NationStates Jolt Archive

BBC NEWS
Facebook remark teenager is fired

A 16-year-old girl from Essex was fired after she described her office job as "boring" on her Facebook page.

Kimberley Swann, 16, of Clacton, had been working at Ivell Marketing & Logistics, in Clacton, for three weeks before being fired on Monday.

"I think they've stooped quite low," she said.

The firm's Steve Ivell said of the decision: "Her display of disrespect and dissatisfaction undermined the relationship and made it untenable."

Miss Swann said: "You shouldn't really be hassled outside work. It was only a throw-away comment.

“ She says Clacton is boring but we're not going to throw her out of the house for it ”
Janette Swann

"I came home from work one day, sat on the computer and said something about my job being boring."

Details were passed to her employers after she allowed colleagues access to her page, Miss Swann said, adding that she was not given the chance to explain.

Her mother, Janette, 41, said: "I think she's been treated totally unfairly. She didn't mention the company's name.

"This is a 16-year-old child we're talking about. She says Clacton is boring but we're not going to throw her out of the house for it."

Mr Ivell said: "Ivell Marketing is a small, close-knit family company and it is very important that all the staff work together in harmony.

"Had Miss Swann put up a poster on the staff notice board making the same comments and invited other staff to read it there would have been the same result."

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said employers needed "thicker skins" in relation to social networking websites.

She said: "Most employers wouldn't dream of following their staff down the pub to see if they were sounding off about work to their friends."


Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7914415.stm)

What?! What?! Fire her over being incompetent if she was but a small remark on facebook? I'm sure all of us have moaned about work, it's pretty much natural to but to be fired over it? That is way over the top.

Anyway do you believe the employer was right to make the decision or not? Also have you ever lost a job?

Was fired from a job once, but that was office politics, and had nothing to do with my actual performance on the job...

...as for the article, considering she didn't mention where she worked, I think it was entirely out of line to fire her.

Like Mr. Ivel has never bitched about work before.

Anyway do you believe the employer was right to make the decision or not?

yes I think the employer was completely correct and its important that this girl learns the harsh realities of life fast before she finds things like heroin "boring"

but yeah 16 year olds are more or less cannon fodder anyway so the only thing they really did wrong was not lying as to why she was fired

Also have you ever lost a job?

I have never been fired if thats what you mea...actually I have but it was more just not turning up ever again

Was fired from a job once, but that was office politics, and had nothing to do with my actual performance on the job...

just like that Oscar!

It might depend if the remark specified a time-frame i.e. "work was boring today" or "work is always boring", the latter being somewhat worse. Still, I think it's intrusive and harsh. But, then again, she's an inexperienced 16-year-old, and therefore expendable and easily replaceable in the business world.

That is way over the top. Have they ever heard of free speech?

Hope she takes it to court for compensation.

It's a good lesson. True, people really oughtn't be fired for saying their job is boring. But now this girl has the experience that may keep her from saying/doing more idiotic things that should get her fired when in the future she needs a job to live on.

Have they ever heard of free speech?

UK =/= USia

really I'm just tired of hearing the argument

It's a good lesson. True, people really oughtn't be fired for saying their job is boring. But now this girl has the experience that may keep her from saying/doing more idiotic things that should get her fired when in the future she needs a job to live on.

she may also stop spamming peoples facebook :)

"This is a 16-year-old child we're talking about. She says Clacton is boring but we're not going to throw her out of the house for it."But then, parents have a legal obligation to care and provide for their children. A company doesn't have those obligations. Nor did the company give birth to its employees, typically.

She said: "Most employers wouldn't dream of following their staff down the pub to see if they were sounding off about work to their friends."Facebook isn't exactly the pub though. It's there for the whole world to see. So it would be closer to going on a boring reality-TV show and sounding off to a (inter)national audience.

Its ridiculous.

I'm reasonably sure that this would be classed as unfair dismissal under UK employment laws; not only did they apparently fail to follow any standard disciplinary procedure but simply fired her on the spot, but they also used a wholly bogus reason. Regardless of whether you think they were morally right to terminate her employment, she should still be able to take the gits to the cleaners.

I'm reasonably sure that this would be classed as unfair dismissal under UK employment laws
I'm reasonably sure that it wouldn't be an unfair dismissal since she had only been working at the firm for 3 weeks, and the full range of employment protections only begins after the completion of 4 weeks. It's one of the reasons that so many (most?) companies make job offers involving the successful completion of a four week 'trial period' before offering a contract.

I'm reasonably sure that it wouldn't be an unfair dismissal since she had only been working at the firm for 3 weeks, and the full range of employment protections only begins after the completion of 4 weeks. It's one of the reasons that so many (most?) companies make job offers involving the successful completion of a four week 'trial period' before offering a contract.

Ah, I didn't notice that part. In that case, conspiracy theories abound!

Publically mouthing off about a company you've only worked at for a couple of weeks is never a good idea.

I've been considering getting rid of my Facebook for a while. Social networks like that are so invasive. Although mine has strict security settings, one never knows. This case truly shows that.

Why was Mr Ivell looking at his 16 year-old employees Facebook pages - something slightly creepy there if you ask me?

Why was Mr Ivell looking at his 16 year-old employees Facebook pages - something slightly creepy there if you ask me?

A lot of employers check the Facebook/MySpace pages of their employees. For some reason. That's why I keep mine on a privacy setting, particularly while I'm looking for work. Not that I'm daft enough to put anything dodgy on there, it's more to keep in touch with people I used to work with/go to school with.

I've been considering getting rid of my Facebook for a while. Social networks like that are so invasive. Although mine has strict security settings, one never knows. This case truly shows that.

I think they are only invasive as one wants them to be. Leaving off information means that people won't know about it if you don't want them to.

I have placed very strict restrictions on my photo's simply because it shows me in positions and scenes that I don't want employers to see, as I have heard that some do look on these sort of sites to get a better understanding of a potential employee. Me doing beer bongs or dressed up in women's clothing (that was only a once-off for a joke) is not something I really want those sort of people seeing.

Was fired from a job once, but that was office politics, and had nothing to do with my actual performance on the job...

...as for the article, considering she didn't mention where she worked, I think it was entirely out of line to fire her.

Like Mr. Ivel has never bitched about work before.

Mr. Ivel probably also had the good sense not to have his complaints published.

Why was Mr Ivell looking at his 16 year-old employees Facebook pages - something slightly creepy there if you ask me?

He wasn't; her co-workers were, and they passed along word to the boss.

He wasn't; her co-workers were, and they passed along word to the boss.

Okay that is better. Though I would question his judgement presumably he subscribes to the 'no publicity is bad publicity' school of thought.

I think they are only invasive as one wants them to be. Leaving off information means that people won't know about it if you don't want them to.

I have placed very strict restrictions on my photo's simply because it shows me in positions and scenes that I don't want employers to see, as I have heard that some do look on these sort of sites to get a better understanding of a potential employee. Me doing beer bongs or dressed up in women's clothing (that was only a once-off for a joke) is not something I really want those sort of people seeing.

No, I understand that. I only accept family or close friends. But nevertheless, these social networking systems, although good at keeping one close to relatives and friends who live far away, can also be highly invasive. I can't be found on searches, my pics are only viewd by family, I choose who could and who couldn't, but sometimes it feels like a constant spying of me. I may very well get rid of the thing soon.

No, I understand that. I only accept family or close friends. But nevertheless, these social networking systems, although good at keeping one close to relatives and friends who live far away, can also be highly invasive. I can't be found on searches, my pics are only viewd by family, I choose who could and who couldn't, but sometimes it feels like a constant spying of me. I may very well get rid of the thing soon.

And that's exactly how you SHOULD view it. Regardless of what privacy policies the website claims to have, you should operate with the assumption that anything you put up on one of those sites can and will be seen by anyone.

And that's exactly how you SHOULD view it. Regardless of what privacy policies the website claims to have, you should operate with the assumption that anything you put up on one of those sites can and will be seen by anyone.

Yes, and I like my anonimity a lot. I got rid of my MySpace, Facebook is about to be killed too.

No, I understand that. I only accept family or close friends. But nevertheless, these social networking systems, although good at keeping one close to relatives and friends who live far away, can also be highly invasive. I can't be found on searches, my pics are only viewd by family, I choose who could and who couldn't, but sometimes it feels like a constant spying of me. I may very well get rid of the thing soon.

Yeah fair enough, myself being a bit of an attention whore, I don't mind placing some stuff up but then usually what people already know anyway. I certainly wouldn't place something up there or associate myself with something I don't want them to know at all. But yeah definite.

Clearly they realized they were dealing with a twit and reacted accordingly.

Heck, people get fired here in the US for printing out a Dilbert cartoon and posting it outside their cubicle.

he he I just sent her a friend request, do you think I should worm my way into the news and flash a big NS banner at a press conference?

I've been considering getting rid of my Facebook for a while. Social networks like that are so invasive. Although mine has strict security settings, one never knows. This case truly shows that.

pfft nevermind facebook NS scares the shit out of me!

btw creepy people who stalk me on the internet, yes I am bored and you should get in touch because I got you a call centre job that can work around your college course if you want it

Why was Mr Ivell looking at his 16 year-old employees Facebook pages - something slightly creepy there if you ask me?

well she doesn't look so bad I mean she could get away with maybe 18 and she is a secretary

Clearly they realized they were dealing with a twit and reacted accordingly.

I did see the interview with her boss on BBC and it does seem that she is a bitch who was actually planning on leaving anyway (who the fuck tells their boss they are going to an interview?)

Here's some advice for keeping a check on your privacy on facebook: http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/02/facebook-privacy/

Had she mentioned her company's name and said that working there was boring - now, that would've been another thing.


This? Crazy!

Very reasonable. You bitch about your nice cushy office job they will find someone who is motivated to do the job.

The only reason they'd fire her over something as small as this is because they were looking for a reason to do it in the first place.

There are two sides of a story. She probably was a shitty worker and this gave them a reason to finally get rid of her.

Had she mentioned her company's name and said that working there was boring - now, that would've been another thing.


This? Crazy!

One's Facebook profile has an employment section. If she had that filled out, then it would be pretty damn obvious what company she was talking about.

"a small, close-knit family company.":rolleyes:

Yeah, right. So that's how you treat your family? Of course, isn't their often something phony/creepy about the close-knit community types?

I might even go so far as to say that firing people over this kind of thing should be illegal, but maybe not.

HS I'm her friend (pervy 45 year old Swede has left an interesting message on there) anyone want anything before she closes it down?

edit: brb police standoff

That is way over the top. Have they ever heard of free speech?

This isn't a free speech issue.

Free speech simply means the government can't punish you for the content of what you say.

It does not mean that private entities (including employers) cannot choose not to associate with you for whatever reason they choose.

I think they were right in firing her. It's one thing to discuss your frustrations about your job with your friends, it's another to publish it in a public forum for the whole world to see.

I think they were right in firing her. It's one thing to discuss your frustrations about your job with your friends, it's another to publish it in a public forum for the whole world to see.

shes pretty much just taking the piss with her facebook atm along with her being English in Spain sounds like a typical chav

Depending on the laws of her jurisdiction, she may not have much ground to stand on.

I don't know anything about British labour law, but some states (notably my own, Maryland) are at will states. In those, employers don't need a reason to terminate employees, nor do employees need to provide notice of their departure.

It seems rather draconian to fire someone over Facebook remarks, but she made the critical blunder of allowing her work colleagues to see her Facebook profile. Hopefully, she'll learn to monitor what and how she says things online in the future.

But then, parents have a legal obligation to care and provide for their children. A company doesn't have those obligations. Nor did the company give birth to its employees, typically.
I was produced in a vat in the basement of McDonald's corporate headquarters. It was then pointed out that babies, while potentially cute, actually aren't qualified to operate fry machines until they are at least 10 years old, and so I was promptly dismissed.
And by dismissed, I mean that they put cat ears on me and I was hidden in a cardboard box full of kittens. Boy were my adoptive "parents" surprised!
I've been considering getting rid of my Facebook for a while. Social networks like that are so invasive. Although mine has strict security settings, one never knows. This case truly shows that.
Good. Join those of us living off the grid. JOIN US!

Depending on the laws of her jurisdiction, she may not have much ground to stand on.
Not that it would matter, since any laws that restrict the sacred natural right of employers to hire and fire whomever they want for whatever reason they want are inherently illegitimate and she is obligated to refrain from aiding in the enforcement of them.

This isn't a free speech issue.

Free speech simply means the government can't punish you for the content of what you say.

It does not mean that private entities (including employers) cannot choose not to associate with you for whatever reason they choose.

this should be a free speech issue. when we cut off protection of speech in the places where we spend the majority of our time on a day to day basis, we don't actually have free speech at all, we have masters who decide for us what opinions we will be allowed to express on pain of losing our livelihoods. this is not compatible with freedom.

Not that it would matter, since any laws that restrict the sacred natural right of employers to hire and fire whomever they want for whatever reason they want are inherently illegitimate and she is obligated to refrain from aiding in the enforcement of them.

Not in this country. The are strict laws governing this kind of thing. You can't just fire people without a good reason.

And as for being obligated to refrain, frankly, you're talking nonsense. If a company shows no loyalty to me then I will show no loyalty to them and if that means using my legal right to challenge my my sacking then I would be obliged to do so.

Not in this country. The are strict laws governing this kind of thing. You can't just fire people without a good reason.

Please pay attention to my post.

this should be a free speech issue. when we cut off protection of speech in the places where we spend the majority of our time on a day to day basis, we don't actually have free speech at all, we have masters who decide for us what opinions we will be allowed to express on pain of losing our livelihoods. this is not compatible with freedom.
Sure, it is.

Why should I be compelled to allow on my property and to associate all day with someone that, for whatever reason, I'd rather not?

Please pay attention to my post.

I paid perfect attention and the thing is this: Your opinion on the validity of the law has no bearing on whether you can or can not chose to obey it. You can pretend all you want but the world does not work that way. I mean I'd happily kill everyone who offended me if it were legal to do so but as it's not my slight adversion to prison rapings forces me to abide these people and this law.

