Posted on 11/21/2012 8:20:46 PM PST by ConservativeStatement
Lindsey Stone — the Plymouth woman taking an online beating for posting a photo of herself flipping the bird at Arlington National Cemetery on Facebook — has lost her job.
“Lindsey resigned and we accepted her resignation,” LIFE Inc. CEO Diane Enochs told the Herald tonight.
LIFE Inc. of Hyannis — a Cape Cod nonprofit that helps adults with special needs — announced tonight that Stone, along with the woman who snapped the offending photo, are not working there.
Ironically, the formal announcement was made on Facebook.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
The problem with Facebook is that as a hiring manager, or admissions committees, there are certain things that you are not allowed to ask about candidates, but that candidates “proudly” display on FB, and once having seen that information, you can’t un-see it, therefore if you decline to hire, and or admit a candidate you want to make sure that the reason given for declination, is not one that will come back to haunt you.
The EEOC is already salivating at the chance to get into court a case that is based on denial of hiring/admission based on Facebook postings. Heck they are already telling people that you should not be asking if anyone has a criminal conviction (of whatever stripe) and denying employment based on that, as a large percentage of a particular “protected class” has convictions and could possibly be denied employment...etc...etc...etc....
It made my head hurt at the last training I attended on the topic.
“how does this action result in her being fired?”
If an employee’s behavior embarrasses an entity and may cause harm to its success, I would think termination would be legal and appropriate. Or the ACLU will most likely step in and cause a ruckus. Of course, it’s Christmas, and ACLU’s busy time of the year — the jerks.
Because the only people she associates with are radical Leftists who would approve of her stunt.
Leftists, and particularly women leftists, tend to associate with people who never disagree with their politics, except to argue for an even more Leftist position.
But what if the applicant says “No, it’s my personal site and my personal business.”?
I’ve no doubt. I don’t put anything on FB that I wouldn’t mind my mother seeing. However, my question is what if the applicant has the privacy settings cranked up on their FB page and refuses to allow the interviewer access to it? Is that a red flag or is that merely someone maintaining a modicum of privacy in today’s world?
I find someone else.
She has the right to her opinions. And her employer has an equal right to not want his company associated with her stupid opinions.
If I was her boss, I would have done the same.
You think you would not lose your position at your company if a picture of you wearing a KKK outfit and holding a noose in front of the MLK memorial was making its rounds on the Net? Especially if people were calling your company to vent their upset?
So by that rationale, the very existence of a FB account means that anyone/everyone should have access to it, regardless of the person’s wishes?
The key point is understanding that whatever you put out on the internet is going into the “public square”, and that no matter what settings you put on it, someone else can still forward it, refer to it, tell someone about it, etc.
The “e” in electronic also stands for “eternal”, “evidence”, and “everyone”.
By your screen name “Future Snake Eater”, I assume you have intentions of going in the military. I will tell you from personal observation that soldiers do get prosecuted for stupid stuff they put up on FB, Twitter, etc.
If there is anyone in the world you don’t want to see something, exercise a little self-control and don’t post it.
No. But people who are seen as being open about their Internet presence gain points in their favor from job interviewers.
Similarly, you are perfectly free to show up at your next job interview wearing a ripped t-shirt and dirty jeans. It's entirely your right to do so.
It's like I keep telling my kids, now that they are old enough to be going to job interviews: you have a right to be stupid, and the employer has a right to not want to hire idiots.
Like I tell my kids: all it takes is ONE person in your circle of "friends" to decide to forward a pic or posting of you to somebody outside your "privacy" wall, and it's thereafter "loose in the wild". If it gets into the hands of people who don't like you, or who don't like your opinion, then it WILL get forwarded to your employer, school, etc.
In the world of the Internet, the ONLY private information is that which never leaves the insides of your skull.
On FR, I occasionally post controversial opinions. I consequently try to avoid posting info that would link my online persona to my real-world identity. My wife knows I post to FR, but I don't even tell HER my FR identity.
Not everyone.
Someone who you want to represent in exchange for their money? Someone who evaluates your suitability for others well-being or safety?
Absolutely.
It just sounds a like a “guilty until proven innocent” kind of thing. Maybe that’s now the world we live in, but I still don’t like it.
I agree that ‘progressive’ “authority” should be challenged continually.
With her “in general” she takes it as a hobby to show how “rebellious” she is. Maybe she should get more focus and sign up for OWS. Then she could give the finger and yell at people all day.
Keep in mind that this is only one part of the criteria he uses. Generally there will be several other "red flags" that pop up ie KMD tattooed on the knuckles of both hands.
Difference between questioning authority and insulting those who gave all. But it should not be a law. Freedom of speech is too precious to regulate.
Dang some of you folks are killing me; it’s like you’re hoping for a federal case here.
I believe everyone should be able to say what they please. If those acts are public in any manner, I believe everyone should be able to comment as they see fit.
That carries over to employers. If an employer sees an act he believes does not fit the image of his company, or if he just plain doesn’t like it, I believe he should be able to comment...which includes firing/not hiring the actor.
What we need is for folks to take responsibility for their actions, show a little respect, and for .gov to get the heck out of the way.
Agree on all points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.