Article: Two FHM Writers Fired

[Sherbang]

It's not about the joke. It's really about "Can your company fire your for something said privately". The answer should be no.

I don't understand why you think it was said privately.
Standing up in a room of a thousand people and advocating rape is not private. Just because it's not broadcast to the public in general doesn't make it private. If it was a private joke they should have sent private messages to each other.

 

[2026]

I don't understand why you think it was said privately.
Standing up in a room of a thousand people and advocating rape is not private. Just because it's not broadcast to the public in general doesn't make it private. If it was a private joke they should have sent private messages to each other.

Their comment on the issue says that their facebook was set to "Friends only"

The media madness that was unleashed over the posting of our private – and do keep in mind that it was private, with all Facebook privacy settings set to ‘friends only’

 

[LazyLion]

Their comment on the issue says that their facebook was set to "Friends only"

That might be relevant for you and I Joe Public... but these guys are better known celebrities and where you and I might have a few hundred friends on our facebook, these guys have thousands on theirs. That is hardly private.

 

[Keeper]

I don't understand why you think it was said privately.
Standing up in a room of a thousand people and advocating rape is not private. Just because it's not broadcast to the public in general doesn't make it private. If it was a private joke they should have sent private messages to each other.

For the last time nobody was promoting/advocating rape :erm:


Q: What did Chris Brown say to Rihanna after she got 2 black eyes
A: Nothing....he already told her twice.

Am I advocating abuse now?

 

[2026]

That might be relevant for you and I Joe Public... but these guys are better known celebrities and where you and I might have a few hundred friends on our facebook, these guys have thousands on theirs. That is hardly private.

I would disagree with you on that - and we can discuss over what "private" means but I'm not really interested to. I'll just leave this with a dictionary quote and leave it at that.

Belonging to or for the use of one particular person or group of people only.

 

[2026]

For the last time nobody was promoting/advocating rape :erm:


Q: What did Chris Brown say to Rihanna after she got 2 black eyes
A: Nothing....he already told her twice.

Am I advocating abuse now?

Apparently you are... and you're on a public platform too... please send me your bosses details so that I can get him to fire you.

 

[LazyLion]

I would disagree with you on that - and we can discuss over what "private" means but I'm not really interested to. I'll just leave this with a dictionary quote and leave it at that.

Belonging to or for the use of one particular person or group of people only.

It's really not up to you and I, a court of law would make the call, and I'm fairly confident that they would find that "comments made among thousands of people who are not personally or directly known to the commenter and on a social networking platform would not in the least way be considered private, especially where MORE private means of communication already exist".

 

[Sherbang]

Their comment on the issue says that their facebook was set to "Friends only"

Yes, and some of his 'friends' got offended, were treated with condescension, and made it public. Just because you're chatting to 1000 friends doesn't b make it private

 

[2026]

It's really not up to you and I, a court of law would make the call, and I'm fairly confident that they would find that "comments made among thousands of people who are not personally or directly known to the commenter and on a social networking platform would not in the least way be considered private, especially where MORE private means of communication already exist".

Exactly, a court of law should make this call and not FHM.

 

[2026]

Yes, and some of his 'friends' got offended, were treated with condescension, and made it public. Just because you're chatting to 1000 friends doesn't b make it private

Garyvdh has the strong point that you and I don't have the understanding of the boundaries of "privacy" is. Even less so when it comes to online social media. I'd even say the courts would have a hard time deciding what is considered "private" and what is considered "public" when it comes to this online mess.

I stand that if it's regarded as private, FHM are not justified on firing them. If it's considered a public message, I'd have to re-think about if FHM is justified or not (saying offensive things in public isn't exactly illegal and would have to consider to what extent FHM has control over public messages from it's staff...)

 

[Sherbang]

Garyvdh has the strong point that you and I don't have the understanding of the boundaries of "privacy" is. Even less so when it comes to online social media. I'd even say the courts would have a hard time deciding what is considered "private" and what is considered "public" when it comes to this online mess.

I stand that if it's regarded as private, FHM are not justified on firing them. If it's considered a public message, I'd have to re-think about if FHM is justified or not (saying offensive things in public isn't exactly illegal and would have to consider to what extent FHM has control over public messages from it's staff...)

There is no ambiguity here. Making a statement in front of 1000 people, many who have cameras and none of whom have signed a non disclosure agreement cannot be considered private. Nobody else who took part in the conversation agreed to keep it private - Anyway it's irrelevant since it got out into the public domain.