Why should I be compelled to allow on my property and to associate all day with someone that, for whatever reason, I'd rather not?

because we ought be seeking to maximize freedom, and letting businesses have that much power over people is incompatible with it in precisely the same way that letting the state have arbitrary power over people is. a free society requires that power be restrained and leveled, and that the freedom of action be maximized for everybody.

its not like we don't have actual historical examples of the business community using their power to oppress entire swaths of people.

because we ought be seeking to maximize freedom,
Which means freedom for everybody. An employer requiring you to refrain from making certain remarks as a condition of employment is not a violation of your freedom, because you are free to choose not to work for him if you don't like it; whereas laws preventing him from making such restrictions are a violation of his freedom, because his property and person are his by right and he is entitled to use his own criteria to decide who is and is not permitted to be associated with them.

I paid perfect attention and the thing is this: Your opinion on the validity of the law has no bearing on whether you can or can not chose to obey it.
Sure it does. There is, quite simply, no legitimate obligation to obey an illegitimate law. Laws of governments are trumped by objective moral principle.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/7914415.stm)

What?! What?! Fire her over being incompetent if she was but a small remark on facebook? I'm sure all of us have moaned about work, it's pretty much natural to but to be fired over it? That is way over the top.

Anyway do you believe the employer was right to make the decision or not? Also have you ever lost a job?

what the toss is this? 1. snooping on employees private lives is sucky; 2. if she said this down the pub to friends, there wouldn't be a problem; 3. i can see where the company was coming from, but a warning would have been enough; 4. the company should do a better job of keeping its employees from being bored and motivating them.

i wonder what rights she has under an industrial tribunal

Good. Join those of us living off the grid. JOIN US!

I might be doing that very soon.

Which means freedom for everybody. An employer requiring you to refrain from making certain remarks as a condition of employment is not a violation of your freedom, because you are free to choose not to work for him if you don't like it; whereas laws preventing him from making such restrictions are a violation of his freedom, because his property and person are his by right and he is entitled to use his own criteria to decide who is and is not permitted to be associated with them.

No it is, it's a violation of freedom of speech and if everyone was to decide that they did not want this right violated then, by your arguement, he would not have any employees and a bit of a trouble making money.

Besides, it's not as if the majority of people choose to work. Property is a finite quantity and the majority have no access to it and are compelled to work for others. These laws are in place so that people have the right to work whilst not be subjected to unfair demands of thier employers that may violate thier freedoms.

Anyway, this is Britain. Complaining isn't just a right, it's a national past time!

Sure it does. There is, quite simply, no legitimate obligation to obey an illegitimate law. Laws of governments are trumped by objective moral principle.

The guns of the government trump your fake objective moral principle. Come join us in the real world.

Which means freedom for everybody. An employer requiring you to refrain from making certain remarks as a condition of employment is not a violation of your freedom, because you are free to choose not to work for him if you don't like it; whereas laws preventing him from making such restrictions are a violation of his freedom, because his property and person are his by right and he is entitled to use his own criteria to decide who is and is not permitted to be associated with them.

this flatly ignores differences in power and the relation of power to actual freedom of action. and ignoring that can only result in your 'freedom' requiring something effectively indistinguishable from feudalism or gangsterism.

the freedom for everybody we ought be concerned with is actually enactable freedom for each individual to the greatest extent possible. if the powerful that control the economic structure of society use their 'freedom' to decide that i cannot earn a living working with them because i am black, that restricts my freedom much the same as if they had used the state to dictate such. the range of actions open to me is restricted and constrained for no reason other than the whims of the powerful. and that is not a legitimate constraint.

No it is, it's a violation of freedom of speech and if everyone was to decide that they did not want this right violated then, by your arguement, he would not have any employees and a bit of a trouble making money.
That's his problem.

Besides, it's not as if the majority of people choose to work.
Um, yeah, they do. Everyone who works, and doesn't have a gun pointed at his head, does so.

Property is a finite quantity and the majority have no access to it and are compelled to work for others.
At the lowest level, they're free to choose whether they wish to live or die. The choice to live is theirs; they are not entitled to violate the rights of others simply to obtain the means by which to sustain that choice. There's nothing special about that particular choice.

These laws are in place so that people have the right to work whilst not be subjected to unfair
Nothing unfair. My property, my rules.

this flatly ignores differences in power
There is no such difference. Governments have tanks and bombers and rifles; businesses don't. and the relation of power to actual freedom of action. and ignoring that can only result in your 'freedom' requiring something effectively indistinguishable from feudalism or gangsterism.


if the powerful that control the economic structure of society use their 'freedom' to decide that i cannot earn a living working with them because i am black, that restricts my freedom
No, it doesn't, because there is no such thing as the right to enter someone else's property or the right to compel someone to associate with you against his wishes..

The guns of the government trump your fake objective moral principle. Come join us in the real world.

Might does not make right. Just because the government can get away with something, does not legitimize it.

At the lowest level, they're free to choose whether they wish to live or die.
...
My property, my rules.

There is no such difference [in power].

hah!

No, it doesn't, because there is no such thing as the right to enter someone else's property or the right to compel someone to associate with you against his wishes..

i'm pretty sure that argument by bolded assertion doesn't actually work

Might does not make right. Just because the government can get away with something, does not legitimize it.

You're not paying attention. Legitimate.. Illegitmate.. It's all subjective.. Your objective moral principles only gives rights to those with property and no one else..

Nothing unfair. My property, my rules.

And if you wish to operate your business in our society, you will obey our rules, right? Society has every right to negotiate the rules by which your "free associations" can occur, and if you refuse to acknowledge and obey those rules, then you are free to do your business in a society that operates the way you wish. But please spare us your objective morality bullshit; your flawed premise hasn't gotten any less flawed.

Well she has learned a valuable lesson. Many managers are bad managers. A good manager could have turned this around and set her straight especially when considering she is a teenager.

Can anybody name a teenager or an adult for that matter who has not said their job was boring?

The firm's Steve Ivell said of the decision: "Her display of disrespect and dissatisfaction undermined the relationship and made it untenable."

Oh please. She was new and she is young. Either close your shop as you are obviously too weak to deal with issues or be a manager and guide her to a professional attitude. She was not some seasoned professional talking dirt or spreading company secrets.

Miss Swann said: "You shouldn't really be hassled outside work. It was only a throw-away comment.
Indeed. You are "owned" during your work time. Outside. Nope. What is alarming there is a growing trend where companies think they own you all the time.

Details were passed to her employers after she allowed colleagues access to her page, Miss Swann said, adding that she was not given the chance to explain.

Another lesson. Co-workers are not always your friends.

Her mother, Janette, 41, said: "I think she's been treated totally unfairly. She didn't mention the company's name.
True. But if she listed it in the profile? I am going to assume she didn't. Many people don't fill that out. Especially teenagers.


Mr Ivell said: "Ivell Marketing is a small, close-knit family company and it is very important that all the staff work together in harmony.

Bull. What family is always in harmony? There have to be arguments from time to time if you are going to run a good business.

"Had Miss Swann put up a poster on the staff notice board making the same comments and invited other staff to read it there would have been the same result."
Most of the staff (depending on their age) probably rolled their eyes and thought teenager or they have self esteem issues. Which I am willing to offer is Mr. Ivell's problem.

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said employers needed "thicker skins" in relation to social networking websites.

Indeed. They should come here for a few weeks. :D

And if you wish to operate your business in our society,
There is no such thing as "society."

I am not operating my business on "society's" land but on my land, so my rules are the only ones that matter.

I am not dealing with "society" but with individuals, so my rules are a private matter between me and those individuals. If they don't like the rules they don't have to come; if I don't like their demands I simply won't serve them.

Um, yeah, they do. Everyone who works, and doesn't have a gun pointed at his head, does so.

bullcrap. you say that i have the choice not to work. in a state of nature, if i chose not to, i would likely die. work or die. personally, i don't call that a choice. at its most basic level, i see that as a direct parallel to either having a gun to your head and being told to work, or slavery.

in reality, of course, there are such things as the welfare state and charity work that would likely keep those who choose not to work alive. whether that is a good thing or not is another issue. there are very, very few people who can choose not to work and still enjoy an acceptable standard of living.

bullcrap. you say that i have the choice not to work. in a state of nature, if i chose not to, i would likely die.
I've addressed that already.

work or die. personally, i don't call that a choice.
Then you're wrong.

There is no such thing as "society."

I am not operating my business on "society's" land but on my land, so my rules are the only ones that matter.

I am not dealing with "society" but with individuals, so my rules are a private matter between me and those individuals. If they don't like the rules they don't have to come; if I don't like their demands I simply won't serve them.

There is no such thing as "business" or "person" either, if you choose to utterly ignore all human constructs if they conflict with your perfectly terrible argument.

There is no such thing as "your" land, either. Your land is only your land by the good graces of the society that has determined to defend property rights. Otherwise, as I've said before, your land is only your land as far as you're able to prevent me from killing you and taking it.

Like it or not, acknowledge it or not, but you and your business depend on society's hand, and as such, you're obligated to follow the rules that society has designed for everyone's mutual benefit. Otherwise, you're welcome to operate your land and your business in a place where society does not exist, as long as you're willing to deal with all the complications that would arise from trying to own land or operate a business in such a place.

There is no such thing as "society."

I am not operating my business on "society's" land but on my land, so my rules are the only ones that matter.

oh man, you're awesome.

do you not use the state when a conflict occurs (eg legal recourse to settle disputes)? does the state not protect your right to property? do you not enjoy the protection of the state in terms of safety, policing, protection from invasion? do you not utilise public infrastructure like roads, the electricity grid, etc. are you, or the state, the legitimate force in your country?

if the answer to any of those is 'yes', then you have a social contact, whereby you do what you want within its laws, and it does it wants within your rights. just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not there or that you can ignore it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
http://www.worldtrans.org/sov/soccont.html

Then you're wrong.

great arguement

There is no such thing as "society."

I am not operating my business on "society's" land but on my land, so my rules are the only ones that matter.


Ahh no. Society makes laws to control your use of your land. That is why you can't make explosives. Dump chemical waste willy nilly. Run a whore house. Have a kiddy porn studio....

I am not dealing with "society" but with individuals, so my rules are a private matter between me and those individuals. If they don't like the rules they don't have to come; if I don't like their demands I simply won't serve them.

Depends on the matter. You are not absolute.....

There is no such thing as "your" land, either. Your land is only your land by the good graces of the society that has determined to defend property rights. Otherwise, as I've said before, your land is only your land as far as you're able to prevent me from killing you and taking it.

but but but...a is a?

Well she has learned a valuable lesson. Most managers are bad managers. A good manager could have turned this around and set her straight especially when considering she is a teenager.

I probably would have turned it into a teaching tool if I'd been in the manager's position. It could be as simple as a key phrase like "you know, that sort of thing can get you in loads of trouble. Be careful about what you put online."

Another lesson. Co-workers are not always your friends.

They rarely are.

At one of my previous jobs, there was a guy who was the office gossip. I quickly figured that out and decided to keep him at arm's length. I also didn't reveal too much about myself to anyone working there. Only one guy from that office is now on my Facebook, and it isn't the office gossip.

I probably would have turned it into a teaching tool if I'd been in the manager's position. It could be as simple as a key phrase like "you know, that sort of thing can get you in loads of trouble. Be careful about what you put online."


exactly what should have been done.

this company is getting quite a bit of bad press over this, lol

but but but...a is a?

a is b now

I probably would have turned it into a teaching tool if I'd been in the manager's position. It could be as simple as a key phrase like "you know, that sort of thing can get you in loads of trouble. Be careful about what you put online."



They rarely are.

At one of my previous jobs, there was a guy who was the office gossip. I quickly figured that out and decided to keep him at arm's length. I also didn't reveal too much about myself to anyone working there. Only one guy from that office is now on my Facebook, and it isn't the office gossip.

Whoops. My comment should have said Many managers are bad managers.....

Yea they are paying for it. They pulled down the contact us screen on their website. :D

That's why you keep your Facebook private. I bitch about how shitty work is all the time and I never hear a word...of course, I'd also lay in to any employer that fired me on that basis with some of the most horrendously vile and blasphemous profanity ever used and then possibly defecate in the break room.

what the toss is this? 1. snooping on employees private lives is sucky; no snooping. she allowed co-workers to view the site and it was reported to the manager.
2. if she said this down the pub to friends, there wouldn't be a problem; yeah there would be if she said this to co workers and the pub in general and it was reported back to the manager. Facebook isn't "for one person only"
3. i can see where the company was coming from, but a warning would have been enough; this I would agree with, but we don't know her work history. I believe she was still under 'probabtion' with the company?
4. the company should do a better job of keeping its employees from being bored and motivating them. not the company's job... especially most marketing posistions ask for 'self motivating persons'. if she said she was a self motivating person then she complains about being bored...

No it is, it's a violation of freedom of speech and if everyone was to decide that they did not want this right violated then, by your arguement, he would not have any employees and a bit of a trouble making money. ah, so the speaker has 'freedom of speech' and eveyone listening does not have the freedom to react to what the speaker says. gotcha!

That's why you keep your Facebook private. I bitch about how shitty work is all the time and I never hear a word...of course, I'd also lay in to any employer that fired me on that basis with some of the most horrendously vile and blasphemous profanity ever used and then possibly defecate in the break room.

actually, better still is to write it in a diary and keep it locked in your nightstand drawer.

yeah there would be if she said this to co workers and the pub in general and it was reported back to the manager.

Of course, saying it is the smarter thing to do because there's plausible deniability. On the other hand, anyone that would report something like that seriously needs to get a good old fashioned beating because that's just plain disgusting.

I am utterly horrified by this decision.

Why was she only sacked?

Her criticism could have potentially damaged the reputation of the company. The company should declare a sum (preferably at least seven figures) which she must work off as recompense. Until she has paid Ivell Marketing & Logistics back for her disgraceful and unprofessional behaviour, she should have to work twenty-four hours a day as the personal slave of the directors and their families. The CEO and his descendants should also have jus primae noctis over the women of the sacked employee's family for ten generations.

Of course, saying it is the smarter thing to do because there's plausible deniability. On the other hand, anyone that would report something like that seriously needs to get a good old fashioned beating because that's just plain disgusting.
at least saying it she can always say "what I said was..." and chances are it would be chalked up to a misunderstanding.

actually, better still is to write it in a diary and keep it locked in your nightstand drawer.

