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

[TheGooch]

I guess it is how you preseve mowing down. People can die from being trampled. Some people when discribing being mowed down are people that are hit and run over by a car You can die that way too.

It's perceive not preseve. Spell check is a poster's best friend.

[mvm2]

It's perceive not preseve. Spell check is a poster's best friend.

well I would use the spell check if it would work on my computer but it does not. None of us are perfect and yes I have never been really strong in spelling.

[monkeyhq]

A tattoo displayed outside the workplace does not affect the public trust.

Being an atheist in a Christian hospital does not affect the public trust (provided you are not handing out literature at the institution, or a uniformed employee outside on the sidewalk in front of the institution). However, an agreement with a non-profit religious hospital may even specify that you cannot do anything they perceive will affect their public image. Your religious views may not be protected in this regard if you have signed an agreement with said non-profit. They don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else, and they CAN discriminate based on religion (single school teacher was fired for getting pregnant--she signed a contract, they get to fire her, because they believe having an unmarried single mother in a role model position at their school promotes a negative image. Since they are a non-profit, they can).

A private employer can fire you for what you say publicly, and I am very glad that they can in situations like this (the FB post). And it isn't just about the image of the hospital.

It is about the safety of their employees, patients, vendors, and visitors. When one of your staff makes such inflammatory, hateful remarks, on a highly populated network of people, and has your business listed as her employer, your business just became a target for retaliation. Her co-workers were put at risk. The Hospital incurs additional expenses for security, while losing the trust of the public. Those consequences of the FB poster and her 'free speech' are unfair to the employer, and to the whole of the hospital. She has every right to say terrible things, but when the consequences of that action extend to third parties, she loses any protection Labor Laws might have otherwise provided.

An officer was fired just this week for statements he made, while off duty, at a private meeting of the private group "Promise Keepers". His statements were inflammatory and racist, and he works in a position that holds the public trust. He, too, may speak as he wishes, but is not free from consequences. Could you imagine any officer wanting to be his partner after the video of those statements became public? No! I wouldn't want the risk, and the employer should not have to carry the responsibility of that officer's private actions.

The rights of speech under the 1st Amendment protect citizens from retaliation from the government. It does not protect citizens from the consequences doled out by employers (unless it is a protected class and you have not waived your rights). So in the matter of protesters, they do have the right to assembly. Provided they do no physical harm to property or person, they should be allowed to march whenever and wherever they want on publicly owned property, or with the permission of private land owners. They should not face retaliation by law enforcement for that exercise of free speech. However, if a robbery is committed, trespassing on private property, vandalism, etc., is happening, law enforcement has the right to make arrests for those charges. They should not be able to arrest anyone for peaceful assembly.

[morte, LPN, LVN]

oath keepers NOT promise keepers!!!!

A tattoo displayed outside the workplace does not affect the public trust.

Being an atheist in a Christian hospital does not affect the public trust (provided you are not handing out literature at the institution, or a uniformed employee outside on the sidewalk in front of the institution). However, an agreement with a non-profit religious hospital may even specify that you cannot do anything they perceive will affect their public image. Your religious views may not be protected in this regard if you have signed an agreement with said non-profit. They don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else, and they CAN discriminate based on religion (single school teacher was fired for getting pregnant--she signed a contract, they get to fire her, because they believe having an unmarried single mother in a role model position at their school promotes a negative image. Since they are a non-profit, they can).

A private employer can fire you for what you say publicly, and I am very glad that they can in situations like this (the FB post). And it isn't just about the image of the hospital.

It is about the safety of their employees, patients, vendors, and visitors. When one of your staff makes such inflammatory, hateful remarks, on a highly populated network of people, and has your business listed as her employer, your business just became a target for retaliation. Her co-workers were put at risk. The Hospital incurs additional expenses for security, while losing the trust of the public. Those consequences of the FB poster and her 'free speech' are unfair to the employer, and to the whole of the hospital. She has every right to say terrible things, but when the consequences of that action extend to third parties, she loses any protection Labor Laws might have otherwise provided.

