It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Woman Fired After Giving Trump's Motorcade the Finger.

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Trump is not the issue here. No matter who the prez is they still would have sacked her. Government contractor remember.




posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So she was fired for flipping Trump the bird in her own time.

Doesn't seem like she should be fired to me.

Am I missing something with this?

I don't see why she was fired.


No.

She was fired for using the image in her social media profile as her image in violation of company rules.



Someone else took the photograph of her, as it's photographed from behind.

Something doesn't add up.


Agreed feels like there might have been more to it.

Like she was getting a little light figured with the stationary cupboard or something like that.

Because this seems like a pretty pathetic reason to lose your job.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   
If I'm working at a business and intend to flip off the owner, I would also have a plan to immediately quit that job and look for other employment.

Why would anyone expect a different outcome?



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Her actions could possibly cause a negative impact on her employers business, Flipping off the President is pretty funny to most people in this day and age of cameras everywhere probably not a good idea when your bosses work for the president.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Of course you don't she should have been fired. You hate Trump and probably think she needs promoted.

Truth is, the company she worked for does government work. I'm sure they might think of future contracts with said government might be in jeapordy, with employees disrespecting their employer?


If this were Obama I would be saying the same thing.

Regardless of who is getting the finger (ewww) nobody should be sacked for this, like another member said, perhaps a warning of some kind.

Also It would be pretty stupid if Trump was going around not giving out government contracts to people because they have employees who might have at one point said something disparaging about him. Hell if that was the standard then nobody would be getting any contracts.


Well now hold on.

I too don't want this woman fired.

But when it comes to working with the government, there is a real danger of having people who hate the government or leaders working for them.

Remember reality winner? She posted all sorts of hate about government leaders and the country on social media, and surprise surprise, she ended up committing felonies to hurt her enemies.

Again, I wish this woman wouldn't have been fired, but the government has every right not to contract with people that publicly hate them.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Funny how just a few days ago people were crying about Uber banning a user for her social media activity and screaming about the First Amendment. Now those same people have no problem with a woman being fired over her social media activity.

Talk about hypocrisy.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

yea it does she added it to her profile, like she was all proud of it.

from the OP's link.


At a meeting Tuesday, her bosses told her she violated the company’s media policy by posting the photo as her profile picture on Twitter and Facebook.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
Trump is not the issue here. No matter who the prez is they still would have sacked her. Government contractor remember.


If you were to refuse government contracts to any company who had employees who had ever posted anything offensive to Trump on social media you wouldn't reward any government contracts.

That is not a valid reason to fire her in my view.

They should have explained it to her, gave her a warning, perhaps even asked her to change her social media settings to private or to remove anything that connects her with their company and so on.

But to fire her. no.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Honestly this absurd...


No it's not.



"They said, 'We're separating from you,'" Briskman told HuffPost's Jennifer Bendery. "Basically, you cannot have 'lewd' or 'obscene' things in your social media. So they were calling flipping him off 'obscene.'"


If I hire you as an employee for my business, and in violation of our agreement, you do something that damages my business, why should you not be held accountable for your end of the deal?

Don't like the rules, find another job.
edit on 7-11-2017 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Of course you don't she should have been fired. You hate Trump and probably think she needs promoted.

Truth is, the company she worked for does government work. I'm sure they might think of future contracts with said government might be in jeapordy, with employees disrespecting their employer?


If this were Obama I would be saying the same thing.

Regardless of who is getting the finger (ewww) nobody should be sacked for this, like another member said, perhaps a warning of some kind.

Also It would be pretty stupid if Trump was going around not giving out government contracts to people because they have employees who might have at one point said something disparaging about him. Hell if that was the standard then nobody would be getting any contracts.


Well now hold on.

I too don't want this woman fired.

But when it comes to working with the government, there is a real danger of having people who hate the government or leaders working for them.

Remember reality winner? She posted all sorts of hate about government leaders and the country on social media, and surprise surprise, she ended up committing felonies to hurt her enemies.

Again, I wish this woman wouldn't have been fired, but the government has every right not to contract with people that publicly hate them.


Yeah but at the same time I am pretty confident that if I and looked at a handful of social media profiles for people who work for say Locheed-Martian I would find a few of them who have posted a couple of Trump memes, might even have complained about the odd policy decision and so on.

Sorry but to me thats just not a excuse.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Honestly this absurd...


No it's not.



"They said, 'We're separating from you,'" Briskman told HuffPost's Jennifer Bendery. "Basically, you cannot have 'lewd' or 'obscene' things in your social media. So they were calling flipping him off 'obscene.'"


If I hire you as an employee for my business, and in violation of our agreement, you do something that damages my business, why should you not be held accountable for your end of the deal?

Don't like the rules, find another job.


I get that.

Totally with you.

However, if I was to go and look at a handful of social media accounts I am sure I would find stuff that would be regarded as lewd or offensive behaviour.