Indeed more companies are taking to spying on their employees.....

I've been kicked out of my apartment because of facebook.

It's funny how personal things on facebook are taken by big brother.

Indeed more companies are taking to spying on their employees.....

one reason why I NEVER invite my co workers over. infact, they don't know where I live. :tongue:

actually, better still is to write it in a diary and keep it locked in your nightstand drawer.
Or even better, don't write it down at all. Never-to-be-Broken Life Rule #3: Never, NEVER write down/type anything you wouldn't want to read on the front page of a newspaper the next day.

Muravyets = no My Space, no Facebook, no personal blog, and precious few photos (the most recently taken is on my passport, and it's 5 years old). Everything I put in writing is for at least semi-public consumption. Everything I put on the net is public record for public consumption, even if I keep it privacy protected. I don't like being bothered by people I don't want to talk to/correspond with, and I don't like having to explain things that are nobody's business but my own.

one reason why I NEVER invite my co workers over. infact, they don't know where I live. :tongue:
I've been criticized for not being friendlier with my co-workers on some jobs. I point out that co-worker =/= friend, and their promotional bullshit notwithstanding, the company is not my family. I have jobs where my co-workers actually did become my friends, but I have have also quit jobs where they didn't but they didn't like it that I wouldn't pretend that they were a part of my life.

Anyway do you believe the employer was right to make the decision or not? Also have you ever lost a job?

It's their right, but kind of a crappy thing to do. They should have given her a warning and asked her to remove the remark from her site at the very least before making the decision to fire her. Seems to me they were already dissatisfied with her for something and this gave them the excuse.

Edit: 6000th post!

I have a Facebook account, but I'm careful what I say there. I say worse things about my job to my bosses face than I would on FB.

That's why you keep your Facebook private.

I keep my MySpace and Facebook profiles private for that very reason.

UKia =/= USia

Fixed.

Fired once.. when I was 15. Just slacking, really..
..no room for teen slackers at Chester Fried Chicken.

I'm gonna go with stupid and unfair

*rushes to his facebook to take down anything that might get him fired.*

I can see how the employer knowing that the employee takes such a negative attitude towards her job would undermine the employer-employee relationship to such a degree that termination is inevitable, anyways.

Why was Mr Ivell looking at his 16 year-old employees Facebook pages - something slightly creepy there if you ask me?
She let other colleagues see it. They brought it to his attention. Right in the OP.

Heck, people get fired here in the US for printing out a Dilbert cartoon and posting it outside their cubicle.
Source? My cubicle was wallpapered with Dilbert and I was never fired.

this should be a free speech issue. when we cut off protection of speech in the places where we spend the majority of our time on a day to day basis, we don't actually have free speech at all, we have masters who decide for us what opinions we will be allowed to express on pain of losing our livelihoods. this is not compatible with freedom.
If you are a guest and tell your host that their significant other is a necrophilic child-touching monkey whore, should you expect that you will be legally protected from being told to get the fuck out of their house?

Source? My cubicle was wallpapered with Dilbert and I was never fired.

The infamous drunken lemurs.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/WaterCooler/story?id=4323900
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331543,00.html

The infamous drunken lemurs.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/WaterCooler/story?id=4323900
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331543,00.html

and he was wrong. Lemurs with hangovers are nasty! :mad:

If you are a guest and tell your host that their significant other is a necrophilic child-touching monkey whore, should you expect that you will be legally protected from being told to get the fuck out of their house?

not at all comparable situations. i mean, honestly, neither the content nor the context are even vaguely related.

Like Mr. Ivel has never bitched about work before.

I doubt he has, actually. With his insistence on the office being like family, he reminds me of this guy:

http://www.yourstrulybrand.com/yourstruly/files/lookbook/the-office-michael-scott.jpg

The only reason they'd fire her over something as small as this is because they were looking for a reason to do it in the first place.

There are two sides of a story. She probably was a shitty worker and this gave them a reason to finally get rid of her.

I'd hope this were the reason actually. But in that case, why not just fire her for being a shitty worker? She was still on her 4-week trial period, wasn't she?

heh I just got kicked off her facebook for posting goatse to the British public

not at all comparable situations. i mean, honestly, neither the content nor the context are even vaguely related.
Well, you are talking about having freedom of speech extended outside of your right to be unmolested by the government for saying something....

Well, you are talking about having freedom of speech extended outside of your right to be unmolested by the government for saying something....

yeah, and? not every speech act in every context is or should be protected speech. this is obvious.

what is not obvious is that, for example, i should not be protected from getting fired from my job for having an obama bumper sticker on my car or telling my friends that i was bored at work today.

ridiculous. but it happpens. same way it been happeing to those of us with records.. now your blog is your record plus 1.



She's 16. She will be alright alright. I didn't find jobs hard to get til I was in my 30's. Men just loooove hiring hot YOUNG chics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vouDK-LELEU *dance*

yeah, and? not every speech act in every context is or should be protected speech. this is obvious.

what is not obvious is that, for example, i should not be protected from getting fired from my job for having an obama bumper sticker on my car or telling my friends that i was bored at work today.

And why should the "right" to badmouth your job be protected speech?

And why should the "right" to badmouth your job be protected speech?

Question: If you worked for the government, would whatever you said about your job be protected free speech?

Question: If you worked for the government, would whatever you said about your job be protected free speech?

I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at.

I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at.

Not debating anything, just a curiosity having read through some of this thread and you were active.

And why should the "right" to badmouth your job be protected speech?

privacy concerns, mainly. your employer does not have the right to check up on you 24/7, and no one should have to fear retribution for things that are not in anyway related to actual job performance.

your employer does not have the right to check up on you 24/7, and no one should have to fear retribution for things that are not in anyway related to actual job performance.

You can be fired at any time by your employer for no reason at all (assuming you don't have a contract). And why doesn't your employer have a right to check your Facebook? What people don't understand is all of this is public domain information that anyone at all can access.

Question: If you worked for the government, would whatever you said about your job be protected free speech?

there is actually some rather complicated formula for figuring out what speech is protected for government employees. they have greater protections than the rest of us, and as such are somewhat closer to what ought be the case, but there is still something more to be desired.

You can be fired at any time by your employer for no reason at all

is/ought

is/ought

I guess it makes sense that Free Soviets supports unionization... :P

I don't see why her thinking her job is boring precludes her from doing it at least adequately. And its not like customers will check facebook and take their business elsewhere on the basis that a 16 year old girl doesn't love her office job. I can certainly agree with the principle of keeping your employees from bad mouthing the company in a very very public place, but really, this has done far more damage than it prevented

privacy concerns, mainly. your employer does not have the right to check up on you 24/7, and no one should have to fear retribution for things that are not in anyway related to actual job performance.

Why does an employer not have the right to terminate employment of a person of their choosing?

Why does an employer not have the right to terminate employment of a person of their choosing?

He already responded to this. They do, but they shouldn't.

Why does an employer not have the right to terminate employment of a person of their choosing?

because it conflicts with the goal of creating and living in a free society, basically

And why should the "right" to badmouth your job be protected speech?


If shes bitching on her blog .. that shouldnt be held against her. But shes 16, she obviously wasnt wise enough to know those bitches shes working with werent her friends. Live and learn. Shes young enough to recoup real fast, so I don't have much sympathy really.

And women are usually venomous to each other, when y'all gonna learn this. (edit:heh)

because it conflicts with the goal of creating and living in a free society, basically

Not if you're an employer being forced to employ discontented employees because they haven't displayed enough incompetence to be fired in your "free" society.

He already responded to this. They do, but they shouldn't.

Why shouldn't they? Why should an employer be forced to keep an employee employed?

Not if you're an employer being forced to employ discontented employees because they haven't displayed enough incompetence to be fired in your "free" society.

sounds more free than the alternative, which involves everyone having to cater to the random whims of the powerful. in fact, the distinction is literally one between liberty and kowtowing.

If we lived in a world full of reasonable people who had the slightest understanding of coolness and maturity, we would not have to worry about suffering retaliation for things we post on our Facebook pages, for two reasons:

1) Our bosses would not be spying on us when we are off duty because they would realize that what we do when they are not paying us is none of their business, and they would not be unduly paranoid that we are damaging the company behind their backs (or else they would not have hired us in the first place).

AND

2) We would not be posting juvenile shit on Facebook.

But we don't live in that world.

In the world we DO live in, there are lessons to be learned here: That most jobs are employment at will, and we can be fired for no reason at all -- fairness be damned. Everything we put on the internet can be accessed by the public, so if we don't want to risk retaliation if the wrong person sees it, we should keep our opinions offline or post them under the shield of screen names. The right of free speech is not a protection against any and all consequences of speech. Just as we are free to seek work or quit at will, so employers are free to hire or fire at will. They are not forced to keep any person on the payroll, so getting fired is not an infringement of rights UNLESS it is done in certain ways that are against the law. Firing someone because you don't like them is not against the law.

So, this girl WAS treated unfairly by her ex-boss, in my opinion. But it is one of those unfair things that nothing can be done about, except for her to learn the lesson. Her boss was an asshole, her coworkers were backstabbing, brown-nosing little tattle-tales, and the girl was naive and immature. She's probably better off to be out of that work environment, and next time, let her keep her Facebook happy and positive, while she vents her complaints somewhere else behind a forum screen name.

sounds more free than the alternative, which involves everyone having to cater to the random whims of the powerful. in fact, the distinction is literally one between liberty and kowtowing.
So, in your free society, only some people are free?

Or is it that all are free, but some are more free than others, just like some are more equal than others?

sounds more free than the alternative, which involves everyone having to cater to the random whims of the powerful. in fact, the distinction is literally one between liberty and kowtowing.

So, only some people get to be free in your free society. Anyone who wants to own a business doesn't get to be as free. Got it.

So, in your free society, only some people are free?

Or is it that all are free, but some are more free than others, just like some are more equal than others?

So, only some people get to be free in your free society. Anyone who wants to own a business doesn't get to be as free. Got it.

yes, it sure is mean of us to restrict the liberty of dictators. why must we restrict their ability to oppress others? or, in other words, your understanding of the concept 'freedom' is incoherent. what you are arguing for is not freedom, but power.

a business owner has exactly as much freedom as anyone else in this scenario - nobody is allowed to unjustly cut off somebody's access to their livelihood for irrelevant reasons. this restricts the power of the powerful, but in doing so makes everyone substantially more free than in a situation like the one we currently enjoy.

yes, it sure is mean of us to restrict the liberty of dictators. why must we restrict their ability to oppress others? or, in other words, your understanding of the concept 'freedom' is incoherent. what you are arguing for is not freedom, but power.

a business owner has exactly as much freedom as anyone else in this scenario - nobody is allowed to unjustly cut off somebody's access to their livelihood for irrelevant reasons. this restricts the power of the powerful, but in doing so makes everyone substantially more free than in a situation like the one we currently enjoy.
What BS. That business owner was just an asshole. NOT a "dictator." And the business owner did NOT cut off her access to a livelihood. He didn't blackball her, did he -- meaning badmouth her to other employers so that she would not get hired elsewhere. No, we have no reason to think that he did that. If he had, he would have broken the law, but he didn't. He, as an individual is not obligated to give her, as an individual, a job with his company. She is free to find work anywhere else.

Personal unfairness between people because one of the people is a jackass is NOT the same as an unjust social system that allows some to violate the civil rights of others. Get a grip, really.

yes, it sure is mean of us to restrict the liberty of dictators. why must we restrict their ability to oppress others? or, in other words, your understanding of the concept 'freedom' is incoherent. what you are arguing for is not freedom, but power.

a business owner has exactly as much freedom as anyone else in this scenario - nobody is allowed to unjustly cut off somebody's access to their livelihood for irrelevant reasons. this restricts the power of the powerful, but in doing so makes everyone substantially more free than in a situation like the one we currently enjoy.

Wow, engage in more absurd hyperbole, please. In your situation, the employee has the freedom to terminate the employment arrangement at any time for whatever reason, but the employer has no such right. Your idea of "freedom" is assinine and completely immature. You just love to rail against the "man".

How about, in your "free" society, we give the employee the exact same right to terminate the employment agreement as you propose we give the employer? That is to say, the employee cannot leave the employment without just cause. Get a better job offer? Too bad, you have to wait until your employer mistreats you before you can leave. That way, everyone can have the same level of what you laughably refer to as "freedom" in your crumbling anarchy of an ideal society.

What BS. That business owner was just an asshole. NOT a "dictator."

that wasn't so much the point being made. the point is, how does your conception of freedom handle the restriction of what certain individuals are allowed to do? does a transition away from an absolute monarchy result in a loss of freedom?

And the business owner did NOT cut off her access to a livelihood.

yes, he quite obviously did. not forever, of course, but that is irrelevant. she had a source of income and it was taken away from her. the question is, was this done justly?

He, as an individual is not obligated to give her, as an individual, a job with his company.

no, he isn't. but having given her one, he should be obligated to come up with relevant reasons to take it away. failing to come up with some makes his decision an arbitrary exercise of power. and arbitrary power is the mortal enemy of freedom - especially when it has significant effects on other people's lives, as is the case when it comes to major social institutions like government and the workplace.

no, he isn't. but having given her one, he should be obligated to come up with relevant reasons to take it away.

Her lack of enthusiasm? The fact that he doesn't like her?

but having given her one, he should be obligated to come up with relevant reasons to take it away.

Why? An employee doesn't need a relevant reason to terminate employment, why they different standard for the employer? You think you're this champion of freedom, but you just want to change who the disadvantaged is; you're not interested in actually increasing freedom.

In your situation, the employee has the freedom to terminate the employment arrangement at any time for whatever reason, but the employer has no such right. Your idea of "freedom" is assinine and completely immature.

that doesn't follow. your argument needs a few more steps, at least.

but yes, that is in fact what i propose, for reasons i have laid out before.

How about, in your "free" society, we give the employee the exact same right to terminate the employment agreement as you propose we give the employer? That is to say, the employee cannot leave the employment without just cause. Get a better job offer? Too bad, you have to wait until your employer mistreats you before you can leave. That way, everyone can have the same level of what you laughably refer to as "freedom" in your crumbling anarchy of an ideal society.

my way has more freedom for everybody, so i think i'll stick to it, thanks.

that doesn't follow. your argument needs a few more steps, at least.

