Article: Two FHM Writers Fired

[Fudzy]

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".

I'm pretty sure that would be covered in another section regarding conduct at work (no drinking/drugs/sex etc)

 

[2026]

I'm pretty sure that would be covered in another section regarding conduct at work (no drinking/drugs/sex etc)

Holy ****, your employer prohibits you from having sex while employed with them? No wonder people are so grumpy these days.

 

[DJ...]

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?

If you worked in a trauma-related field, such a joke made publicly, which is what they did, might land you in hot water, and perhaps land up in a dismissal if it blew up into a very public debate.

This is what you agree to when you sign an employment contract...

 

[2026]

If you worked in a trauma-related field, such a joke made publicly, which is what they did, might land you in hot water, and perhaps land up in a dismissal if it blew up into a very public debate.

This is what you agree to when you sign an employment contract...

I would hardly consider FHM a trauma-related field.

 

[Rocket Raccoon]

I would hardly consider FHM a trauma-related field.

:wtf:

 

[DJ...]

I would hardly consider FHM a trauma-related field.

 

[Keeper]

If you worked in a trauma-related field, such a joke made publicly, which is what they did, might land you in hot water, and perhaps land up in a dismissal if it blew up into a very public debate.

They are writers, not rape counselors.

so your example of "IF" means squat.
IF they were pilots joking about flying into buildings you would be correct. This is not that case.

 

[DJ...]

They are writers, not rape counselors.

so your example of "IF" means squat.
IF they were pilots joking about flying into buildings you would be correct. This is not that case.

They are writers whose opinions are subject to public scrutiny. They are very much public figures in that sense, and their jobs hinge on a good rapport with the public. The analogy isn't quite as binary as you're taking it...

 

[Maverick Jester]

I would hardly consider FHM a trauma-related field.

They are writers, not rape counselors.

so your example of "IF" means squat.
IF they were pilots joking about flying into buildings you would be correct. This is not that case.

You guys are attacking the analogy, not the actual point...

 

[Mila]

IMHO. Them wanted to get rid of these guys, they just never had the right ammunition. Was most likely not their first warning.

Give them enough rope they will hang themselves.

 

[Keeper]

They are writers whose opinions are subject to public scrutiny. They are very much public figures in that sense, and their jobs hinge on a good rapport with the public. The analogy isn't quite as binary as you're taking it...

So what you are saying is if writers write one bad joke, just a single controversial post, that they should be fired?

 

[DJ...]

So what you are saying is if writers write one bad joke, just a single controversial post, that they should be fired?

If it brings the company name into disrepute then what I am saying is that the company is well within their rights to fire them. I have consistently stated that this is not a matter of right and wrong, but one of contract.

I cannot comment on the right or wrong aspects as there is no way for me to know their past disciplinary record. Nor you...

 

[Fudzy]

I don't understand why the concept of these contracts are so hard to understand. It's fine if it's not accepted but then don't sign the contract but I don't see why it takes multiple pages of repeated explanation.

Back on topic, what have the duo been up to since they were sacked?

 

[Sherbang]

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?

Well it's irrelevant if they thought it's private because clearly it wasn't private, it entered the public domain and the consequences have to be faced. Even if it had been classified, top secret, private, once it enters the public domain there is fallout and consequences. Do you think after the wikileaks exposed secrets, the governments said "Oh it's not fair that there are repercussions, that was private".

And what was FHM supposed to do in the light of the public outcry? I don't think they were fired for what they said, if it had stayed private they would not have been fired, their boss probably had a giggle at it too. They were fired because of the public outcry that occurred and quite rightly so, as far as I'm concerned.
The only way they could have a case against fhm, imo, is if they can show that fhm was aware of their offensive style of writing when hiring them in the first place (which I think is the case. How can you hire a writer and not be aware of their style of writing)

 

[LazyLion]

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".

That's why you have a hearing.

 

[Celine]

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...)

they are representatives of the magazine, therefore they should behave in an appropriate manner and not tarnish the reputation of the magazine. especially on a public platform such a facebook.

 

[2026]

they are representatives of the magazine, therefore they should behave in an appropriate manner and not tarnish the reputation of the magazine. especially on a public platform such a facebook.

This is the assumption you have made. By lets play on this assumption that you're are representatives of your employer and anything said personally or publicly should not tarnish the reputation of the employer.

Using this assumption and the ability to fire anyone who tarnishes the image of the employer (with the employer to to decide what is considered offensive to that employer) then you should agree that the following example then stands true and is completely "legal"/valid and we should accept it.

If you are a government employee the following is valid to be fired:
Any jokes about Zuma or the presidency is offensive to the presidency and tarnishes the government imagine.
Any whistle blowing, highlighting, or discussion about poor delivery service (tarnishes governments image)
Any attempt to air views or stances different from the government (brings the government into disrepute.)

