Fired for sharing a post on Facebook

She shared a post, which is different to liking it. I'm not sure she clicked the like button.

I know people retweet things they definitely disagree with to highlight it.

What should lose you a job is to say racist things or make threats using your real name. That is more difficult to explain away and compromises your integrity. Same goes for posting private customer information on a public forum or similar big mistakes.
 
Kevin Lancaster said:
Fired for liking a post on Facebook

You can lose your job by simply liking a Facebook post or retweeting a Twitter comment, as shown in the recent Dianne Kohler Barnard debacle.
Click to expand...

This depends on your job I suppose.

She's a public figure. My Facebook has fark all to do with my employer or anyone else. I'm no public figure. It would be stupid though as your future employers could look through your facebook if set to public and it could ruin any employment chances in future. But has fark all to do with my current one.

(Private profiles FTW :p)
 
Pitbull said:
This depends on your job I suppose.

She's a public figure. My Facebook has fark all to do with my employer or anyone else. I'm no public figure. It would be stupid though as your future employers could look through your facebook if set to public and it could ruin any employment chances in future. But has fark all to do with my current one.

(Private profiles FTW :p)
Click to expand...
Not quite. If my company employs Mrs. X and she posts porn online and doesn't like coloured people, then my customers in our connected world will go elsewhere.
 
what happened to freedom of expression???? freedom of speech? how does that apply?
 
In these times, the employment relationship is seen as an opportunity to "own" the employee. Not that different from times gone by when people owned their slaves. This means that increasingly companies see it as "their right" to have access to an employee's private life.
 
1441568916 said:
In these times, the employment relationship is seen as an opportunity to "own" the employee. Not that different from times gone by when people owned their slaves. This means that increasingly companies see it as "their right" to have access to an employee's private life.
Click to expand...

posting publicly means you give up your right to private life, lock up your facebook and ensure you have no coworkers on your friends list and you can go on and be a dick all you want.

a business has it's rights to protect it's image.
 
But what if, you do not disclose whom you work for, on your bookface profile? How then, does that make it valid?
 
Liking a post is not sharing or retweeting.
Share or retweet you click twice, like a double opt in...
 
AntiGanda said:
Not quite. If my company employs Mrs. X and she posts porn online and doesn't like coloured people, then my customers in our connected world will go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Not really the case.

The people seeing her posts won't know she's your employee. She's not in the public eye like politicians and political parties as an example. I see a crap load of shyte on FB and 2 minute slater I recall the actual post but not who posted it or who liked it :D
 
crackersa said:
posting publicly means you give up your right to private life, lock up your facebook and ensure you have no coworkers on your friends list and you can go on and be a dick all you want.

a business has it's rights to protect it's image.
Click to expand...

Unless you actually tarnish the brand directly by naming them in a bad light in a post they can't do shyte. How does Piet Poggenpoel's foot fetish affect his employer Drimmel's Wikkel Pompe? It doesn't.
 
Pitbull said:
Unless you actually tarnish the brand directly by naming them in a bad light in a post they can't do shyte. How does Piet Poggenpoel's foot fetish affect his employer Drimmel's Wikkel Pompe? It doesn't.
Click to expand...

This is what I think needs to be clarified, because all these journalists make it seem that Ms X got fired for what she said, like a while ago, some random lady was cut off in traffic and vented to her twitter or something and poof.. fired. I recall checking out her profile and nowhere was it clear who she worked for.
 
Pitbull said:
Not really the case.

The people seeing her posts won't know she's your employee. She's not in the public eye like politicians and political parties as an example. I see a crap load of shyte on FB and 2 minute slater I recall the actual post but not who posted it or who liked it :D
Click to expand...
There are fields in FB for employer, as well as Linkdin and Twitter. I often check people out and see ones from Joburg council and other places.
 
1441568916 said:
This is what I think needs to be clarified, because all these journalists make it seem that Ms X got fired for what she said, like a while ago, some random lady was cut off in traffic and vented to her twitter or something and poof.. fired. I recall checking out her profile and nowhere was it clear who she worked for.
Click to expand...

Yea I agree. Clarity needs to be given on this it just makes zero sense.
 
1441568916 said:
But what if, you do not disclose whom you work for, on your bookface profile? How then, does that make it valid?
Click to expand...

good question, recently a taco bell exec was fired for beating up an uber driver. no one knew who he worked for, but his company fired him promptly once he made national news.

was it fair?
 
crackersa said:
good question, recently a taco bell exec was fired for beating up an uber driver. no one knew who he worked for, but his company fired him promptly once he made national news.

was it fair?
Click to expand...

But the fact that he works there was disclosed by the news agencies. He didn't bring the company into disrepute with his actions. The news company dragged the company in and then only was it linked to the company and his actions affecting it. I think personally the news agencies should be held accountable for bringing the company into disrepute.
 
Pitbull said:
But the fact that he works there was disclosed by the news agencies. He didn't bring the company into disrepute with his actions. The news company dragged the company in and then only was it linked to the company and his actions affecting it. I think personally the news agencies should be held accountable for bringing the company into disrepute.
Click to expand...

Its the same as recently in SA there was domestic abuse posted about on twitter. Someone recognized the guy and mentioned he works for KPMG, he got fired.
When any link is made to a person and a company online and it is seen in a bad light then it can be seen as bringing the company into disrepute which can easily get them fired.
 
So, on this forum, you use a nick, usually (well I would hope) a nick that is not known to people at your workplace.
As is the form here, often, one feels the need to diss Zuma, and many make borderline racist comments.

Since you a) are not revealing whom you work for and b) exercised your right to use an anonymous nickname/handle, how is it possible then that should your employer connect-the-dots have the right to terminate you, since a) you have no connection to them as far as this forum is concerned, and b) you are not even discussing anything relevant to their business...

My argument is- since when is your private business anything of the company's business. And before we say anything, let's consider how it was before the internet. Person comes to work, and it is known he is having "domestic upsurpment". They have no right to get involved, nor fire the guy for what is essentially a personal matter. Hence my argument, the internet is being used as a tool for employers to spy on their employees after hours and outside of work. That is not right! What I do at home is none of their business.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X