I'm sorry you're incapable of seeing my argument. I'll lay it out in smaller words for you.

You have one definition of freedom for employees, and a completely different, less substantial one for employers. In your ideal society, employees are free to terminate the employment arrangement for purely trivial reasons, but the employers have no such freedom. Explain why you feel it is fair and right to limit the ways an employer can terminate the employment agreement, but not the employee.


my way has more freedom for everybody, so i think i'll stick to it, thanks.

Your way says to employers, "you cannot terminate this employee once you've hired them unless they screw up, no matter what kind of negative influence they have on your workplace." Frankly, that's a retarded definition of freedom.

Why? An employee doesn't need a relevant reason to terminate employment, why they different standard for the employer? You think you're this champion of freedom, but you just want to change who the disadvantaged is; you're not interested in actually increasing freedom.

because the employer holds power over the employee. employers can and do use this power all the fucking time. don't pretend like you don't know this.

anyway, in order to preserve a sphere of freedom, we need to protect certain aspects of life from such uses of power - just the same as we do when faced with instances of power differentials elsewhere. because if we don't then only the powerful have any real access to a worthwhile range of action, and everyone else must conform their lives to the whims of the powerful or face whatever consequences they feel like dishing out.


seriously, does taking away a dictator's power reduce or increase freedom? why?

that wasn't so much the point being made. the point is, how does your conception of freedom handle the restriction of what certain individuals are allowed to do? does a transition away from an absolute monarchy result in a loss of freedom?
Fallacy. There is no loss of freedom. There is certainly no singling out of any "certain individuals" for retaliation that nobody else has to suffer from. The girl has total freedom to say whatever she wants, except libel or other illegal things (like arranging a crime), on her Facebook page.

Might there be consequences for some of the things she might choose to say about other people? Yes, but that's not a violation of her rights or a loss of her freedom. That's her just needing to grow the fuck up. She's not the only one.

yes, he quite obviously did. not forever, of course, but that is irrelevant. she had a source of income and it was taken away from her. the question is, was this done justly?
No, htat is not the question, because as phrased it is a meaningless question. Was she treated fairly? Her treatment was UNfair, but in A PERSONAL WAY. Unfairness between individuals in NOT a matter of a violation of civil rights. She badmouthed her job. Her employer got wind of it and over-reacted. Unfair? Yes. Stupid? Definitely. A loss of freedom and violation of the girl's right to earn a living? No. Because the employer is not obligated to keep her on his payroll. Period.

no, he isn't. but having given her one, he should be obligated to come up with relevant reasons to take it away.
Are you equally willing to follow what Sdaeriji said and force the employee to stay in her job until she can come up with some fault of the employer to justify leaving him? If not, then you are advocating an unfair system.

You claim (without basis) that the current system benefits the employer over the employee, but if you are not going to lock BOTH of them into the job situation, then you are not arguing for a free society. You are arguing for an unfair society in which one group is controlled by the whims of another.

failing to come up with some makes his decision an arbitrary exercise of power. and arbitrary power is the mortal enemy of freedom - especially when it has significant effects on other people's lives, as is the case when it comes to major social institutions like government and the workplace.
More of the same hyperbole and just as meaningless as the first several times you said it. Look, just reason out the arguments and leave the speechifying to zombie Trotsky, mkay?

that doesn't follow. your argument needs a few more steps, at least.

but yes, that is in fact what i propose, for reasons i have laid out before.



my way has more freedom for everybody, so i think i'll stick to it, thanks.
How is it "more freedom for everybody" for you to single out one group -- business owners -- and tell them they are not allowed to change out employees at will, while letting employees reserve the right to change out jobs at will?

How is it "more freedom for everybody" to single out one group whose work-related decisions you are limiting in a way you do not limit anyone else's?

You call that "freedom." I call that "discrimination."

You have one definition of freedom for employees, and a completely different, less substantial one for employers.

no, it's the same definition of freedom in both cases. freedom just isn't tied to how much power you have, as it is under your conception.

Your way says to employers, "you cannot terminate this employee once you've hired them unless they screw up, no matter what kind of negative influence they have on your workplace."

actually, certain types of 'negative influences' are exactly what i claim are needed in order to have a legitimate reason to get rid of somebody.

because the employer holds power over the employee. employers can and do use this power all the fucking time. don't pretend like you don't know this.

anyway, in order to preserve a sphere of freedom, we need to protect certain aspects of life from such uses of power - just the same as we do when faced with instances of power differentials elsewhere. because if we don't then only the powerful have any real access to a worthwhile range of action, and everyone else must conform their lives to the whims of the powerful or face whatever consequences they feel like dishing out.


seriously, does taking away a dictator's power reduce or increase freedom? why?

Your continued use of hyperbole nonwithstanding, you're still not arguing for any increased freedom. All you have argued is that we should change who has their freedom limited. You're not arguing for a freer society, you're just arguing for a society that is more advantageous for you. You've yet to make even one valid statement to justify or even explain decreasing the rights of business owners.

no, it's the same definition of freedom in both cases. freedom just isn't tied to how much power you have, as it is under your conception.

No, it's different. To wit:

Employee can terminate employment at any time.
Employer cannot terminate employment at any time.

Explain the different standard.


actually, certain types of 'negative influences' are exactly what i claim are needed in order to have a legitimate reason to get rid of somebody.

How can you even say that with a straight face? You're becoming a caricature of your argument. Complaining about your job to your co-workers, which is exactly what she did when she opened her Facebook up to her co-workers, can foster a negative environment.

No, it's different. To wit:

Employee can terminate employment at any time.
Employer cannot terminate employment at any time.

Explain the different standard.

a different standard of actions that can be legitimately taken, but not a different standard of freedom. not all actions that the powerful could take are instances of freedom. this is why i keep trying to get you guys to think about the absolute monarch or dictator. if restricting the king's ability to act results in more freedom, then it is at least possible that restricting the range of actions allowed to certain classes of people results in more freedom for everyone. if restricting the king's actions is a decrease in freedom, then your conception of freedom literally cannot distinguish between liberal democracy and fascism when it comes to which is more free. so there is pretty much no way i'll be accepting that as a legitimate conception of freedom.

this being the case, we must examine each instance on the merits rather than making blanket statements that all restriction of action is a decrease in freedom. so in the business example, the ways it increases freedom for most people are fairly obvious. and on the bosses end, they are not forbidden from firing people, but merely required to have legitimate reasons for doing so. literally the only thing that changes is that people are no longer obligated to kowtow to the boss' arbitrary whims on pain of losing their source of income.

How can you even say that with a straight face? You're becoming a caricature of your argument. Complaining about your job to your co-workers, which is exactly what she did when she opened her Facebook up to her co-workers, can foster a negative environment.

how can you? griping about your job is what humans do. shit, if the griping is done in the context of "...and that's why we ought unionize" it is already protected (at least in theory).

Her lack of enthusiasm? The fact that he doesn't like her?

if her lack of enthusiasm bleeds over into affecting her job performance, sure. but requiring people to feel enthusiastic is, well, crazy.

if her lack of enthusiasm bleeds over into affecting her job performance, sure. but requiring people to feel enthusiastic is, well, crazy.
There's no law against being crazy.

The point of contention here is not whether the boss acted in a manner that was interpersonally fair, or even just mature and cool. He clearly did not. But that does not change the fact that your claim that he violated her right to earn a living is nonsense.

He is within his rights to fire her for any reason or no reason, just as she is within her rights to quit for any reason or no reason. If he had wanted to fire her so he could give the job to a friend of his or just because the way she whistled through her teeth while typing drove him nuts, he would have been just as much within his rights to do it. Just as she would have been within her rights to quit because she was bored.

But just as her quitting would not be a violation of his right to do business as he sees fit, neither his decision to fire her a violation of her right to make a living. He is not stopping her from finding work. He is not obligated to let her work for HIM, as long as he does nothing to poison her reputation with anyone else, since technically, he only fired her for a personal reason.

The point that Free Soviets is making (I think, don't let me put improper words in your mouth Soviets), and it is one I agree with, is that there already exists a difference in power between the employer and the employee, which inherently restricts the freedom of the employee. Thus, the government should compensate by placing burdens upon the employer, thus equalizing the freedoms of the two parties.

There's no law against being crazy.

is/ought

The point of contention here is not whether the boss acted in a manner that was interpersonally fair, or even just mature and cool. He clearly did not. But that does not change the fact that your claim that he violated her right to earn a living is nonsense.

good thing that is not my claim, eh? instead, i claimed that allowing businesses to use the threat of a loss of livelihood in order to coerce/manipulate people into conforming to arbitrary and irrelevant demands amounts to a significant and unnecessary restriction of freedom for absolutely no good reason. and as such, we ought not allow it.

good thing that is not my claim, eh? instead, i claimed that allowing businesses to use the threat of a loss of livelihood in order to coerce/manipulate people into conforming to arbitrary and irrelevant demands amounts to a significant and unnecessary restriction of freedom for absolutely no good reason. and as such, we ought not allow it.

And who should have the authority to decide whether the employment actions taken by the owner of the business or his agents are arbitrary or irrelevent?

And who should have the authority to decide whether the employment actions taken by the owner of the business or his agents are arbitrary or irrelevent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB

Its neat how our government already has these things in place, isn't it?

(The NLRB is far from a perfect institution, and doesn't do near as much as it should, but it does exist and the goal is that which you expressed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB

Its neat how our government already has these things in place, isn't it?

That'll be your government that has that in place.

However, as it stands the NLRB has quite clear definitions of the situations it can intervene in. Preventing employers from making 'irrelevent' or 'arbitrary' firing decisions is so vague its unworkable.

However, as it stands the NLRB has quite clear definitions of the situations it can intervene in. Preventing employers from making 'irrelevent' or 'arbitrary' firing decisions is so vague its unworkable.

Actually, in union workplaces, under contract the employer has to give a reason for firing that is neither "irrelevant" or "arbitrary", so it is quite applicable.

In non-union workplaces, one can be fired for any reason at all, as long as the employer doesn't actually give a reason. If the employer is a racist he can fire a black person, as long as he doesn't state that he is firing him or her because of their race. Unionization causes rationales for termination decisions to enter into play, which changes the ballgame a bit.

Actually, in union workplaces, under contract the employer has to give a reason for firing that is neither "irrelevant" or "arbitrary", so it is quite applicable.

And what is your source for this statement?

And who should have the authority to decide whether the employment actions taken by the owner of the business or his agents are arbitrary or irrelevent?

in general, the people and their designated arbitration bodies.

in general, the people and their designated arbitration bodies.

And what do they base their decision on? The stated reason the employer gives them?

And what do they base their decision on? The stated reason the employer gives them?

amongst other relevant evidence, yes. additional possibilities include other statements made, noticeable patterns in firings, the context in which the decision was made, etc.

And what is your source for this statement?

Um, my personal source is a US Labor History course I took a semester ago, but I did some googling and came up with this for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will

Um, my personal source is a US Labor History course I took a semester ago, but I did some googling and came up with this for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will

US Labour History course from last year and a Wiki link. About as much use as Anne Frank's drumkit. This happened in the U.K, not the United States of Arse.

This happened in the U.K, not the United States of Arse.

Perhaps you should read the discussion, as opposed to simply reading my latest post? You might seem less ignorant.

Perhaps you should read the discussion, as opposed to simply reading my latest post? You might seem less ignorant.

Perhaps you shouldn't link Wikipedia. Then you wouldn't appear so ignorant. Your opinion on unionisation is bollocks anyway.

is/ought
You seem to enjoy typing those two words. Do you also have them cross-stitched on a lavender-scented pillow on your bed?

It is not an is/ought argument because I never said that because there is no law against being crazy it is therefore desirable to be crazy. Apparently the only way you can defend your argument is to make up bullshit counter-arguments to knock down with your is/ought kung-fu kick.

Violating civil rights is a legal issue. Being an asshole who cannot maintain a positive relationship with employees is not a legal issue. The boss over-reacting to the employee's negative remarks is, therefore, not a civil rights issue. Any boss operating his business in a way that could ultimately end up destroying it because no one will want to work for him is not a civil rights issue. As a free individual in a free society, he is allowed to be a jerk and alienate everyone who could possibly help him life and thus engineer his own failure. Him self-destructing is not a violation of other people's rights. All your soapbox rhetoric and is/ought dismissals will not change the fact that you are claiming a social injustice in this case that simply does not exist.

good thing that is not my claim, eh? instead, i claimed that allowing businesses to use the threat of a loss of livelihood in order to coerce/manipulate people into conforming to arbitrary and irrelevant demands amounts to a significant and unnecessary restriction of freedom for absolutely no good reason. and as such, we ought not allow it.
Yeah, but as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, he did not force the girl to do or not do anything. He left her with the full ability to do anything she likes, and at the same time he exercised his right to do whatever he likes. She is free to express any opinion about him and his company she wishes, and he is free to not employ people who don't like him or his company. He has done NOTHING to stop her earning a living. It is NOT his obligation to give her money. It is ONLY his obligation not to obstruct her looking for a job anywhere else.

You can bitch and moan about the mean old business owner oppressing the poor innocent worker (so innocent in this case that she can't even figure out that Facebook is not her diary) all you like. The fact remains that what you claim happened here did not happen, and therefore, your entire argument is bullshit.

Anyway do you believe the employer was right to make the decision or not? Also have you ever lost a job?

Never, ever say anything about your employer in public that you wouldn't say to your employer face to face. Never ever post anything on face book that you don't want made public.

Did you know that some employers are checking out applicants face book pages? So, make sure you don't post that picture of you when you were three sheets to the wind or worse on your face book pages if you want a job,

Did you know that some employers are checking out applicants face book pages? So, make sure you don't post that picture of you when you were three sheets to the wind or worse on your face book pages if you want a job,

We Google every single candidate we have as a matter of policy. It's always nice to see what potential complications an employee might bring with them.

