Fired Over A Facebook Post

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Here's a "fired over a Facebook post" that doesn't involve somebody doing something incredibly stupid. In fact, it is the exact opposite. :(

“About 15 minutes into our ride, I asked him (the student) how his day was. He told me, ‘Mr. Johnny, I’m hungry,’” Cook said. “When I asked him why, he said he didn’t eat lunch that day. When I asked him why not, he told me, ‘When I took my tray to the register, they told me I didn’t have any money on my account.’”
Click to expand...
 
I can see both sides of the situation here. One: Cook showed true compassion for the child not eating that day and voiced it as a potential issue within public school policies. Two: he definitely should have talked with school officials in order to determine if it was the child that chose not to eat or if he was turned away at the register.

Do I feel Cook should have been given an ultimatum on taking two weeks unpaid or getting terminated over this? Hell no. He showed genuine concern for the well being of a student, and that is someone I would allow behind the wheel of any school bus, regardless if he may have jumped to his own conclusion regarding this matter.
 
I signed for him on Change.org, first time I've used that site but this guy got a raw deal
 
No offense, but all this commotion is about a kid who didn't get lunch one day?
 
If you stop reading right at the bus drivers side of the story it sure looks that way.

However it appears the school actually talked to the student, parent and reviewed video footage . In addition they outline a set of fall back policies to ensure that kids at least get a sandwich even if out of money and ask an adult.

He didn't read his policy book to see the section about don't bad mouth your employer online.

And given the opportunity to recant / correct the story given video evidence he chose termination.

Did we read the same story?

It is kind of like repeating a co-works second hand info about your company / boss online without doing anything your self to verify a single fact.

However if you enjoy conspiracy the I gues the school is evil by default.
 
i hate summeries, the truth is in the details. everything seems so emotionally weighed in this article.
 
An employee violates a policy over a fake incident and when given the chance to recant chooses termination instead ... this is unfair how :confused: ... the only people who could accurately claim this is unfair is the school themselves since they are getting roasted over events that didn't transpire :mad:
 
One of the primary rules of Facebook, don't post anything work related...because of s#!t like this.
 
I'm having a hard time being angry at the school district here. They followed up with this kid and gave the employee a way to resolve this while maintaining his employment. Mouthing off about your employer on Facebook is always a dumb idea. If this guy truly was only worried about the student then he should have directed his energy into a note to the school principal. They clearly outlined policies in place to make sure this child won't go hungry. He probably would have gotten some small commendation from the principal of the school and a thank you from the child's parents if he had just thought it through a bit more. He even acknowledges he paused before posting it.

Sorry but no hearts are bleeding here.
 
You shouldn't be fired over Facebook posts like this, period.
 
Rizen said:
You shouldn't be fired over Facebook posts like this, period.
Click to expand...

If they had no policy on this I would agree but you are essentially saying an employee shouldn't be fired for violating their terms of employment (which this person did) ... I think the bigger message here is that you shouldn't sign documents without reading them (which the bus driver said he did with the employment policy ;) )
 
kbrickley said:
If they had no policy on this I would agree but you are essentially saying an employee shouldn't be fired for violating their terms of employment (which this person did) ... I think the bigger message here is that you shouldn't sign documents without reading them (which the bus driver said he did with the employment policy ;) )
Click to expand...
Reading over the article, it says that he didn't think he was posting about his employer. And if you read what he wrote, he didn't write anything specifically about his school district by name. This is what he wrote.[quote"]After summarizing the dialogue he had with the student, he shared his frustration with the school system: “What! This child is already on reduced lunch and we can’t let him eat. Are you kidding me? I’m certian (sic) there was leftover food thrown away today. But kids were turned away because they didn’t have .40 on there account. As a tax payer, I would much rather feed a child than throw it away. I would rather feed a child than to give food stamps to a crack head. (...) the next time we can’t feed a kid for forty cent, please call me. We will scrape up the money. This is what the world has come to.”[/quote]Does that really seem like grounds for termination, or that it obviously violates the policy about criticizing the employer?

Anyways, the dude is a bus driver, writing on his personal Facebook. I highly doubt he anticipated anyone would give it any mind.
 
Wow, case sensitive bb code, ugh. Sorry about that, can't edit.
 
Rizen said:
Reading over the article, it says that he didn't think he was posting about his employer. And if you read what he wrote, he didn't write anything specifically about his school district by name. Does that really seem like grounds for termination, or that it obviously violates the policy about criticizing the employer?

Anyways, the dude is a bus driver, writing on his personal Facebook. I highly doubt he anticipated anyone would give it any mind.
Click to expand...

If you work in a "right to work" state you should always be aware of potential repercussions since they can generally dismiss you at any time for any reason ... I understand the emotional aspect of this but he could have chilled for one night (the kid had already missed lunch) and tried to discuss this with the principle the next day ... he chose to go with the moment and now is paying the price ;)
 
The thruth, or at least a truth, is that companies and agencies, like to pretend they understand social media, but they dont.

