However, once the video gets posted to X for nationwide consumption, then she in her Home Depot apron becomes a notorious apparition. She should have had enough sense to immediately resign, rather than face continuous legitimate harassment. The decision to fire her seems reasonable based on her inadvertently becoming an advertisement for the company. Somewhere in the personnel manual there should a statement limiting free speech when it can be associated with the business.
This reminds me of the reaction in Eugene Oregon to Reagan’s attempted assassination. The citizens of Eugene often referred to him as a fascist and much displeasure was expressed about his survival. As a Vietnam vet before it became popular, I was a subject and not a citizen. My opinions were often not appreciated.
“The decision to fire her seems reasonable based on her inadvertently becoming an advertisement for the company.”
Ummm...agreed with the rest, but if that (quoted above) is the standard, then any FReeper is subject to recriminations just because someone - in our cases likely a lefty nutjob - decided to post a video of a confrontation at our place of employment.
I don’t find the standard acceptable, nor do I believe that the veteran was right to both confront her “at work” AND post the video of what was blatantly a hitjob (she did not engage). I do - and have stated prior - believe that we must adopt their own tactics, but absent certain conditions this was over the top.
As stated, I might have confronted her, too, but I would NOT have posted the video and the story would end right there...until I doxxed her for her idiotic position.
I believe that she has a civil case, if not a case with the state (depending on the laws where she’s employed)...but I’m not cheering that point (though it sounds hypocritical, I’m satisfied with the result).