I was working for a company once when my immediate supervisor found my personal webpage. That in itself wasn't horribly bad, except a few months prior I had blogged about how much I hated my former supervisor. Needless to say my current supervisor was not amused. Had I not been a contract employee I imagine I would have been fired. As it were I was told to remove the material and given a verbal reprimand.

We Google every single candidate we have as a matter of policy. It's always nice to see what potential complications an employee might bring with them.

Can you usually find Facebook pages in a Google search? I've googled my name a few times to see what comes up and my facebook profile never has. Articles about various awards I've won and volunteering I've done are there, even one about an award dating back to first or second grade somehow, but not my facebook profile...

You seem to enjoy typing those two words.

no, i don't actually. it makes me sad every time i have to because it reminds me that you just don't get it. when i am arguing how things ought be, how they currently are is fucking irrelevant.

to say there is no law against a boss using crazy justifications for firing somebody is not an argument that there shouldn't be.

The fact remains that what you claim happened here did not happen, and therefore, your entire argument is bullshit.

so her employer didn't use his economic power to punish her for something irrelevant to her job performance? and allowing such doesn't result in, for example, you arguing that workers should curtail their activities outside of work in order to conform to the weird and arbitrary demands of the bosses (both actually made, and guessed at on your part)?

are you sure?

freedom and arbitrary power are enemies. the use of power, if it is to be consistent with freedom, must conform to the dictates of reason (and collective decision making, but that is a topic for elsewhere) - if one cannot offer a justification for a given use of power, that use of power is illegitimate.

so her employer didn't use his economic power to punish her for something irrelevant to her job performance?It is not irrelevant to your job performance to slight your coworkers and boss, because you need to work with them. If the working relation breaks down, so does performance.

It is not irrelevant to your job performance to slight your coworkers and boss, because you need to work with them. If the working relation breaks down, so does performance.

their comment didn't actually do this*. however, the snitching arguably did.


*if the internet is to be believed, the comments involved are " first day at work. omg!! So dull!!", "all i do is shred holepunch n scan paper!!! omg!", and "im so totally bord!!!". frankly, anybody that works her job and isn't bored is probably goofing off a lot.

a thought about the concept of public privacy, since that is another aspect of this whole thing. after all, she posted it on facebook, and therefore might as well have told the world, right?

suppose you are in a park with a close friend. nobody is within 20 meters of you. they ask how your job is going and you tell them that, honestly, it is boring as fuck. now suppose you have a very nosy coworker who happens to carry around one of those microphones that allows them to listen in on conversations at a distance, and they have been following you, hoping to catch you saying something like that so they could get you in trouble. is it just for you to lose your job over this?

now suppose the same scenario plays out only the conversation now takes place in your own home and your nosy downstairs neighbor with a grudge is using a microphone to listen in through the ceiling. they send the tape to your boss and again with the firing. just?

technology has now made it so that there is no real privacy anywhere, at any time. which means that if you can be fired for any reason, then you must live your entire life attempting to cater to the whims of the powerful. if we are to have privacy at all, we must specifically carve out a realm for it and say, no, nothing from here can be used against you by the state, by your school, by your job. either that or give up on freedom entirely.

We Google every single candidate we have as a matter of policy. It's always nice to see what potential complications an employee might bring with them.

Interesting. What complications would that be?

Can you usually find Facebook pages in a Google search? I've googled my name a few times to see what comes up and my facebook profile never has. Articles about various awards I've won and volunteering I've done are there, even one about an award dating back to first or second grade somehow, but not my facebook profile...

If you make your profiles public, then it's easier.

Companies could get accounts too.

You have to wonder if a company is so concerned what their employees or potential employees are doing, what are they hiding?

Never, ever say anything about your employer in public that you wouldn't say to your employer face to face. Never ever post anything on face book that you don't want made public.

Indeed. I have said things that made others go pale. I guess I am just good enough at what I do that they put up with my "personality." Or, maybe I just pick good managers.....

Did you know that some employers are checking out applicants face book pages? So, make sure you don't post that picture of you when you were three sheets to the wind or worse on your face book pages if you want a job,

I don't hide anything. If an employer doesn't like what I say then I don't want to work for them. Employers who only want a certain kind of thought will fail......

Employers who only want a certain kind of thought will fail......

maybe, in the long run. but they can do a lot of damage in the short-to-medium term.

technology has now made it so that there is no real privacy anywhere, at any time. which means that if you can be fired for any reason, then you must live your entire life attempting to cater to the whims of the powerful. if we are to have privacy at all, we must specifically carve out a realm for it and say, no, nothing from here can be used against you by the state, by your school, by your job. either that or give up on freedom entirely.
This is a thought that terrifies me, that it is entirely possible for my entirely life outside of my home to be monitored. What's really frightening is that it's not even living "attempting to cater to the whims of the powerful," as you say, it's attempting to cater to the whims of every idiot with a grudge and a camera phone. I hope that in about ten years, when all of these technologies are more firmly established, there will be laws and a new etiquette that preserve privacy ("specifically carve out a realm for it.")
Now, I think you're analogy with the nosy co-worker and Facebook is not perfect. It is morally (and probably legally) unacceptable for a co-worker to stalk and record everything you say. I'm not so sure it's immoral for a co-worker or employer to look at someone's Facebook page, unless he has to hack into her account or trick someone into showing it to him.

Everyone complains about work.

However, people need to learn that there is a time and place, and in an open public forum is no more appropriate than saying it to your manager's face.

If she had said it to the manager in person, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Saying it in a way the manager can find is exactly the same thing.

Everyone complains about work.

However, people need to learn that there is a time and place, and in an open public forum is no more appropriate than saying it to your manager's face.


Did you even read the article?

So what exactly did she learn? Don't ever say anything bad about your job. Better yet don't even talk about it because some wanker will get offended.

She did not say the manager is an asshole or her coworkers were dumbshits. She simply said her job is boring.

How many teenagers think that?

Being a crap manager; he couldn't mentor the youngster in her mistake.

Termination was wrong. Simply because he can't even prove she damaged the company.

If she had said it to the manager in person, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Being a crap manager he probably still would have fired her.

Saying it in a way the manager can find is exactly the same thing.

Again a teenager. How exactly would she even know how to say it to the manager?

A good manager would have simply pulled her aside and explained the situation to her and wrote it off to inexperience.

Being a crap manager; he couldn't mentor the youngster in her mistake.

but he did manage to make his company into international news. all press is good press, amirite?

but he did manage to make his company into international news. all press is good press, amirite?

Well a good marketing guy then. Unless this was all a plot!

http://camelsnose.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/hat-tin-foil-smiley.gif

At first sight I thought it was about someone who reveals some information or about a defaming comment. But because she said his job is boring... What the hell is she and the employer thinking? OK, the best way to solve it was to talk to the employee about why she though it and why do she feels like that. But no, the real world is this.
... Social networks like that are so invasive. Although mine has strict security settings, one never knows. This case truly shows that.
I totally agree with you. I deactivate mine, because:

I don't even need that...
It was boring... lol

I prefer messengers (MSN, AOL, Pidgin...) than those things.
A lot of employers check the Facebook/MySpace pages of their employees.
OK, for me it's creepy that of an employer checking that stuff. Like if some employee wants to talk about the boss' lover. XD

[off topic]My first post...[/off topic]

Ciao.

Perhaps you shouldn't link Wikipedia. Then you wouldn't appear so ignorant. Your opinion on unionisation is bollocks anyway.

What's Pete Tong wif wikipedia? it's abaht as accurate as encyclopedia britannica.

Can you usually find Facebook pages in a Google search? I've googled my name a few times to see what comes up and my facebook profile never has. Articles about various awards I've won and volunteering I've done are there, even one about an award dating back to first or second grade somehow, but not my facebook profile...

Result six for me.

She was an idiot. The boss has every right to fire her for making derogatory comments about the job he was kind enough to give her in the first place. At my old work, if we were heard on the train to be making negative comments about the company (and I worked in a call centre) we could be fired. Not sure if it ever happened like in this scenario, but it was in our contract.

If 16 year olds want to pretend to be grown ups and take a job, then they have to be prepared for the fact that the world is not always fair. They should understand that a comment made in a public forum is inappropriate and can lead to disciplinary action.

The employer has the position of power, since it is his company. Just like if I invite you into my home for dinner and you offend me by telling me that you think my party is boring, I have the right to ask you to leave. Regardless of whether you have been fed or not. Employers don't have responsibilities to employees who are not grateful for the privilege of having a job in the first place.

Naturally, this was unfair, and the employer could have handled the situation much more appropriately, but in the end, this is his right.

Still, I would hardly call "boring" all that derogatory. If comments like that are taken to heart, then maybe it isn't just the teenager that needs to grow the fuck up?

So what exactly did she learn?
Dunno what she learned, but what I HOPE she learned was...
1) If you have problems with your job, a blog is not the tool to use.

Don't ever say anything bad about your job. Better yet don't even talk about it because some wanker will get offended. saying it is bad, WRITING IT DOWN AND POSTING IT FOR THE WORLD TO SEE, much worse.

She did not say the manager is an asshole or her coworkers were dumbshits. She simply said her job is boring. and that says to a manager...
that your employee is not finding her career path challanging. thus she should find a job that she won't find boring before her life is 'invested' in that job.

it also says that her job is NOT for her.

it also says that she would rather tell the world that her job is boring (when she's on probation) and NOT talk to her manager and find ways to make her job less boring.

it also tells the manager that she won't report any problems to him, but will gossip about it to everyone else.

and for alot of jobs, discretion is important. something she just showed she didn't have any.

Being a crap manager; he couldn't mentor the youngster in her mistake. if the worker complains about her job being boring, then the manager did the right thing. He gave her an incentive to find a more 'entertaining' job.

Termination was wrong. Simply because he can't even prove she damaged the company. she was on probation. if after three weeks she's complaining about her job being 'boring' then she should be let go to find another job.

Being a crap manager he probably still would have fired her. I doubt it. by bringing it up to the manager, she's showing incentive. she could've been given more tasks to do. but she instead, went to a forum and complained about her job there. showing she was NOT trying to make her job more 'entertaining', and NOT trying to solve that problem. Solving problems like "bordom" is one of the ways managers evaluate employees.

if an employee needs to be micro managed, then chances are those employees will be the first to go. and if a 3 weeker is complaining of boredom, then why waste time and resources micro-managing that person when she could be finding a 'better job elsewhere'.

Again a teenager. How exactly would she even know how to say it to the manager?
oh... I dunno. how about...
"Excuse me sir. I'm done with [this assignment]. is there anything else that I can do?"
or
"Is there more I can do around here?"

that would send a better message to her manager than a facebook comment shown to co-workers.

A good manager would have simply pulled her aside and explained the situation to her and wrote it off to inexperience. a bad manager would do that also. because a bad manager would overlook the one problem being shown. that she won't bring problems to him but would rather tell the world first.

it also says that her job is NOT for her.

it also says that she would rather tell the world that her job is boring (when she's on probation) and NOT talk to her manager and find ways to make her job less boring.

she worked as a entry-level office worker. it is a job that cannot be other than boring. it is mindless work that happens to need doing. that's why you hire teenagers to do it.

as a manager i would be worried if she wasn't bored doing it, as that would mean she was playing around on facebook instead of working. the boredom is a sign that she was actually doing her job.

she worked as a entry-level office worker. it is a job that cannot be other than boring. it is mindless work that happens to need doing. that's why you hire teenagers to do it.
again, she could've found ways to make it NOT boring. if she asked and no one gave her work, then she could ask to take off early and not be bored.

running to facebook was the mistake. it showed lack of discretion.

as a manager i would be worried if she wasn't bored doing it, as that would mean she was playing around on facebook instead of working. the boredom is a sign that she was actually doing her job.
as a manager, I would be worried that she takes her work problems (being bored at work is a problem) and posts them on a site for everyone to read and NOT come to me where her job can be shifted to something more challanging.

Especially if her job was described as "self-motivater needed".

again, she could've found ways to make it NOT boring. if she asked and no one gave her work, then she could ask to take off early and not be bored.

boredom does not equal a lack of things to do

link 1 (http://www.spada.co.uk/omg-facebook-and-the-delicate-matter-of-keeping-ones-job/)

Her first day as an office administrator at Ivell Marketing & Logistics did not bode well. Ms Swann wrote, on Facebook, as follows: “first day at work. omg!! So dull!!”The story is reported by the Daily Mail, who helpfully explain, in parentheses, that ‘omg’ means ‘oh my God’. The Mail also reveals that Ms Swann said “all i do is shred holepunch n scan paper!!! omg!”, with her despair soon culminating in the declaration that “im so totally bord!!!”
aparently, this was from work day 1


Link 2 (http://livesophia.com/post/82060054/16-year-old-girl-fired-for-complaining-on-facebook) the letter stating she was fired.
“Following your comments made on Facebook about your job and the company we feel it is better that, as you are not happy and do not enjoy your work we end your employment with Ivell Marketing & Logistics with immediate effect,” the letter read.
They interpreted her cry/cries of dismay the way I would. that she is NOT happy working here and thus would be better for all involved if she sought employment elsewhere.

why keep a disgruntled employee? especially if she's still under probation.

she may have been happy there, but she certainly didn't show it.

boredom does not equal a lack of things to do

That doesn't answer the fact that instead of talking to her boss, she posted her problem in a medium that anyone can look into.

That doesn't answer the fact that instead of talking to her boss, she posted her problem in a medium that anyone can look into.

presumably she wanted to keep her job, and so only complained to her friends that the job was boring. after all, what she found boring was the essential aspect of the job - “all i do is shred holepunch n scan paper!!! omg!” - so complaining about it to her boss can't actually do anything for her.

i'm with the trade union dude. employers need to grow the fuck up.

presumably she wanted to keep her job, and so only complained to her friends that the job was boring. after all, what she found boring was the essential aspect of the job - “all i do is shred holepunch n scan paper!!! omg!” - so complaining about it to her boss can't actually do anything for her.

i'm with the trade union dude. employers need to grow the fuck up.

I'm starting to think that maybe, subconsciously, the employer fired her not because she said her job was boring but because she did not know how to use capitalization, did not know how to use commas, did not know how to spell "and," did not know how to spell "bored," and used the abbreviation "omg!"

Now that I've said that, I'm sure there are at least five grammar mistakes in my post which I didn't notice. It never fails.