Case in point, they are going to be raked online for their actions. I am not saying they were wrong for firing him, as the policy is clear. But the irony is that by not understanding social meadi they are getting the opposite effect fo what the policy is trying to protect them from.

For that, I am happy, as I hate how corporations (gov, nov-gov, or .coms) try to milk social media without understanding it.
 
that's exactly the point...it's a he said, they said, and they said situation.

Sure, he technically violated policy (though since he didn't specifically name the school or district...there might be some wiggle room if a savvy lawyer got in on it or the union).

And then the school pulled a zero-tolerance Streisand effect which is equally as bad.
 
kbrickley said:
If you work in a "right to work" state you should always be aware of potential repercussions since they can generally dismiss you at any time for any reason ... I understand the emotional aspect of this but he could have chilled for one night (the kid had already missed lunch) and tried to discuss this with the principle the next day ... he chose to go with the moment and now is paying the price ;)
Click to expand...
What I was trying to say is that he probably posted this flippantly to his group of friends and wasn't really thinking it would blow up like it did.

That said, this is why you need to lock down who can see your Facebook posts. My Facebook is restricted to friends-only for everything - pictures, updates, etc. And I carefully monitor who I add from work.
 
DejaWiz said:
I can see both sides of the situation here. One: Cook showed true compassion for the child not eating that day and voiced it as a potential issue within public school policies. Two: he definitely should have talked with school officials in order to determine if it was the child that chose not to eat or if he was turned away at the register.

Do I feel Cook should have been given an ultimatum on taking two weeks unpaid or getting terminated over this? Hell no. He showed genuine concern for the well being of a student, and that is someone I would allow behind the wheel of any school bus, regardless if he may have jumped to his own conclusion regarding this matter.
Click to expand...

If you think that private employers won't do the same thing, you're gravely mistaken. Whether I think the choices were fair or not depends on whether cook was shown the video or not. If he was, then he knew his statement was inaccurate. I don't like that he was let go. Hell, I don't like that you can get fired for statements on FB, but that's the way it is. Personally, I never post anything on FB about my employer. I never mention their name and I certainly don't post anything visible outside of my circle of friends.

That said, if I lived there, I'd ask them to reinstate the guy. His heart was clearly in the right place.
 
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say "Don't use facebook"....

Would have saved a whole bunch of people a lot of grief. :rolleyes:

Meh, internet fame is a double edged sword.
 
I wish a judge would understand "internet talk/facebook" should be covered under FREE SPEECH.

you shouldn't be able to be fired for posting your opinions/thoughts on it.

Reminds me of that deputy who was fired because he "liked" the guy running against the chief of police or something.
 
Stiler said:
I wish a judge would understand "internet talk/facebook" should be covered under FREE SPEECH.

you shouldn't be able to be fired for posting your opinions/thoughts on it.

Reminds me of that deputy who was fired because he "liked" the guy running against the chief of police or something.
Click to expand...

It is ... however, our constitution only protects from "government" interference in the practice of free speech (that is all that our constitution guarantees) ... private entities have no prohibitions in their control of speech as long as it doesn't violate some other part of the constitution ;)
 
Sorry,but I can absolutely see what the man described happening. My faith in the way schools are run,hell,the way this country is run,these days is at an all time low. It's all politics,red tape,and greed. Teachers are overworked and underpaid,funding for even the most basic educational needs get cut,classrooms are overcrowded - and then we wonder why this country has such a dismal performance rating in education compared to others.
 
Stiler said:
I wish a judge would understand "internet talk/facebook" should be covered under FREE SPEECH.

you shouldn't be able to be fired for posting your opinions/thoughts on it.

Reminds me of that deputy who was fired because he "liked" the guy running against the chief of police or something.
Click to expand...

It is free speech. The bus driver was not deprived of his free speech. I'm unaware of any judges who have said it's not free speech. But asking a judge is irrelevant here as there's no law enforcement involved. Employers have the ability to include policies as a condition of hiring people, and those policies can simply apply consequences concerning their employment if they break them. These kind of policies are common at almost all work places. But these are not laws, and do not violate any laws. The first amendment guarantees free speech unhindered by the government, ie laws, not company policies. There's no law saying that employers cannot fire an employee for their speech (unless it were to violate discrimination laws, but those are very specific about topics - race, gender, etc).

However, there are laws against libel and slander to prevent people from falsely accusing people/institutions. They would not likely hold up in this case because the school would need to prove that the bus driver knowingly and viciously intended to spread false information to defame the school (assuming the kid's account was false).

Rizen said:
Anyways, the dude is a bus driver, writing on his personal Facebook. I highly doubt he anticipated anyone would give it any mind.
Click to expand...

