This was a good read and goes to the heart of questions of civilization and governance. Employers have boundaries too and they have no say on issues not directly linked to or dependent on the contract of employment. Every nation state handles this differently and Google has different rights in its various national markets. Flexibility is a prerequisite in international affairs and every case should be seen as unique. Activists who see all matters as a function of group identity whereby all disputes are predetermined according to skin colour or gender must be confronted and defeated in argument. Any other way lies authoritarianism.
Charles another thoughtful commentary. While I agree with the sentiments of your comments, I think in practice applying the strong case free speech standards when one is talking about an employer-employee relationship is more complex.
Any comment made on social media by any individual is likely to be seen by 100s, 1000s, even millions of people. So even when an employee is outside of work outrageous, offensive or abusive statements because of social media make all conversations highly visible to a large audience. An employer must be concerned that abusive or offensive statements may somehow communicate to the public that the employer shares his vocal employee’s sentiments.
So while I agree with you in general, employers should not be monitoring or sanctioning employees for statements made outside of work—even abusive and offensive comments and statements—employers face the challenge of knowing that an employee making an offensive statement in his or her private life may reflect badly on the employer and his or her business. My guess is that, even though this may be uncomfortable for many, each of these types of incidents should be handled on a case by case basis.
You have a point, such things should be handled on a case by case basis, but I'll err strongly on the side of the employees right to expression than the company's saving face
I would generally agree with you, but for the employer his or her business survival could easily be threatened if customers perceive a careless, abusive or offensive comment by an employee represents the employer’s attitude or perspective. The problem is the reach and spread of social media where everyone gets to know your thoughts about everything almost instantly.
This was a good read and goes to the heart of questions of civilization and governance. Employers have boundaries too and they have no say on issues not directly linked to or dependent on the contract of employment. Every nation state handles this differently and Google has different rights in its various national markets. Flexibility is a prerequisite in international affairs and every case should be seen as unique. Activists who see all matters as a function of group identity whereby all disputes are predetermined according to skin colour or gender must be confronted and defeated in argument. Any other way lies authoritarianism.
Charles another thoughtful commentary. While I agree with the sentiments of your comments, I think in practice applying the strong case free speech standards when one is talking about an employer-employee relationship is more complex.
Any comment made on social media by any individual is likely to be seen by 100s, 1000s, even millions of people. So even when an employee is outside of work outrageous, offensive or abusive statements because of social media make all conversations highly visible to a large audience. An employer must be concerned that abusive or offensive statements may somehow communicate to the public that the employer shares his vocal employee’s sentiments.
So while I agree with you in general, employers should not be monitoring or sanctioning employees for statements made outside of work—even abusive and offensive comments and statements—employers face the challenge of knowing that an employee making an offensive statement in his or her private life may reflect badly on the employer and his or her business. My guess is that, even though this may be uncomfortable for many, each of these types of incidents should be handled on a case by case basis.
You have a point, such things should be handled on a case by case basis, but I'll err strongly on the side of the employees right to expression than the company's saving face
I would generally agree with you, but for the employer his or her business survival could easily be threatened if customers perceive a careless, abusive or offensive comment by an employee represents the employer’s attitude or perspective. The problem is the reach and spread of social media where everyone gets to know your thoughts about everything almost instantly.
It can be rude, offensive or not, depending on the circumstances.
But it ain't Kryptonite.
I wonder if she would have been terminated if she would have referred to someone as a cocksucker?
What if she was speaking of Liberace?