Most jobs available to 16-year-olds are boring (actually, most jobs are boring). They want her to pretend otherwise? If you can't vent about your job on your own time, in your own space, without repercussions, it's a pretty sad world.

presumably she wanted to keep her job, and so only complained to her friends that the job was boring. after all, what she found boring was the essential aspect of the job - “all i do is shred holepunch n scan paper!!! omg!” - so complaining about it to her boss can't actually do anything for her.

i'm with the trade union dude. employers need to grow the fuck up.

complaining to her boss (tho I wouldn't call it complaining, maybe, looking for more challenging tasks :p) is much better than complaining NOT to friends but to everyone else but the boss.

considering, from the first day, she's saying “all i do is shred holepunch n scan paper!!! omg!” shows that she lacks discretion. not all tasks at work will not be as exciting as she imagines, but the fact that one day of shreding paper and punching holes (and filing said holepunched papers) makes her whine is not a great image of an employee.

Managers are NOT there to keep a teenager entertained. they have other jobs to do other than keep their part timer entertained.

no, i don't actually. it makes me sad every time i have to because it reminds me that you just don't get it. when i am arguing how things ought be, how they currently are is fucking irrelevant.

to say there is no law against a boss using crazy justifications for firing somebody is not an argument that there shouldn't be.



so her employer didn't use his economic power to punish her for something irrelevant to her job performance? and allowing such doesn't result in, for example, you arguing that workers should curtail their activities outside of work in order to conform to the weird and arbitrary demands of the bosses (both actually made, and guessed at on your part)?

are you sure?

freedom and arbitrary power are enemies. the use of power, if it is to be consistent with freedom, must conform to the dictates of reason (and collective decision making, but that is a topic for elsewhere) - if one cannot offer a justification for a given use of power, that use of power is illegitimate.
Blah, blah, hyperbole, exagerration, fiction, blah.

Sigh. You have repeated yourself once too often for me. Following are my responses:

1) Not agreeing with you =/= not getting what you are saying or why you are saying it. I do get it. I'm saying you are wrong. You have persisted in being wrong in that precise way often enough that I am now concluding that nothing you will ever say about this will change my assessment of your wrongness. Done.

2) Yes, I'm sure. I'm sure that what you are saying happened did not happen. I'm sure that you are making up a bunch of soapbox speechifying bullshit so you can spin a story that is pleasing to you. I'm sure your vision of how the world works now is completely unrealistic, and your vision of how the world should work is both equally unrealistic as well as socially unjust and irresponsible.

3) I'm going to lay out my position for you just once more. I know you won't pay any more attention to it than you have before, but I just want to complete the package:

The boss over-reacted and treated the employee unfairly. The unfairness is an interpersonal matter that does NOT amount to a violation of rights or proof of an oppressive and unequal social system. That job did not work out for that young woman. Next time, she should avoid venting online under her own name. Here endeth the lesson.

This is the last post I will make in response to anything you have to say on this topic.

complaining to her boss (tho I wouldn't call it complaining, maybe, looking for more challenging tasks :p) is much better than complaining NOT to friends but to everyone else but the boss.

considering, from the first day, she's saying “all i do is shred holepunch n scan paper!!! omg!” shows that she lacks discretion. not all tasks at work will not be as exciting as she imagines, but the fact that one day of shreding paper and punching holes (and filing said holepunched papers) makes her whine is not a great image of an employee.

Managers are NOT there to keep a teenager entertained. they have other jobs to do other than keep their part timer entertained.

that's the thing - she wasn't actually asking to be entertained. she wasn't asking anything. she was doing her boring job, and nobody has claimed she wasn't doing it up to reasonable expectations (and nobody can honestly claim that the job isn't boring as fucking shit, because all of those jobs are). the claim is that she wasn't fulfilling the unreasonable expectation of finding it rewarding or lying about finding it such while on her own time. she didn't even say anything harmful about the company or her bosses or even the job.

1) Not agreeing with you =/= not getting what you are saying or why you are saying it. I do get it. I'm saying you are wrong.

yeah, see, the gap between is and ought isn't among the things i am wrong about. you have consistently been unable to separate what is the case from what should be, across a range of topics. thus i am forced to conclude that you just don't get it.

if i claim that we should do x, you showing that we actually do not-x is at best utterly tangential to the argument at hand.

so even if we take your characterization of my argument as good enough (which i am not really willing to concede), then this reply,
Violating civil rights is a legal issue. Being an asshole who cannot maintain a positive relationship with employees is not a legal issue. The boss over-reacting to the employee's negative remarks is, therefore, not a civil rights issue.
just totally fails to be relevant. because my position on this understanding is that it should be a legal issue. until you can wrap your head around this concept, there really isn't much progress to be had.

This is the last post I will make in response to anything you have to say on this topic.

sure, sure

yeah, see, the gap between is and ought isn't among the things i am wrong about. you have consistently been unable to separate what is the case from what should be, across a range of topics. thus i am forced to conclude that you just don't get it.

I'm sure that being able to type "is/ought" a bunch of times is intellectually satisfying for you, but what you're continuing to refuse to understand is that the argument you are facing is that is and ought are the same thing. The way the situation is, both employer and employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason, is the way the situation ought to be. Disagree with that assessment all you like (preferably without spewing some condescending bullshit about "freedom", a term you clearly have a nonsensical definition of), but please spare us the superiority complex ego trip like we don't get it. We get it. We disagree. Separate these two concepts in your head.

I'm sure that being able to type "is/ought" a bunch of times is intellectually satisfying for you, but what you're continuing to refuse to understand is that the argument you are facing is that is and ought are the same thing. The way the situation is, both employer and employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason, is the way the situation ought to be. Disagree with that assessment all you like (preferably without spewing some condescending bullshit about "freedom", a term you clearly have a nonsensical definition of), but please spare us the superiority complex ego trip like we don't get it. We get it. We disagree. Separate these two concepts in your head.

actually, you at least have advanced an ought argument. M doesn't. seriously, the ought was completely and utterly unaddressed by M's argument quoted above. we can only rescue it be adding a premise to the effect that "being an asshole who cannot maintain a positive relationship with employees should not be a legal issue". but since that is precisely the claim that is in dispute, that does nothing for us. we need an argument that has that as its conclusion, not that uses it as a premise.

i happen to think your ought argument fails because the conception of freedom you use is incoherent, as evidenced by what happens when we try to apply it to the case of the feudal lord and the fact that it compels you to hold that the protections we currently offer in the workplace (against racial discrimination and sexual harrassment, for example) are crazy oppressive and ought be abolished. well, that or freedom isn't a particularly important good, depending on how you want to resolve the dilemma. but you at least tried.

Utterly ludicrous. Having lived, to my shame, near Clacton for the first 18 years of my life, I can confirm it is indeed boring. A special turd in the pile of poop that is Essex.

I'm sure that being able to type "is/ought" a bunch of times is intellectually satisfying for you, but what you're continuing to refuse to understand is that the argument you are facing is that is and ought are the same thing. The way the situation is, both employer and employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason, is the way the situation ought to be. Disagree with that assessment all you like (preferably without spewing some condescending bullshit about "freedom", a term you clearly have a nonsensical definition of), but please spare us the superiority complex ego trip like we don't get it. We get it. We disagree. Separate these two concepts in your head.
I think it's pretty clear by now that FS disagrees with both you and me on this issue because he does not believe that business owners deserve the same level individual liberty that workers should get. He labels his own version of elitism with words like "freedom" and "justice", but what it boils down to is he would like to see employers bear a burden of obligation to workers that is not reciprocated with equal obligation by the workers.

His arguments are especially ironic considering that it is normally employers who cop that attitude with non-unionized workers. It is quite common for a non-unionized worker like an office worker to go into a job interview and have the prospective employer demand a verbal commitment that, if hired, the worker will stay a certain number of years -- which is ridiculous, since such employment is always employment at will, for both parties -- and of course, the employer is offering no reciprocal promise to keep the employee that long.

I don't know if FS is aware of it -- and I have no intention of asking him -- but he is echoing the most the peevishly unreasonable attitudes of the very oppressors he decries.

Another point that he ignores is that at-will employment, in which no reason needs to be given for either firing or quitting, actually protects the employee more than FS's bizarre program would. If an employer is required to find a cause for firing an employee, trust me, such a cause will be found, by hook or crook. This would end with a worker having to stay in a job at any cost to avoid getting a black mark on their history -- being a slave to the whims of the economically more powerful (according to FS) employer, exactly the scenario FS claims to want to eliminate. Or else, it would lead to a worker slowly accumulating a negative history full of either legitimate or invented "causes for termination" that he/she will have to be able to explain away, provided they can get an interview at all.

Compare that with no-reason-given termination/resignation, in which nothing negative need ever be said, no matter what the circumstances, unless there was something serious, like criminal activity. It may not be particularly helpful to other employers, but it is very fair to the worker whose only problem might have been a personal conflict with a person in one job that would not necessarily occur with anyone else. Or a failure to click with one kind of job, when another kind of job might be a perfect fit. The problems employer A has with worker B are, usually, nobody's business but theirs, and does not usually have any relevance to any other job in any other place.

Thus, even though it undermines job security, being able to terminate for no cause is better for the worker than a system in which it would have to be assumed that if a worker ever got terminated it was for cause.

Dunno what she learned, but what I HOPE she learned was...
1) If you have problems with your job, a blog is not the tool to use.

saying it is bad, WRITING IT DOWN AND POSTING IT FOR THE WORLD TO SEE, much worse.


Ah but why stop with the blog? She said her job was boring at school! FIRE HER!

Never mind the fact she didn't list the company in her blog. So the only image problem is the crap manager who was offended.


and that says to a manager...
that your employee is not finding her career path challanging. thus she should find a job that she won't find boring before her life is 'invested' in that job.

it also says that her job is NOT for her.


You do understand we are not talking about a seasoned professional or a person is critical spot right? You do know she is a kid right?

A simple sit down probably would have ended with an amicable departure. But being a crap manager; he has a public relations issue. His web site has the contact us screen disabled.

it also says that she would rather tell the world that her job is boring (when she's on probation) and NOT talk to her manager and find ways to make her job less boring.


What world did she tell? My job is boring! Ok what company was listed? Never mind the fact people the world over find aspects of their job boring. Fire them all right?

it also tells the manager that she won't report any problems to him, but will gossip about it to everyone else.

A crap manager would perceive that. Again not an experienced professional. A simple sit down could have solved it.

and for alot of jobs, discretion is important. something she just showed she didn't have any.

:rolleyes: Yes she was out there giving out salaries. Talking about company secrets and bashing her fellow employees. FIRE HER!

Remember not a experienced professional.

if the worker complains about her job being boring, then the manager did the right thing. He gave her an incentive to find a more 'entertaining' job.
No he was a crap manager who couldn't handle a minor problem. Remember a kid. A simple sit down probably would have solved it.

she was on probation. if after three weeks she's complaining about her job being 'boring' then she should be let go to find another job.

:rolleyes: Yes if she couldn't or wouldn't do the job or did it badly after being shown the correct way; termination is warranted.

But fired for saying her job was boring? He is a crap manager.

I doubt it. by bringing it up to the manager, she's showing incentive.
Not everybody at 16 has that kind of incentive. Are they bad workers? Sometimes a person only needs a little guidance. You would be surprised how many people don't ask for things.

He fired her for saying her job was boring on facebook. He probably would have fired her for coming to him.

she could've been given more tasks to do. but she instead, went to a forum and complained about her job there. showing she was NOT trying to make her job more 'entertaining', and NOT trying to solve that problem. Solving problems like "bordom" is one of the ways managers evaluate employees.


No a manager also needs to know when he has to manage people. Some people require nudges from time to time. Others require being slowed down.

A good manager knows how to deal with all types.

if an employee needs to be micro managed, then chances are those employees will be the first to go. and if a 3 weeker is complaining of boredom, then why waste time and resources micro-managing that person when she could be finding a 'better job elsewhere'.


Again we are not talking about an experienced professional. She was a kid that probably only needed a little guidance.

If he had simply said, "you know that was not a good idea." It wouldn't be all over the news and we would not be arguing about it.

oh... I dunno. how about...
"Excuse me sir. I'm done with [this assignment]. is there anything else that I can do?"
or
"Is there more I can do around here?"

that would send a better message to her manager than a facebook comment shown to co-workers.


Versus the manager "You know that was not appropriate to say that in your blog, what seems to be the issue?"

Never would have made the news.....

a bad manager would do that also. because a bad manager would overlook the one problem being shown. that she won't bring problems to him but would rather tell the world first.

:D Sure.

Problem is if she did it again. Most people would be saying she was rightfully fired after being warned to watch her comments.

I think it's pretty clear by now that FS disagrees with both you and me on this issue because he does not believe that business owners deserve the same level individual liberty that workers should get. He labels his own version of elitism with words like "freedom" and "justice", but what it boils down to is he would like to see employers bear a burden of obligation to workers that is not reciprocated with equal obligation by the workers.

equal liberty does not require equal obligations. in fact, where there are significant power differentials, equal liberty requires quite different obligations. this is a fairly trivial point within liberal discourse.

Another point that he ignores is that at-will employment, in which no reason needs to be given for either firing or quitting, actually protects the employee more than FS's bizarre program would. If an employer is required to find a cause for firing an employee, trust me, such a cause will be found, by hook or crook. This would end with a worker having to stay in a job at any cost to avoid getting a black mark on their history -- being a slave to the whims of the economically more powerful (according to FS) employer, exactly the scenario FS claims to want to eliminate. Or else, it would lead to a worker slowly accumulating a negative history full of either legitimate or invented "causes for termination" that he/she will have to be able to explain away, provided they can get an interview at all.

Compare that with no-reason-given termination/resignation, in which nothing negative need ever be said, no matter what the circumstances, unless there was something serious, like criminal activity. It may not be particularly helpful to other employers, but it is very fair to the worker whose only problem might have been a personal conflict with a person in one job that would not necessarily occur with anyone else. Or a failure to click with one kind of job, when another kind of job might be a perfect fit. The problems employer A has with worker B are, usually, nobody's business but theirs, and does not usually have any relevance to any other job in any other place.

