Curt schilling fired over anti transgender post.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Now, imagine if, with my expectation to represent the company positively, if i decided i was going to go on YouTube and start doing racist rants. Would my company be correct in finding this unacceptable? What if i were a Director of Sales...would that not impact my ability to sell for the company? On a director level, no less?

I'm not sure. I agree that a company has the right to protect their image but I also see where public appearance clauses in contracts can be and have been abused by employers.

Firing is probably justified on a first offense because you can argue the employer was defrauded in what type of person they thought they hired.

But, if a person has a documented history of expressing controversial views or exhibiting behavior you don't want associated with your company and you hire them anyways I think the company is at fault for not doing their due diligence in background checking the potential employee or by expressing a willingness to be associated with such views by signing a contract with the person anyways.

originally posted by: Aazadan

But, if a person has a documented history of expressing controversial views or exhibiting behavior you don't want associated with your company and you hire them anyways I think the company is at fault for not doing their due diligence in background checking the potential employee or by expressing a willingness to be associated with such views by signing a contract with the person anyways.

I don't disagree with this at all....

....but the other side of that hand is that it then agrees that employers have a right to base hiring on your social media activity (or, inactivity....if you have no profile on FB are you a risky "unknown" that won't be hired?)

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It make me curious sometimes, what world people think they live in.

The world is not Mommy and Daddy giving you love hugs.

It's a very competitive collective. What you do with and in it - - - is your responsibility.

Its really no different then the hierarchy in the animal kingdom.

Animal world - - Power

Human world - - Power is in money. You harm that power - - its your ass.

Reality check. (sometimes bluntness is needed)

a reply to: Aazadan

I don't disagree with this at all.... ....but the other side of that hand is that it then agrees that employers have a right to base hiring on your social media activity (or, inactivity....if you have no profile on FB are you a risky "unknown" that won't be hired?)

I only had a small business with anywhere from 8 to 12 people. I saved myself a lot of money, a lot of time, and a lot of aggravation, because I didn't hire anyone that I didn't trust, and I didn't keep around anyone that betrayed my trust or caused me to doubt them.

I had an expectation for my staff to work as a team. I expected them to earn their pay. I expected to pay them for services rendered that went above what I expected. I expected respect for myself, the job, and the rest of the team.

I didn't expect perfection. I didn't expect things to always go without hitch. I didn't expect my staff to kiss my behind. What they did off the clock was their business, unless it interfered with their ability to do their job.

I wouldn't expect anyone to hold me responsible for the actions of my employees off the clock. If I lost customers because they didn't like someone that worked for me, because they didn't like the way they looked or dressed, because of their sex, because of their religion or accent, because of - name the bug up their butt, that would be just another person that didn't use my services. I couldn't provided services to everyone in the world anyway.

Every company has their own mission statement and their own way of doing business. I just didn't try, nor did I want to control my employees off the clock.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I don't disagree with this at all....

....but the other side of that hand is that it then agrees that employers have a right to base hiring on your social media activity (or, inactivity....if you have no profile on FB are you a risky "unknown" that won't be hired?)

I don't see a problem with that. Personally, I don't have a Facebook account but I do have a LinkedIn account. I try to be pretty careful so that a quick Google check on me only reveals certain things. I think of a persons name as if it's a brand, each person is responsible for promoting themselves in a way that reflects who they are.

In my case, I think that for every employer that would shy away from me because I don't have Facebook, there's another that would give me a chance because I don't have an arrest record, haven't ever had to go to court as a defendant, don't have a record of partying, and that I can pass an on the spot drug test without even the hint of alcohol or tobacco much less anything illegal.

In Curts case, he is who he is. There should have been no surprises to ESPN here and they hired him anyways. Breaking their contract now is the wrong thing to do because just as he's bound to a contract so are they (or they should be). If they didn't want to renew his contract I wouldn't blame them but to outright fire him goes beyond the authority that I feel a company should have in this instance. The law however does not agree with me.

a reply to: Aazadan

coming from a right to work state, Im fine with an employer being able to term an employee at any time without cause. I've been in that situation where an employer pushes you out the door rather than just firing you because they wanted to empty a seat. Im a stubborn bastard, and that kind of thing tends to create unnecessary drama.