More Examples of posting on Facebook and getting fired

Granted this employee is not a nurse but it still demonstrates hospitals firing employes for comments that they post on social media.

Facebook post about Ferguson leads to firing

[iluvivt, BSN, RN]

She should have been fired.What an evil statement she posted. Let's hope she learned more than just one lesson from this.

[VivaLasViejas, ASN, RN]

While one does not give up his or her First Amendment rights to become a hospital employee, there may be consequences that come along with the exercise of that freedom. Memorial-Hermann did the right thing, IMHO.

[RNIBCLC]

While one does not give up his or her First Amendment rights to become a hospital employee, there may be consequences that come along with the exercise of that freedom. Memorial-Hermann did the right thing, IMHO.

I totally agree

Now she is free to say whatever she wants to say, as long as she dose not talk too loud at the unemployment office. They kinda frown on loud conversations.

[HappyWife77, BSN, RN]

She must have missed that inservice on the transparency of social media.

She probably had her place of employment listed on her fb account homepage also.

[SDALPN]

The comment was inappropriate. But it had nothing to do with her job or place of work. I'm sure many will disagree with me. But, these companies shouldn't have the power to own us off the clock. If it was said off the clock, she should have the right to free speech. She should have the right to her beliefs, even if we disagree with them. Our personal business and beliefs shouldn't have an effect on our jobs. As long as the job is done right and the employee is reliable, the rest shouldn't matter.

I understand that an employer doesn't " owns" a person when off the clock, but think for a second how this would look from the employers side. The employee (even the lowest in the corporate food chain) represents the company, so if all the sudden it its widely know that this place employs someone racist, then on the public eyes the company will be labeled racist. All they did was damage control to avoid negative press and public outrage. In this world of instant information public outrage its dangerous if it affects your company.

Many people forget that freedom of speech protects them from government retaliation and thats it. Nothing else its bind by this, employers don't have to respect everything you say or your opinion. If you go on the streets saying racist things you may be confronted by people who are insulted, and if you insult me personally " freedom of speech" will not save you from getting a slap across your face.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences!

[SDALPN]

Understandable, but I don't represent a company if I'm not on the clock.

I don't have tattoos, but these hospitals make employees cover tattoos at work and they are free to uncover them outside of work. How is that any different? What if it were tattooed on this person? The hospital wouldn't make her cover it outside of work. And more people from the public probably see a tattoo than a post that could be *private* on Facebook. I like tattoos, but I've seen some that could be considered offensive. But that would be ok with the hospital covered up at work, but uncovered outside of work. This could be a door to other excuses to fire someone. What about the atheist employee at a Christian based hospital? Where does the line get drawn? To me, we represent our workplace while we are at work. We represent ourselves outside of work.

WARNING:

Devils advocate post!

From reading this board, it seems the general consensus of the previous posters is that although American law states humans have freedom of speech, they are not protected from the consequences of what their speech entails for them. If this is the line of thinking, not to go down a slippery slope, then wouldn't those of you who believe this, also believe that the protestors, who are expressing their opinion and using their constitutional right of freedom of speech, have to accept that the consequences of them doing this may result in police ending their protest, peaceful or not; just as the employee who used her freedom of speech was fired.

Both situations used freedom of speech and in both situations, serious consequences were handed to them. Why is one more wrong than the other if they are both the same in nature?

I am not saying the previous posters believe that the police trying to end the protests is more wrong or that they think it is right, I just think it's hypocritical if you DO think one is more wrong than the other or think one is right and one is wrong.

The comment was inappropriate. But it had nothing to do with her job or place of work. I'm sure many will disagree with me. But, these companies shouldn't have the power to own us off the clock. If it was said off the clock, she should have the right to free speech. She should have the right to her beliefs, even if we disagree with them. Our personal business and beliefs shouldn't have an effect on our jobs. As long as the job is done right and the employee is reliable, the rest shouldn't matter.

However, in this country corporate employers have the right to terminate employees for any reason or no reason at all, they may search your locker, and they may search your body fluids. They also may interfere with your expenditure of compensation if it upsets their religious sensibilities.

It is no surprise that if you say or do something in public that annoys your corporate employer you will be terminated.

Having the right to free speech does not guarantee that there are no consequences to what you say.

WARNING:

Devils advocate post!

From reading this board, it seems the general consensus of the previous posters is that although American law states humans have freedom of speech, they are not protected from the consequences of what their speech entails for them. If this is the line of thinking, not to go down a slippery slope, then wouldn't those of you who believe this, also believe that the protestors, who are expressing their opinion and using their constitutional right of freedom of speech, have to accept that the consequences of them doing this may result in police ending their protest, peaceful or not; just as the employee who used her freedom of speech was fired.