Thus, even though it undermines job security, being able to terminate for no cause is better for the worker than a system in which it would have to be assumed that if a worker ever got terminated it was for cause.

yay, an argument that actually addresses the dispute. i'm proud of ya.

of course, this ignores that
1) people will continue to change jobs mainly because they felt like it rather than because they were forced out,
2) unfair and imaginary justifications for dismissal will make businesses liable to punishment in one form or another,
3) presumably most dismissals for cause will wind up being for economic reasons rather than incompetence, unless we are to believe that people are really shitty workers in general,
4) and people that rack up strings of shitty work history already must either put down a spotty job history or allow future employers to relatively easily find out how terrible a worker they are.

in so far as there is any problem here at all, it is relatively easily handled by increasing the privacy protections over what former employers can tell people, especially after some number of years. but i am not convinced that there are any additional problems over the present system.

Ah but why stop with the blog? She said her job was boring at school! FIRE HER! not reading are you? :p by saying it to people, even if it reaches the management, as long as it doesn't come straight from her, it's only hearsay. but by writing it down, on HER site, it shows it came from her.

Never mind the fact she didn't list the company in her blog. So the only image problem is the crap manager who was offended. yep, nevermind the fact that she also INVITED HER CO-WORKERS to read her blog and it was a CO-WORKER who brought it up to her manager's attention.

You do understand we are not talking about a seasoned professional or a person is critical spot right? You do know she is a kid right? you do understand that the business world really doesn't care how old you are right?

A simple sit down probably would have ended with an amicable departure. But being a crap manager; he has a public relations issue. His web site has the contact us screen disabled. why waste that effort on a person who decided on her first day that her job was boring? better to let her go and hire another teenager who would be happier at the job.

What world did she tell? My job is boring! Ok what company was listed? Never mind the fact people the world over find aspects of their job boring. Fire them all right? nevermind the fact that all those 'other people' don't post their comments on their blog and then invite their co workers to read them.

A crap manager would perceive that. Again not an experienced professional. A simple sit down could have solved it. if we're talking about a worker, who at least made it past the probationary period. yes, I would agree. but she didn't so it's cheaper to let her go and find a job that she doesn't find 'boring' from day 1.

:rolleyes: Yes she was out there giving out salaries. Talking about company secrets and bashing her fellow employees. FIRE HER! nice strawman. too bad it, like you, missed the point.

she showed no discretion, an unwillingness to bring work related problems to her manager to FIND A SOLUTION, a willingness to discuss company situations to others who have NO bearing on the company (or worse, might be a client.) all of which are dangerous outside of the field of marketting.

wait? I hear something... "but she didn't name the company..." her friends would know and word spreads. she allowed her co-workers to read her blog and we know the co-workers will talk because the manager found out.

Remember not a experienced professional. and now she has some experience. hope she learns from it. wait, she's talking to reporters about her situation... guess not.

No he was a crap manager who couldn't handle a minor problem. Remember a kid. A simple sit down probably would have solved it. you keep comming back to a 'sit down'. you do know that three weeks passed between her first complaint and her boss reading it? as an Administrative secretary, communication skills are rather important. so if she won't communicate with her boss, what makes you think a sit down will fix the job?

:rolleyes: Yes if she couldn't or wouldn't do the job or did it badly after being shown the correct way; termination is warranted. do you have proof of her work performance? or are you making assumptions?

But fired for saying her job was boring? He is a crap manager.
no, she was let go to find a job in which she could be happy.

Not everybody has that kind of incentive. Are they bad workers? Sometimes a person only needs a little guidance. You would be surprised how many people don't ask for things. and you will be surprised how many people keep their opinions about their NEW JOB to themselves untill after their probationary period. again, it goes back to descretion.

He fired her for saying her job was boring on facebook. He probably would have fired her for coming to him. WRONG, thanks for playing.
She was fired because she was not happy with her job. a statement made on her first day.

you can only assume that he would've fired her if she came to him. had she gone to him and NOT facebook, they could've worked something out.

No a manager also needs to know when he has to manage people. Some people require nudges from time to time. Others require being slowed down. and guess what. he did manage her. but he cannot manage her if she's not at work. unless you can show that her facebook log was made during work time, what she says is her responsibility. that means she takes responsiblity for her actions. I'm not saying she couldn't post what she did. I'm saying she has to take the consequences of her post.

A good manager knows how to deal with all types. yep, and communication is only from the manager to the subordinate. :rolleyes:

Again we are not talking about an experienced professional. She was a kid that probably only needed a little guidance. and she just got some. hope she learns from her experience.

If he had simply said, "you know that was not a good idea." It wouldn't be all over the news and we would not be arguing about it. except now she would know that the manager is reading her facebook account... so then she gets bitter, starts harboring negative opinions about her co-workers who ratted her out... creating a hostile work environment that affects productivity and causes the department to cut staff due to lost revenue. see, I can make such assumptions as well.

Versus the manager "You know that was not appropriate to say that in your blog, what seems to be the issue?"

Never would have made the news..... you don't know that.

she was informed about how to go about handling problems at work. the standard work contract outlines this. she bypassed the process and she got spanked hard. she's lucky that she's getting this lession now when it's not going to affect her.

now my advice to her would be
1) do not discuss work conditions to strangers (facebook, LJ, and other social networking sites count as strangers)
2) don't put that company down for her work history. drop them like they dropped her. fortunatly it can work since she was only there for 3 weeks. no work gap that needs to be 'explained'. and yes, new employers will ask if there is a work gap.
3) Talk with her new boss. shows a willingness to learn and work with others.
4) if the task is boring, grit your teeth and do the best job she can. Managers want to know that you can produce quality work on projects not seen as 'glamours'.

as you keep saying, she's 16 and inexperienced. well, now she's 16 and has some.

not reading are you? :p by saying it to people, even if it reaches the management, as long as it doesn't come straight from her, it's only hearsay. but by writing it down, on HER site, it shows it came from her.

That he could prove it came from her has no bearing on his response. Nice try though.

yep, nevermind the fact that she also INVITED HER CO-WORKERS to read her blog and it was a CO-WORKER who brought it up to her manager's attention.

Which wasn't what TBH was saying at all. Incidentally, you're misrepresenting this. It's not as though she invited the co-workers for the purpose of reading the note.

you do understand that the business world really doesn't care how old you are right?

You understand that her level of employment is generally not met with the same expectations as professionals, right?

why waste that effort on a person who decided on her first day that her job was boring? better to let her go and hire another teenager who would be happier at the job.

Personally, I'd take job performance. Your call though.

nevermind the fact that all those 'other people' don't post their comments on their blog and then invite their co workers to read them.

While admittedly anecdotal, my experience seems to suggest that you're either BSing or haven't actually looked around. Ever.

if we're talking about a worker, who at least made it past the probationary period. yes, I would agree. but she didn't so it's cheaper to let her go and find a job that she doesn't find 'boring' from day 1.

So if she'd worked a week longer then she would've been worth the time to talk to instead of just firing?

nice strawman. too bad it, like you, missed the point.

To be fair, there wasn't much to hit.

she showed no discretion, an unwillingness to bring work related problems to her manager to FIND A SOLUTION, a willingness to discuss company situations to others who have NO bearing on the company (or worse, might be a client.) all of which are dangerous outside of the field of marketting.

wait? I hear something... "but she didn't name the company..." her friends would know and word spreads. she allowed her co-workers to read her blog and we know the co-workers will talk because the manager found out.

What world do you live in where someone claiming that entry-level work is boring would have any sort of impact at the company at all?

you keep comming back to a 'sit down'. you do know that three weeks passed between her first complaint and her boss reading it? as an Administrative secretary, communication skills are rather important. so if she won't communicate with her boss, what makes you think a sit down will fix the job?

Because it establishes the manager as someone who is willing to listen to legitimate grievances from employees--which happens to be contrary to the stereotype of employers. A teenager would be likely to default to the stereotype and be intimidated by authority.

do you have proof of her work performance? or are you making assumptions?

You might want to get that checked out, Mr. Physician.

no, she was let go to find a job in which she could be happy.

and you will be surprised how many people keep their opinions about their NEW JOB to themselves untill after their probationary period. again, it goes back to descretion.

And you would be surprised how many don't. But since I value my word far above yours--and likely vice versa--why don't we just let the anecdotal evidence rest for a little bit?

WRONG, thanks for playing.
She was fired because she was not happy with her job. a statement made on her first day.

"It's boring" =/= "I don't appreciate working here"

you can only assume that he would've fired her if she came to him. had she gone to him and NOT facebook, they could've worked something out.

That is also an assumption.

and guess what. he did manage her. but he cannot manage her if she's not at work. unless you can show that her facebook log was made during work time, what she says is her responsibility. that means she takes responsiblity for her actions. I'm not saying she couldn't post what she did. I'm saying she has to take the consequences of her post.

That didn't actually address his point in the remotest fashion. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

yep, and communication is only from the manager to the subordinate. :rolleyes:

A good manager would initiate it that way, yes.

and she just got some. hope she learns from her experience.

"Managers are hypersensitive twats"?

except now she would know that the manager is reading her facebook account... so then she gets bitter, starts harboring negative opinions about her co-workers who ratted her out... creating a hostile work environment that affects productivity and causes the department to cut staff due to lost revenue. see, I can make such assumptions as well.

You can. Bravo. Of course the irony is that you've been doing that the whole time already, while simultaneously saying that we don't know for sure.

not reading are you? :p by saying it to people, even if it reaches the management, as long as it doesn't come straight from her, it's only hearsay. but by writing it down, on HER site, it shows it came from her.


You overlook the point. A weak comment that could have been ignored.


yep, nevermind the fact that she also INVITED HER CO-WORKERS to read her blog and it was a CO-WORKER who brought it up to her manager's attention.

Yes and so somebody was either petty or they simply brought it up and the crap manager could deal with a minor issue.

you do understand that the business world really doesn't care how old you are right?

You do understand the business world cares that a teenager could turn into a valuable employee; right?

why waste that effort on a person who decided on her first day that her job was boring? better to let her go and hire another teenager who would be happier at the job.
If you can't approach an employee; then you shouldn't be managing.

nevermind the fact that all those 'other people' don't post their comments on their blog and then invite their co workers to read them.
And you know this how?

if we're talking about a worker, who at least made it past the probationary period. yes, I would agree. but she didn't so it's cheaper to let her go and find a job that she doesn't find 'boring' from day 1.
It's not cheaper. Now you have to go through the whole process of interviewing, back ground checks(assuming since they export), etc.

A simple sit down probably would have solved it.

nice strawman. too bad it, like you, missed the point.
Calling it a strawman doesn't defeat the point. You said she showed no discretion which implies she would do what I said.

she showed no discretion, an unwillingness to bring work related problems to her manager to FIND A SOLUTION, a willingness to discuss company situations to others who have NO bearing on the company (or worse, might be a client.) all of which are dangerous outside of the field of marketting.

We are talking "what ifs" here. Do you know if she would even interface with customers? I am willing to say no.

Dangerous to the company? I am sure all the publicity the company has now is doing it so well.

wait? I hear something... "but she didn't name the company..." her friends would know and word spreads. she allowed her co-workers to read her blog and we know the co-workers will talk because the manager found out.

And I am sure the customers of the company would find out from these teenagers. I am sure they would cancel business because a 16 year old girl said her job was boring.

Nice try.

and now she has some experience. hope she learns from it. wait, she's talking to reporters about her situation... guess not.

Too bad the crap manager didn't do his job. All that attention would never have happened.....

you keep comming back to a 'sit down'. you do know that three weeks passed between her first complaint and her boss reading it? as an Administrative secretary, communication skills are rather important. so if she won't communicate with her boss, what makes you think a sit down will fix the job?

Where do you see she was an Administrative Secretary? I don't know of too many 16 years olds doing that. She was probably an assistant to the secretary. File clerk, etc...

do you have proof of her work performance? or are you making assumptions?
You are the one making the assumptions.

no, she was let go to find a job in which she could be happy.
No he is a crap manager who couldn't deal with a boring job comment on facebook.

and you will be surprised how many people keep their opinions about their NEW JOB to themselves untill after their probationary period. again, it goes back to descretion.
You would be surprised that many people bitch about their jobs in the pub even during the discretionary period.

WRONG, thanks for playing.
She was fired because she was not happy with her job. a statement made on her first day.


Wrong. She was fired because he is a crap manager with a thin skin.

you can only assume that he would've fired her if she came to him. had she gone to him and NOT facebook, they could've worked something out.
You are assuming he would have worked it out.

The FACT he fired her outright suggests he wouldn't.

and guess what. he did manage her. but he cannot manage her if she's not at work. unless you can show that her facebook log was made during work time, what she says is her responsibility. that means she takes responsiblity for her actions. I'm not saying she couldn't post what she did. I'm saying she has to take the consequences of her post.


And guess what? He didn't manage the situation. If he did; it wouldn't be all over the news and now getting into peoples blogs and they wouldn't have the contact us part of their site disabled probably due to the mail they are getting.

Much as you like to ignore it. If he talked to her then we would never have heard of this.

yep, and communication is only from the manager to the subordinate. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Yes a good manager would have talked to her.

and she just got some. hope she learns from her experience.

except now she would know that the manager is reading her facebook account... so then she gets bitter, starts harboring negative opinions about her co-workers who ratted her out... creating a hostile work environment that affects productivity and causes the department to cut staff due to lost revenue. see, I can make such assumptions as well.


:D Problem is the fact remains. If the crap manager had done his job, this would not have been all over the news. Your "assumptions" would have most people agreeing her termination was warranted. However, try to explain how a 16 year old complaining about whole punching creates a hostile work environment.


you don't know that.

And you do? They are mum to the claim they said nothing and I read she has little chance of redress so they probably didn't.

she was informed about how to go about handling problems at work. the standard work contract outlines this. she bypassed the process and she got spanked hard. she's lucky that she's getting this lession now when it's not going to affect her.


Ah so where in the contract does it talk about social sites? Where does it talk about not saying your job is boring.

Such contracts talk about abusive managers and workers, being called to do things outside of your duties, violations of the law....