What you going to do, sack them all?
edit on 7-11-2017 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: intrepid
Trump is not the issue here. No matter who the prez is they still would have sacked her. Government contractor remember.


If you were to refuse government contracts to any company who had employees who had ever posted anything offensive to Trump on social media you wouldn't reward any government contracts.

That is not a valid reason to fire her in my view.

They should have explained it to her, gave her a warning, perhaps even asked her to change her social media settings to private or to remove anything that connects her with their company and so on.

But to fire her. no.


I imagine she signed a contract stating that she could not do a bunch of stuff while an emplyee of the company, it is pretty standard practice from what little I know.

It seems absurd to me but then I am used to living in a different country where aside from a limited number of professions we are not subject to these kind of restrictions.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So she was fired for flipping Trump the bird in her own time.

Doesn't seem like she should be fired to me.

Am I missing something with this?

I don't see why she was fired.


Now I can actually agree with one point. I personally don't think this is grounds for termination I do however realize legally it is. While I think it sucks she has lost income and the ability to support her family. I feel people need to realize actions have consequences. And when you work for the Gov you don't go around flipping off the head of the Gov you work for..It's just not a smart move to offend the CEO of the company you work for.

What she should have done is not admitted it was her and kept her mouth shut when confronted. However this SJW thought it was more important to raise her hand and say "yes that was me" as if she was going be given accolades for her defiant gesture....This is were her idiotic thinking came in.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Did they sign a contract with me prohibiting that activity?



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: intrepid
Trump is not the issue here. No matter who the prez is they still would have sacked her. Government contractor remember.


If you were to refuse government contracts to any company who had employees who had ever posted anything offensive to Trump on social media you wouldn't reward any government contracts.

That is not a valid reason to fire her in my view.

They should have explained it to her, gave her a warning, perhaps even asked her to change her social media settings to private or to remove anything that connects her with their company and so on.

But to fire her. no.


I imagine she signed a contract stating that she could not do a bunch of stuff while an emplyee of the company, it is pretty standard practice from what little I know.

It seems absurd to me but then I am used to living in a different country where aside from a limited number of professions we are not subject to these kind of restrictions.


Yeah good point actually.

I guess if she does have such a contract then she would have been in breach of said contract and as such it would qualify her for dismissal.

On the other hand however its a bit of a slap in the face to freedom of speech to say you cannot express yourself privately with out breaking some clause in your contract and getting fired for it even though you were not acting for or representing the company at the time.

I am glad that in the UK our freedom of speech is not so restricted.
edit on 7-11-2017 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

did those others have their name and picture splashed across the news potentially draw criticism towards the company?



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Thing is, there's a workaround.

When hired and you believe your personal account is going to affect your job, you change your name to something your employer wouldn't know. (will automatically update your friends to your new name).

Alternatively, that little spot where you update your employment. Yeah, that doesn't have to be filled out. Leave it blank, put something nonsense, but for goodness sake don't screw yourself.

This country has too many people stomping all over their own d**k. I too wish she wasn't fired for it, but you have to follow your companies guidelines if you wish to stay employed there. I also think the company could have taken a little less drastic action, like a verbal/written warning.

But it is what it is.


(post by CraftyArrow removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: intrepid
Trump is not the issue here. No matter who the prez is they still would have sacked her. Government contractor remember.


If you were to refuse government contracts to any company who had employees who had ever posted anything offensive to Trump on social media you wouldn't reward any government contracts.

That is not a valid reason to fire her in my view.

They should have explained it to her, gave her a warning, perhaps even asked her to change her social media settings to private or to remove anything that connects her with their company and so on.

But to fire her. no.


I imagine she signed a contract stating that she could not do a bunch of stuff while an emplyee of the company, it is pretty standard practice from what little I know.

It seems absurd to me but then I am used to living in a different country where aside from a limited number of professions we are not subject to these kind of restrictions.


Yeah good point actually.

I guess if she does have such a contract then she would have been in breach of said contract and as such it would qualify her for dismissal.

On the other hand however its a bit of a slap in the face to freedom of speech to say you cannot express yourself privately with out breaking some clause in your contract and getting fired for it even though you were not acting for or representing the company at the time.

I am glad that in the UK our freedom of speech is not so restricted.


Yeah our definitions of freedom of speech differ on either sides of the pond but I would not say ours was any better as it will result in a torrent of abuse that I don't have the time for.

There was a guy that worked for a supermarket that was sacked because of a video on social media the other week but he was on a racial rant of epic proportions whilst at work and wearing his work uniform with the company logo in clear view so that you can kind of understand.

I am self employed but if you looked at my facebook there is not a job I could get given my opinions on pretty much every government and corperation out there.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Eshel

Exactly.

But I'll add that something tells me she had 'other' issues.

Why did she go to her employer about a photo that she didn't take and that didn't even identify her?

Me thinks there was some thumb in your eye going on there.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join