 

[Keeper]

I think the main issue everyone is discussing here has nothing to do with rape.

The issue here is whether it's valid or not for your boss to fire you, for making a post/joke in bad taste among your own group of friends.
Whether or not your personal posts represents your company is up to debate, but since they did not use their company name anywhere in the post, it should be regarded as a personal post.
They should have also received a written warning, not get fired.

I would go to court for unfair dismissal if I were one of these guys. FHM would have to prove that they damaged the brand and caused loss of revenue.
You can't fire someone just because you THINK something happened, you have to prove it.

 

[LazyLion]

Exactly, a court of law should make this call and not FHM.

And they will probably find that it was justified, especially where there has already been an internal company disciplinary procedure followed.

Time will tell if these guys will take it further or not.
Maybe they have already spoken to their legal counsel and been told "guys, you don't really have a case here"
They are clearly identified on their facebook pages as working for the company... i.e. representatives.
They have thousands of followers and have the status of celebrities, because of their positions in that company.
etc...

 

[LazyLion]

I think the main issue everyone is discussing here has nothing to do with rape.

The issue here is whether it's valid or not for your boss to fire you, for making a post/joke in bad taste among your own group of friends.
Whether or not your personal posts represents your company is up to debate, but since they did not use their company name anywhere in the post, it should be regarded as a personal post.
They should have also received a written warning, not get fired.

I would go to court for unfair dismissal if I were one of these guys. FHM would have to prove that they damaged the brand and caused loss of revenue.
You can't fire someone just because you THINK something happened, you have to prove it.

Disciplinary Code # 14. - Any Action Detrimental to the interest of the Employer. Category: Serious Offence. Procedure: Final Warning or Hearing.

 

[Maverick Jester]

I think the main issue everyone is discussing here has nothing to do with rape.

The issue here is whether it's valid or not for your boss to fire you, for making a post/joke in bad taste among your own group of friends.
Whether or not your personal posts represents your company is up to debate, but since they did not use their company name anywhere in the post, it should be regarded as a personal post.
They should have also received a written warning, not get fired.

I would go to court for unfair dismissal if I were one of these guys. FHM would have to prove that they damaged the brand and caused loss of revenue.
You can't fire someone just because you THINK something happened, you have to prove it.

At the same time- we are all assuming they were fired for this incident alone, when it could have been a culmination of prior infractions that caused them to be dismissed. Also, we cannot presume to know what responsibilities and limitations towards social media were placed within their employment contracts.

I think it is telling, that neither have come forward and threatened FHM with unlawful dismissal as yet...

 

[Keeper]

Disciplinary Code # 14. - Any Action Detrimental to the interest of the Employer. Category: Serious Offence. Procedure: Final Warning or Hearing.

The only words I read there in your quote is "final warning" and "hearing", not immediate dismissal.

 

[LazyLion]

The only words I read there in your quote is "final warning" and "hearing", not immediate dismissal.

The employer gets to use his discretion in deciding whether to just give an immediate final warning notice or to inform the employee that he is summoned to a hearing after 48 hours. At the hearing he may be immediately dismissed.

 

[2026]

And they will probably find that it was justified, especially where there has already been an internal company disciplinary procedure followed.

Time will tell if these guys will take it further or not.
Maybe they have already spoken to their legal counsel and been told "guys, you don't really have a case here"
They are clearly identified on their facebook pages as working for the company... i.e. representatives.
They have thousands of followers and have the status of celebrities, because of their positions in that company.
etc...

Maybe, maybe not. But until then, "innocent till proven guilty" needs to stand, you can't just go and fire the guys (unless there is some unknown legal agreement between the parties we don't know about).

 

[2026]

Disciplinary Code # 14. - Any Action Detrimental to the interest of the Employer. Category: Serious Offence. Procedure: Final Warning or Hearing.

This is far to vague. Falling pregnant while working at a condom company can be considered "an action detrimental to the interest of the employer".

 

[2026]

There is no ambiguity here. Making a statement in front of 1000 people, many who have cameras and none of whom have signed a non disclosure agreement cannot be considered private. Nobody else who took part in the conversation agreed to keep it private - Anyway it's irrelevant since it got out into the public domain.

Nope, not buying it. This isnt about numbers and fame.

Is someones private facebook profile an asset and representation of that persons employee. comments made on personal profiles linked to empoyers? Particularly if the comments are not related to that company/business.

Even then, is a tasteless joke considered gross misconduct on personal social media?