More Examples of posting on Facebook and getting fired

[RNIBCLC]

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

[Atl-Murse]

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.

[Eru Ilúvatar]

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.

[NurseP00kie]

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.

[phuretrotr]

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.

[toomuchbaloney]

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.