool.........
.......you're fired.
Yeah, losing your job over a single facebook post - seems legit.
I hope none of you guys get hacked, because a few "bad words" on your facebook profile = no job, possibly lose your car/home/etc
I agree that it was tasteless, guys, we all know rape is a problem in SA - but these guys didn't rape anybody, they just posted a bad joke on a facebook page. that's it guys, that's it.
Put yourself in their shoes - imagine your friend said "Man Vodacom raped me this month, my account is over R3000!" to which you reply "time to apply the vaseline lol".
Now imagine your boss sees you taking rape so lightly...a joke about rape?! WOW, HOW COULD YOU? How could you take rape lightly? Not Cool man, not Cool.........
.......you're fired.
Yeah, losing your job over a single facebook post - seems legit.
Seriously
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 16,595
- Reaction score
- 220
Agreed. It's pathetic IMHO.
Actions have consequences and when it comes to employment those consequences are tied into a contract that you willingly sign with your employer.
The only way they'd have a case is if their employer had on previous occasions encouraged derogatory participation on their private accounts. I just don't see any employer being that stupid, even FHM...
The only way they'd have a case is if their employer had on previous occasions encouraged derogatory participation on their private accounts. I just don't see any employer being that stupid, even FHM...
I don't see anything in your example that advocates rape, it's not the same thing at all. In fact it's the opposite - you are using it as a metaphor for something horrible, whereas the fhm guys were making out that it's good and acceptable.
They got what they deserve. They have freedom of speech and so does every person expressing disgust and abhorrence in response. FHM was totally entitled to fire them. It's not acceptable to the South African public.
"Telemarketers should be shot"
There... if someone posts that joke, should they be fired? or is murdering not as bad as rape now?
If that results in a very public backlash that brings your company name into disrepute then yes, you can be dismissed for saying that. The marketing director of a Tele marketing company for example would be hauled over the coals for that irrespective of a public backlash.
The issue isn't actually one of right and wrong. It is circumstance and contract. The employees would have signed a contract agreeing not to bring the company name into disrepute. They did. It's really as simple as that.
You can argue that morally it is wrong, but then again, nobody is forcing anyone to sign terms they are not happy with...
I'm sure many people have, but whether your own facebook post represents the company is a matter of debate.
Did they post it under the FHM page? No.
Did they mention FHM? No.
They merely work at FHM.
If you work at Tiger brands, the opinions you post on Twerking have nothing to do, with Tiger Brands.
I would suggest that it was a personal joke and had nothing to do with FHM.
Just because one works for a company doesn't mean everything you say and do represents them.
Your company doesn't own your facebook, it's yours.
Last edited:
Refer to implied representation from earlier. No doubt many followed them simply because of their relationship with FHM. I know people who did. In addition they used their Facebook profiles to punt FHM on occasion because I used to see reposts of their stuff from time to time.
Regardless, their actions both private and public are fair game if either brings the company name into disrepute. The public backlash, various articles and apology from FHM show this clearly...
Regardless, their actions both private and public are fair game if either brings the company name into disrepute. The public backlash, various articles and apology from FHM show this clearly...
I don't know... How many telemarketers actually get shot annually? A million?
If a million telemarketers actually were being shot in South Africa annually do you think people would take a statement like that more seriously?
I, for one am fed up with living in the so called rape capital of the world. Advocating rape is not acceptable to me, even if it is just a 'joke'. Being flippant about rape is not acceptable to me.
It's not just about offending people, as if people are just 'too sensitive'. There are actually millions of South Africans, mostly women, who have been traumatised by rape. Go read about ptsd and how devastating rape can be. Consider how a statement like that would affect such people and remember that there are millions of rape victims in South Africa. Everything has a context.
Avenue
Expert Member
It's a bit more complicated with publications, because writers are the public voices of the company, like DJ's on a radio station. Their names are published alongside the articles, and they develop their own readership. Some people will look up what barry ronger has to say about a movie or will turn to their favorite columnist in a newspaper first. They are the public faces of the company, and so when that face is dirty, it could impact directly on the rest of the company.
Facebook is not an official news source.
Your company should have no business what you say or do on your private facebook.
If a company can fire you for saying something they didn't like, where do you draw the line? It's a slippery slope.
What's next, getting fired because your boss doesn't like it that you support the conflict in Turkey? That you have "Atheist" ticked under religion? That you liked a pic supporting another election candidate?
It's a private matter, and should have nothing to do with being able to do your job.
You say "it's only writers and public voices" but if you get fired for posting something your boss doesn't like, is that any different, and should there be a difference?
It's just a financial decision as FHM would have gotten a lot of bad press for it. If women would think you are a sexist for buying the magazine you would be less likely to buy it. Those two clearly damaged the brand although they didn't intend the conversation to be made public. There are ambiguous clauses in employment contracts like acting in the best interest of you employer and I assume for publishing companies clauses for upholding the image.