--------------

To extend this further, I shall show an example:
Hellen Zille, on her twitter feed, says that there should be a vote for no confidence in president Zuma.

This offends the presidency. Having a meeting mostly controlled by Zuma supporters they decide that tweeting such things has shown division in the Governments goals and embarrassed the presidency which ultimately is decided (by the "employers") this is offensive.

Zille is then fired.

-------------
Example 2

I run my own business, we make cupcakes for victims of drunk drivers. One day I look on my employees facebook profile and see a picture of them at a braai, holding a beer.

Beer... that is unacceptable, it goes against the values of my company (I'm a real prick) and alcohol is not something we support at pink ponies cupcakes, especially since we are involved with drunk driving cases!

I will now fire this person for having a beer and misrepresenting my company!

Doesn't this look absurd?

 

[2026]

Well it's irrelevant if they thought it's private because clearly it wasn't private, it entered the public domain and the consequences have to be faced. Even if it had been classified, top secret, private, once it enters the public domain there is fallout and consequences. Do you think after the wikileaks exposed secrets, the governments said "Oh it's not fair that there are repercussions, that was private".

Difference is that in said countries, it's illegal to expose documents/information label 'secret' (or something similar). I have yet to see anyone arrested and thrown in jail for saying something that isn't considered illegal (well, in non-oppressive countries but there's this boy in US getting into trouble for joking about shooting up a school - which is a turning a point in USA's rights)

And what was FHM supposed to do in the light of the public outcry?

Maybe, for a change, not treat women like meat and do a meaning article addressing the rape issue (lol... now that is against FHM values and would the writers fired for sure.)

 

[Celine]

This is the assumption you have made. By lets play on this assumption that you're are representatives of your employer and anything said personally or publicly should not tarnish the reputation of the employer.

Using this assumption and the ability to fire anyone who tarnishes the image of the employer (with the employer to to decide what is considered offensive to that employer) then you should agree that the following example then stands true and is completely "legal"/valid and we should accept it.

If you are a government employee the following is valid to be fired:
Any jokes about Zuma or the presidency is offensive to the presidency and tarnishes the government imagine.
Any whistle blowing, highlighting, or discussion about poor delivery service (tarnishes governments image)
Any attempt to air views or stances different from the government (brings the government into disrepute.)

--------------

To extend this further, I shall show an example:
Hellen Zille, on her twitter feed, says that there should be a vote for no confidence in president Zuma.

This offends the presidency. Having a meeting mostly controlled by Zuma supporters they decide that tweeting such things has shown division in the Governments goals and embarrassed the presidency which ultimately is decided (by the "employers") this is offensive.

Zille is then fired.

-------------
Example 2

I run my own business, we make cupcakes for victims of drunk drivers. One day I look on my employees facebook profile and see a picture of them at a braai, holding a beer.

Beer... that is unacceptable, it goes against the values of my company (I'm a real prick) and alcohol is not something we support at pink ponies cupcakes, especially since we are involved with drunk driving cases!

I will now fire this person for having a beer and misrepresenting my company!

Doesn't this look absurd?

really!!!! really!!! are you that obnoxious that you cannot understand that the content of these 2 employees was nothing like pink unicorns or flying fairies but that of rape in their statements.

 

[Maverick Jester]

This is the assumption you have made. By lets play on this assumption that you're are representatives of your employer and anything said personally or publicly should not tarnish the reputation of the employer.

Using this assumption and the ability to fire anyone who tarnishes the image of the employer (with the employer to to decide what is considered offensive to that employer) then you should agree that the following example then stands true and is completely "legal"/valid and we should accept it.

If you are a government employee the following is valid to be fired:
Any jokes about Zuma or the presidency is offensive to the presidency and tarnishes the government imagine.
Any whistle blowing, highlighting, or discussion about poor delivery service (tarnishes governments image)
Any attempt to air views or stances different from the government (brings the government into disrepute.)

--------------

To extend this further, I shall show an example:
Hellen Zille, on her twitter feed, says that there should be a vote for no confidence in president Zuma.

This offends the presidency. Having a meeting mostly controlled by Zuma supporters they decide that tweeting such things has shown division in the Governments goals and embarrassed the presidency which ultimately is decided (by the "employers") this is offensive.

Zille is then fired.

-------------
Example 2

I run my own business, we make cupcakes for victims of drunk drivers. One day I look on my employees facebook profile and see a picture of them at a braai, holding a beer.

Beer... that is unacceptable, it goes against the values of my company (I'm a real prick) and alcohol is not something we support at pink ponies cupcakes, especially since we are involved with drunk driving cases!

I will now fire this person for having a beer and misrepresenting my company!

Doesn't this look absurd?

You are not privy to the details of the hearing nor their employment contracts, therefore cannot apply such a broad analogy to this situation. Them being fired is not an issue of right or wrong- it is an issue of contract, as DJ mentioned.