An officer was fired just this week for statements he made, while off duty, at a private meeting of the private group "Promise Keepers". His statements were inflammatory and racist, and he works in a position that holds the public trust. He, too, may speak as he wishes, but is not free from consequences. Could you imagine any officer wanting to be his partner after the video of those statements became public? No! I wouldn't want the risk, and the employer should not have to carry the responsibility of that officer's private actions.

The rights of speech under the 1st Amendment protect citizens from retaliation from the government. It does not protect citizens from the consequences doled out by employers (unless it is a protected class and you have not waived your rights). So in the matter of protesters, they do have the right to assembly. Provided they do no physical harm to property or person, they should be allowed to march whenever and wherever they want on publicly owned property, or with the permission of private land owners. They should not face retaliation by law enforcement for that exercise of free speech. However, if a robbery is committed, trespassing on private property, vandalism, etc., is happening, law enforcement has the right to make arrests for those charges. They should not be able to arrest anyone for peaceful assembly.

[klone, MSN, RN]

oath keepers NOT promise keepers!!!!

Oh dear. Two VERY different groups!

[morte, LPN, LVN]

yup.!

Oh dear. Two VERY different groups!

[SallyA781]

However, I take exception to the idea that nurses who are off the clock are supposed to be any kinder and more compassionate than the general public. Nurses are people. We ARE the general public. We're just as entitled to our cranky, racist comments (and to be fired for them) as the postal service employee, mechanic or CEO down the street.

Well, to be fair, it isn't just nurses who are held up to a higher standard. The CEO down the street probably would have just as much, if not more, of a negative backlash. A great example is Donald Sterling, the LA Clippers coach, who was banned from the NBA for racist remarks.

[Stephalump]

It would be a non-issue if people would learn to keep work and their personal lives separate. I can say all the awful things I want on my Facebook, and guess what? Not one person who works there will see it. My place of work isn't linked to it. I've never even mention the name. Any coworkers friend requests are denied. I don't wear my work badge out in public.

I'm free to be the awful person I am, free of consequences.

(I jest.)

[monkeyhq]

Oh dear. Two VERY different groups!

Indeed! My mistake! It is OATH KEEPERS. Oops.

[Eru Ilúvatar]

Well, to be fair, it isn't just nurses who are held up to a higher standard. The CEO down the street probably would have just as much, if not more, of a negative backlash. A great example is Donald Sterling, the LA Clippers coach, who was banned from the NBA for racist remarks.

Another maybe not well know case its that of the CEO of the Mozilla Foundation ( The people who make the web browser and other open source software). He donated money to a group that was anti-homesexual and when his employees found out they banded together and forced him to resign. Another case in which negative remarks or actions have grave consequences.

[Eru Ilúvatar]

It would be a non-issue if people would learn to keep work and their personal lives separate. I can say all the awful things I want on my Facebook, and guess what? Not one person who works there will see it. My place of work isn't linked to it. I've never even mention the name. Any coworkers friend requests are denied. I don't wear my work badge out in public.

I'm free to be the awful person I am, free of consequences.

(I jest.)

And this its what we should all be doing, keep your private life, well, private.

[Guest219794]

A quote from the article:

As well as responsibilities....even in the workplace.

In order for ALL to be able to engage "in the pursuit of happiness" that has been placed in our wonderful constitution, it's time that it means checking our own fears and preconceived notions of others, as well as our own actions towards others; and taking responsibility of what we say, and the potential consequences when it's pertaining to a preconceived notion.

To add: a workplace has an image to uphold; shouldn't we have enough inkling to know that? The individual certainly knows that now....

If you want the pursuit of happiness mentioned in the constitution, you are going to have to work on an amendment. As of today, it isn't in there. Pretty sure there was some mention of it the declaration of independence.

A lot of people in this thread refer to our right to freedom of speech. This is in the constitution, and prevents the government from interfering with personal expression and religion. Completely irrelevant here. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and everything to do with the right of a company to hire who they want. And they don't want her.

I don't hire many people. But, if it turned out somebody working on my house spouted similar garbage as this woman, I would fire him. Or her.

At best, this woman is an idiot.