Both situations used freedom of speech and in both situations, serious consequences were handed to them. Why is one more wrong than the other if they are both the same in nature?

I am not saying the previous posters believe that the police trying to end the protests is more wrong or that they think it is right, I just think it's hypocritical if you DO think one is more wrong than the other or think one is right and one is wrong.

Heck, in some communities you could get hurt or killed simply by speaking your mind to the police.

There is a difference between freedom of speech and disturbance of public order caused by the manifestations. While i support the freedom that the citizens of Ferguson have to organize and protest ( which I think its protected by the constitution, but not sure 100%) , I do not approve of the chaos and looting that occurred in the beginning. If I were a citizen that was not part of the protest i wouldn't want protestors causing chaos or damage to my city, so I would want the police to protect me and other fellow citizens from this "freedom" that others are exercising.

I am surprised by how people react to the way the police was dispersing a violent protest. I am pretty sure that many have never seen with their eyes what a real crackdown on a manifestation looks like. ( Lived and experienced crackdown from a dictatorship and that even looks pale in comparison what many Communist countries do to their protestors, think machine gun bullets raining everywhere) We live in a free country and our constitution protects us from the abuse of power from order institutions (Police, Military), but we cant let the country or a city fall in chaos because we don't want to control or use a little bit of push when dealing with violent protestors. Just remember that the Civil Rights movement obtained victory through peaceful force ,and not using the violent option (Black Phanters).

Understandable, but I don't represent a company if I'm not on the clock.

I absolutely agree that we don't represent our company when we're off-duty, and that we have the right to do and say what we wish (within the law) in our own time. I think the problem is that what we say or do publically can still negatively affect our employer if the public associates our actions or statements with our employer.

It concerns the public's perception and trust. I think you need to actually keep your private life separate from your work. Posting private, sensitive, or potentially inflammatory information or statements on Facebook or other social media is simply unwise. Chances are that you'll be recognized, and some folks are even naive enough to actually name their place of employment. Not the best of ideas.

I've made up some ridiculous social media quotes and assigned each to two different "persons". Which of the two in every pair can potentially cause most damage? Some jobs are in my opinion just more sensitive when it comes to how the public perceives them. Healthcare is one of those jobs.

In my opinion short people are genetically predisposed to committing crimes. In twenty years of doing this job, I have yet to meet a shorty who wasn't guilty of something or other.

The Honorable Justice Gavel X Slammer, Superior Court of Injustice County or

Carpenter Amber Dade-Wood

No woman wearing lots of makeup and a short skirt should be surprised if she receives unwanted attention. If you don't wish to be assaulted cover your body and use only light makeup. If you don't it's pretty obvious what signals your sending.

Sheriff's Deputy Robbert Freeze or

Sous chef Yumyum Canapé

I never go the extra mile for poor people. They are poor simply because they're lazy and don't work hard enough. They just leech on the middle class, I see no reason to take any risks at all for their sake. All of us at work feel this way.

Fire Fighter Red Skye or

Librarian Dusty Covers

This hygiene thing is soooo overrated. I mean seriously, am I supposed to wash and gel my hands constantly?! Helloooo!!! I'm not going to ruin my skin like that, I suffer from soap allergy. And water too, I think. I mean, come on! It's not like I blow my nose in my hands! (Well, not often anyway). What's the risk of spreading some little bug to someone anyway? It's probably no more than one in five. Or perhaps it's one in three. I dunno. Whatever. There's always antibiotics, I mean they work on most bacteria. Sort of.

Registered Nurse P. Foley, Transplant Unit, Fingers Crossed University Hospital. or

Violin virtuoso Muew Ling Khat, performing at the Grand Concert Hall of Perpetual Tinnitus.

I'm a strongly support of freedom of speech, but as others have said, there may still be consequences.

Edited Aug 23, 2014 by macawake

[ThePrincessBride, BSN]

To the people who are defending her first amendment rights, she may have the right to post ignorant crap on FB, but the employer has the right to fire her dumb butt. I'm glad they did.

[SDALPN]

I'm sure each person who says she should have been fired has said something stupid before as well. People are entitled to their opinions no matter how wrong or ignorant. Now if they cause harm to others, that's a different story. Not everyone is going to have beliefs that line up with their employers beliefs. We are hired to do a job, not to believe a certain way. Firing that person was to set an example and create fear.