postings

Should Your Social Media Rants Be Cause For Dismissal From Your Job?

Posted 1/21/11 at 3:06pm by jamie

An interesting article in today’s Wall Street Journal addresses the growing trend of employers firing workers over postings on such sites as Facebook. Next week the National Labor Relations Board is expected to rule in the first case of this type. The article then goes on to describe other cases of this type where people have lost their job over social network postings:

In Georgia, former high school teacher Ashley Payne sued the local school district in the Superior Court of Barrow County, claiming she was essentially forced to resign over Facebook photos that showed her drinking alcohol during a European vacation, said her attorney, Richard J. Storrs.

"What Ashley was doing was extremely innocent,"” Mr. Storrs said. "She was on vacation and holding a glass of wine."”

This epidemic is becoming very troublesome for employers and employees. In all honesty, people should be free to do what they want once they are off the clock. The fact that people have to walk on pins and needles when at home, for fear of repercussion at work, goes against everything this country stands for.  It’s time for employers to recognize that our society and the way we communicate is changing and that they need to adapt to that.

More On The 'B' Assault (UPDATED)

Posted 10/24/08 at 10:03am by jamie

I'm starting a new post on this since the story is constantly growing. For background, check out my earlier post.

So the skepticism is really growing now with this latest story:

When Ms. Todd reported the incident, "nowhere did she say to the officer that [the assailant] made reference to the bumper sticker. I don't know how she came to the conclusion that he noticed the sticker," Cmdr. Ross said.

Updates after the fold

He said the description of the robber as a 6-foot 4-inch, 200-pound black man is similar to that of a man who robbed a Liberty Avenue bank in recent weeks.

Police were checking surveillance video of the Wednesday ATM incident.

Several employees at nearby businesses last night said they were unaware of the attack.

So the whole bumper sticker thing was thought of after the fact? MSNBC has reported that she took her lie-detector test today, but the results aren't known. I have also been reading that this is a very busy part of town with a lot of bars and restaurants, including right across from the ATM. This happened at 9:00 pm at night, so business should have been good, yet no one saw it happen.

There was also the postings on her Twitter making it sound like she had no idea where she was and was in a "bad part of town". Apparently she knew right where she was:

Ms. Todd then went to a friend's house in the 5100 block of Cypress Street, about a mile away, where she reported the incident to police about 45 minutes later. She declined medical treatment at that time.

So she was in an unknown part of town, yet went to a friends about a mile away? Really? Let's add some perspective here. Todd is from Texas, but in Pittsburgh volunteering for the McCain campaign, on behalf of the College Republicans. Apparently she hasn't been there that long, so where did she make a friend at? A safe guess would be McCain headquarters, and possibly another volunteer.

Now let's add to that the fact she waited 45 minutes to call the police. If this is fake then I wonder if she now has an accomplice in this fraud. I am sure the police are talking to her friend now.

Also the right has been trying to defend the upside B by saying that the man sat above her head as he carved it in, which would make the B face properly. That story is now debunked:

Ms. Todd told police during at least five hours of questioning last night that her attacker said to her, "You are going to be a Barack supporter." She told police the man then sat on her chest, pinning both her hands down with his knees and used what she believed was a dull knife with a roughly 5-inch blade to carve the B.

Five hours of questioning is a lot also. If her story was solid, the questioning wouldn't have taken no where near that long.

If this all does turn out to be a fake then she needs to be publicly humiliated for what she has tried to do. Perhaps a public apology beside Obama when he does his big national TV appearance next week?

(Updated below the fold)

Here is what the "fair and balanced" FOX news has resorted to today.

Posted 9/25/06 at 11:10pm by jamie

Yesterday the DNC sent out a press release about the Clinton interview. Within that statement, it said this:

To view President Clinton's appearance on Fox News Sunday, go to: http://releases.usnewswire.com/redir.asp?ReleaseID=73056&Link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYm1TH23e9E

Now click that link and you will be taken to a YouTube page which says the following:

This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner Fox News Network, LLC because its content was used without permission

Hmm interesting. I did a quick search for the video and every hit that came up had the same message. After that I went to YouTube's "Most Viewed (Today)" page. The first two videos?

Bill Clinton Blames Others For 911
Clinton: "You have that smirk on your face"

So the titles that have more of a right wing slant and go after Clinton are allowed to remain on YouTube's site, yet the clips that just called titled it as an interview or more favored Clinton are removed. It is also interesting that these videos, which still remain, were added yesterday (so it doesn't mean someone just popped them up). I don't blame YouTube for this, as I understand they have no way of knowing every video on their site. I do blame FOX news, who apparently searched through to find titles or postings of the videos they did not like and want it pulled, but ignored the titles that were critical of Clinton.

Pages

Comments



blog advertising is good for you

Tip Jar

Follow Me On Twitter


Follow IntoxiNation on Twitter:
Follow IntoxiNation on Twitter