Although it's personal, his Facebook account was public and not private. It's also permanent and gets cached even if he deletes the post. I feel that if you post to a public Facebook account or to Twitter, it should be viewed as no different than writing it in a newspaper for all to see.
 
kbrickley said:
It is [free speech] ... however, our constitution only protects from "government" interference in the practice of free speech (that is all that our constitution guarantees) ... private entities have no prohibitions in their control of speech as long as it doesn't violate a law ;)
Click to expand...

Fixed. We only have to pass a law to make it illegal for employers to prevent or punish the free speech of their employees. It doesn't need to be written into the constitution; it just cannot violate any constitutional guarantees given to employers.
 
Stiler said:
I wish a judge would understand "internet talk/facebook" should be covered under FREE SPEECH.

you shouldn't be able to be fired for posting your opinions/thoughts on it.

Reminds me of that deputy who was fired because he "liked" the guy running against the chief of police or something.
Click to expand...
Say you start a company fertilizing lawns and one of your employees started posting that you water all the fertilizer down when you don't. Being forced to keep him employed while he keeps posting that would just be wonderful, wouldn't it?
 
jpm100 said:
Say you start a company fertilizing lawns and one of your employees started posting that you water all the fertilizer down when you don't. Being forced to keep him employed while he keeps posting that would just be wonderful, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Cept that would fall under Libel.

It's one thing to talk/post your opinion. If you work for a company and you don't "like" the working conditions, you should be free to post your OPINION on it.

However it's another thing to LIE and state something as though it's a "fact" when it in truth isn't.

What the bus driver posted wasn't libel. It was his opinion on the general state of the entire educational system and the food which is provided to our kids.

Many people have went through school and missed out on lunches for such reasons.

He posted what the kid told him, and his opinion on the matter as whole, that should be something people should be able to do without fear of losing their jobs.
 
Wow... this thread... people really don't understand the First Amendment is not granting you the right to badmouth people, your employers, and other random things at will without punishment in private matters (barring slander/etc.)? It is meant to protect you from government oppression, not let you spout your mouth off, justified or not, in private matters.
 
Stiler said:
h school and missed out on lunches for such reasons.

He posted what the kid told him, and his opinion on the matter as whole, that should be something people should be able to do without fear of losing their jobs.
Click to expand...

You might want to read the First Amendment again, this time a little more carefully. It is not meant to let you say what you want with no concern or worry of your employer getting ticked off at you :rolleyes: .
 
Draktharbar said:
Fixed. We only have to pass a law to make it illegal for employers to prevent or punish the free speech of their employees. It doesn't need to be written into the constitution; it just cannot violate any constitutional guarantees given to employers.
Click to expand...

Except passing a law requiring them to allow any speech would violate the first amendment as it applies to them ... if the driver were in a union or a state where they had strict labor laws then he might have recourse ... in a right to work state where he violated a company policy he is in the wrong (all good intentions aside) ;)
 
GoldenTiger said:
Wow... this thread... people really don't understand the First Amendment is not granting you the right to badmouth people, your employers, and other random things at will without punishment in private matters (barring slander/etc.)? It is meant to protect you from government oppression, not let you spout your mouth off, justified or not, in private matters.
Click to expand...


I don't think that's what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution. They called them rights, not privileges, not actions protected from government intervention, and not matters which legislating against is forbidden. We should have the ability to express our opinion without fear of retaliation (which is exactly what this was) AS LONG AS we're only expressing them and not acting on them.
 
ryan_975 said:
I don't think that's what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution. They called them rights, not privileges, not actions protected from government intervention, and not matters which legislating against is forbidden. We should have the ability to express our opinion without fear of retaliation (which is exactly what this was) AS LONG AS we're only expressing them and not acting on them.
Click to expand...

Our founding fathers were smart guys ... if that is what they had intended then they would have worded it that way ... as it is they were very careful in their wording, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" ... most were all businessmen themselves and many of them were opposed to big government controls ... I think they would be fine with what companies do and would not want the government interfering in private commerce ;)
 
Lazybones said:
The cnet story paints the opposit picture from the original one posted here. So who where does that leave the story?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. The point here isn't whether the kid did or didn't ask for a meal. The problem is the method this guy used to express his "concern." Contacting the school officials directly instead of publicly posting a rant on facebook would have yielded very different results for the employee.
 
So according to the article, this guy may or may not have had his facts straight, depending on who you believe. But he was speaking from his heart based on the information he had at the time with concern for the well-being of the children at the school, not smack-talking his boss or airing a company's private dirty laundry.

Our public schools shouldn't be run like scumbag corporations where you have to fall in line, keep your mouth shut, or be fired. They need to give wider latitude on expression. Especially when it's a discussion of PUBLIC interest like the welfare of children in our PUBLIC schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top