I never noticed a section about not saying your job is boring.


now my advice to her would be
1) do not discuss work conditions to strangers (facebook, LJ, and other social networking sites count as strangers)
2) don't put that company down for her work history. drop them like they dropped her. fortunatly it can work since she was only there for 3 weeks. no work gap that needs to be 'explained'. and yes, new employers will ask if there is a work gap.
3) Talk with her new boss. shows a willingness to learn and work with others.
4) if the task is boring, grit your teeth and do the best job she can. Managers want to know that you can produce quality work on projects not seen as 'glamours'.

as you keep saying, she's 16 and inexperienced. well, now she's 16 and has some.

Ahhh so you agree he should have talked to her. Yup that would have avoided the news attention.

She got a great deal of attention and sympathy over this.

Now the crap manager is in the news for something that shouldn't have been in the news.

Yep he did a GREAT job.

That he could prove it came from her has no bearing on his response. Nice try though. except by saying it, doubt can be placed.

Which wasn't what TBH was saying at all. Incidentally, you're misrepresenting this. It's not as though she invited the co-workers for the purpose of reading the note. she posted it, it's logged in there, how do you know she didn't want them to read it.

You understand that her level of employment is generally not met with the same expectations as professionals, right?you do realize that
1) being reported in, someone else though it warrented managerial attention.
2) all employees have to be treated equally.
3) any coddling on his part can be seen as favoritism and that can be more damaging than letting her go.

Personally, I'd take job performance. Your call though. she didn't work long enough to warrant a rating on job performance. so I would rate her against what she said during her interview and the job requirements.

While admittedly anecdotal, my experience seems to suggest that you're either BSing or haven't actually looked around. Ever. ok, try this then. go and research all teen bloggers who lost their jobs because of something they posted and give me the percentile against all teen bloggers who still hold their part time jobs and another percentile against all teens who are working part time.

my experience has been that even when I found the job boring, I kept my mouth shut, did the work and when problems arose, brought it to manager's attention. guess what? haven't been fired yet.

So if she'd worked a week longer then she would've been worth the time to talk to instead of just firing? depends on the company's probationary period. some are 3-6 months long. if there's is 1 month. then yes. as soon as she passed the probationary period, she would be considered an employee. now if their company had an at will employment philosophy...

To be fair, there wasn't much to hit. but he still missed it. :p

What world do you live in where someone claiming that entry-level work is boring would have any sort of impact at the company at all? a world where someone says they are self motivating, eager and enthusiastic about working at a place then turns around the first day and complains that her new job is boring would be considered... I dunno... lying? you do know that most applications have a little statement that says everything covered is the truth?

also, the point that you are also missing, is that she is showing a lack of discretion. it's not the fact that she said her job is boring, but who she said it to (here's a hint... it wasn't the manager) and when (another hint... her first day where they usually have the new employees doing the MOST menial task.)

Because it establishes the manager as someone who is willing to listen to legitimate grievances from employeesand where was her legitimate grievance to her manager? oh yeah... Not THERE! FYI, Facebook is normally NOT a reconized avenue to submitting greivences to one's manager.
--which happens to be contrary to the stereotype of employers. A teenager would be likely to default to the stereotype and be intimidated by authority.
she was willing to invite people who were her senior to read her blog and could not leave an e-mail or letter to her boss?

can anyone else say contradiction?0


You might want to get that checked out, Mr. Physician. TBF is the one who said Yes if she couldn't or wouldn't do the job or did it badly after being shown the correct wayhe brought up work performance. of which it was never stated she was a good employee or not.

How concerns are brought up is normally outlined when the person is hired. so she was informed.

And you would be surprised how many don't. But since I value my word far above yours--and likely vice versa--why don't we just let the anecdotal evidence rest for a little bit? really? link to all those bloggers who complain about their new job on the first day.

really, I'm curious since your anecdotal evidence can actually be proven.

"It's boring" =/= "I don't appreciate working here" :rolleyes: and she was fired because she wasn't appreciating work...

That is also an assumption. which is a reply to TBF's assumption. so you admit that her being fired had she talked to the boss is also an assumption.

That didn't actually address his point in the remotest fashion. it does. in more ways than one.
if she blogged after work, he has no control over what she does outside of work, thus cannot manage her and thus can only address her symptoms. her implied unhappiness with her new job.

if she blogged during work, then using the internet during business hours is a FIRING OFFENSE for many buisinesses and that shows restraint on his part in not mentioning that.

and considering I'm not concerned with any 'points' you are not rewarding, I could care less about your points.

A good manager would initiate it that way, yes. and a good administrative assistant wouldn't need to initiate it. three weeks went by without her saying a peep. and now, a thoughtless post by her came back to bite her on the ass. now she knows. anything you post on the internet can come back to haunt you.

"Managers are hypersensitive twats"?if that's what you learned. then keep your points. you NEED ALL THE HELP YOU CAN GET!

You can. Bravo. Of course the irony is that you've been doing that the whole time already, while simultaneously saying that we don't know for sure.and we don't.

the company letter letting her go said that“Following your comments made on Facebook about your job and the company we feel it is better that, as you are not happy and do not enjoy your work we end your employment with Ivell Marketing & Logistics with immediate effect,” the letter read.

not 'comment' but with an 's'. so that can imply it wasn't just ONE statement and somewhere she may have let slip the name of the company. can anyone link to her facebook? let's get some facts then. put up a link so that we can see all her posts.

can anyone link to her facebook? let's get some facts then. put up a link so that we can see all her posts.

facebook does not work that way

except by saying it, doubt can be placed.

Except I'm not arguing what is safer pragmatically. I'm arguing whether her employer was being reasonable. He was within his rights most likely, but not what I would consider a good manager to be. And yes, I'm far too young to have worked for many of them, but my father was a sales manager, and I got a lot of experience watching him and other managers.

From what I've heard, this one does not appear to be a good one.

she posted it, it's logged in there, how do you know she didn't want them to read it.

I'm saying that there isn't evidence to show that she did want them to to read it specifically. If you have evidence that shows it does, then

you do realize that
1) being reported in, someone else though it warrented managerial attention.

Fine. Then address the issue.

2) all employees have to be treated equally.
3) any coddling on his part can be seen as favoritism and that can be more damaging than letting her go.

Considering this is an entry-level worker that's in High School, I very much doubt that a little bit of slack-cutting coupled with a conversation about why that wasn't a smart move wouldn't be seen as favoritism.

she didn't work long enough to warrant a rating on job performance. so I would rate her against what she said during her interview and the job requirements.

And what did she say at her interview?

ok, try this then. go and research all teen bloggers who lost their jobs because of something they posted and give me the percentile against all teen bloggers who still hold their part time jobs and another percentile against all teens who are working part time.

really? link to all those bloggers who complain about their new job on the first day.

really, I'm curious since your anecdotal evidence can actually be proven.
my experience has been that even when I found the job boring, I kept my mouth shut, did the work and when problems arose, brought it to manager's attention. guess what? haven't been fired yet.

I'm not going to. Do you know why? It's because my anecdotal evidence isn't meant to prove anything. You made a claim from your experience and I made one from mine that showed things contrary to yours. Read the part you quoted where I suggested that we drop the anecdotal evidence on both sides altogether.

a world where someone says they are self motivating, eager and enthusiastic about working at a place then turns around the first day and complains that her new job is boring would be considered... I dunno... lying? you do know that most applications have a little statement that says everything covered is the truth?

"You said you'd enjoy working here, but you ended up finding the work boring! You're a liar!"

...Really? Are we like five, or something?

also, the point that you are also missing, is that she is showing a lack of discretion. it's not the fact that she said her job is boring, but who she said it to (here's a hint... it wasn't the manager) and when (another hint... her first day where they usually have the new employees doing the MOST menial task.)

Actually it is the fact of what she said. Because it wasn't anything that people should have paid any heed to whatsoever.

and where was her legitimate grievance to her manager? oh yeah... Not THERE! FYI, Facebook is normally NOT a reconized avenue to submitting greivences to one's manager.

Which may not have happened had he made sure she knew that talking to him about it was an option available to her. It's in the post. Read it.

she was willing to invite people who were her senior to read her blog and could not leave an e-mail or letter to her boss?

can anyone else say contradiction?0

No. Because her boss is in a position of authority that might be intimidating to a High Schooler, whereas her peers were y'know, peers.

How concerns are brought up is normally outlined when the person is hired. so she was informed.

So you're assuming that this is the case? :tongue:

:rolleyes: and she was fired because she wasn't appreciating work...

Try again. She may have found the work boring, but still appreciated that she had a job.

which is a reply to TBF's assumption. so you admit that her being fired had she talked to the boss is also an assumption.

...Uh...no shit?

it does. in more ways than one.
if she blogged after work, he has no control over what she does outside of work, thus cannot manage her and thus can only address her symptoms. her implied unhappiness with her new job.

Which could have been addressed at work thus causing her not to do it when not at work.

if she blogged during work, then using the internet during business hours is a FIRING OFFENSE for many buisinesses and that shows restraint on his part in not mentioning that.

Good thing we don't know if she was at work when she did it, isn't it?

and considering I'm not concerned with any 'points' you are not rewarding, I could care less about your points.

It was a Billy Madison joke. Don't get your knickers in a twist there, pal.

and a good administrative assistant wouldn't need to initiate it.

And why are you assuming a high school girl at her first job would be initially anything but mediocre?

if that's what you learned. then keep your points. you NEED ALL THE HELP YOU CAN GET!

:rolleyes:

and we don't.

the company letter letting her go said that

not 'comment' but with an 's'. so that can imply it wasn't just ONE statement and somewhere she may have let slip the name of the company. can anyone link to her facebook? let's get some facts then. put up a link so that we can see all her posts.

That would actually be helpful. It's possible that the true extent of the situation has not been mentioned in the article. Perhaps she had in fact been making these posts for an extended period, and perhaps the manager even had a word with her about during this time?

I second the request to link her Facebook.

facebook does not work that way

Depends on her security settings and on whether these were statuses or notes.

You overlook the point. A weak comment that could have been ignored. or maybe not. we really should get a link to her facebook (can't find one).

Yes and so somebody was either petty or they simply brought it up and the crap manager could deal with a minor issue. yep, petty co-workers. however, such a complaint can be legitemate while what kim did wasn't.

You do understand the business world cares that a teenager could turn into a valuable employee; right? yep. but the business world also cares about how much resources would be need to turn someone into a valuable employee.

If you can't approach an employee; then you shouldn't be managing. managers are human to. thus they can only react to problems they know about. to have it revealed that a problem has been existing for 3 weeks and thus lying to the manager.

It's not cheaper. Now you have to go through the whole process of interviewing, back ground checks(assuming since they export), etc. actually it is. because it's been only what. 3 weeks, they would still have their list of applicants and thus can choose the next one who did well in the interviews.

A simple sit down probably would have solved it. yep. probably would.

Calling it a strawman doesn't defeat the point. You said she showed no discretion which implies she would do what I said.maybe she would. after all, she was bored.

We are talking "what ifs" here. Do you know if she would even interface with customers? I am willing to say no. administrative assistant? bigger chance than other full time posistions.

Dangerous to the company? I am sure all the publicity the company has now is doing it so well. it could very well be. they are a marketting firm after all.

And I am sure the customers of the company would find out from these teenagers. I am sure they would cancel business because a 16 year old girl said her job was boring. maybe maybe not. sponsors dropped an olympic athlete who smoked one joint. customers are fickle creatures.

Too bad the crap manager didn't do his job. All that attention would never have happened..... yep. too bad she had to post on her blog. then she would still be working and not be so bored now.

Where do you see she was an Administrative Secretary? I don't know of too many 16 years olds doing that. She was probably an assistant to the secretary. File clerk, etc...[QUOTE]which still requires communication skills. and you do know how much information a secretary (yes, even a secretary's secretary) would have to handle?

[QUOTE=The Black Forrest;14566292]You are the one making the assumptions. you're the one mentioning her work performance. I'm focusing on her post and what managers would interpret.

No he is a crap manager who couldn't deal with a boring job comment on facebook. who's making assumptions again? ;)

You would be surprised that many people bitch about their jobs in the pub even during the discretionary period. yep. again, you know the difference between saying something and writing it down right?

Wrong. She was fired because he is a crap manager with a thin skin. gee another assumption.

You are assuming he would have worked it out. just as you assumed he wouldn't.

The FACT he fired her outright suggests he wouldn't.and the fact that the letter implies more than one comment suggests it wasn't just one post.

And guess what? He didn't manage the situation. If he did; it wouldn't be all over the news and now getting into peoples blogs and they wouldn't have the contact us part of their site disabled probably due to the mail they are getting.

Much as you like to ignore it. If he talked to her then we would never have heard of this.

:rolleyes: Yes a good manager would have talked to her.

:D Problem is the fact remains. If the crap manager had done his job, this would not have been all over the news. Your "assumptions" would have most people agreeing her termination was warranted. However, try to explain how a 16 year old complaining about whole punching creates a hostile work environment.

no it wouldn't be that simple. because one employee reported her in. petty or not something had to be done. now if we could evaluate her facebook and see if it was one post or a series of posts and replies then perhaps we can all stop assuming things.

And you do? They are mum to the claim they said nothing and I read she has little chance of redress so they probably didn't.
look at the reaction so far. a talk with her COULD (yes an assumption) have had her posting "OMG! my boss scolded me today about my facebook post, totall lack of privacy!" (ok, I make a terrible teen blogger).

and she has very little chance of redress because the company didn't do anything illegal.

Ah so where in the contract does it talk about social sites? Where does it talk about not saying your job is boring. some contracts have a little clause about how to go about with internal complaints. it's usually tied in with the same clause about using professional mediators. no where does it state to use facebook, nor does it protect any use of facebook or other network sites.

Such contracts talk about abusive managers and workers, being called to do things outside of your duties, violations of the law....

I never noticed a section about not saying your job is boring. Look for complaints about working conditions.

or better yet, look at all the other examples of facebook users getting fired with little or no redress. while the numbers are not astronomical, there is a trend.

Ahhh so you agree he should have talked to her. Yup that would have avoided the news attention.

She got a great deal of attention and sympathy over this.

Now the crap manager is in the news for something that shouldn't have been in the news.

Yep he did a GREAT job. yep. how it plays out is now for the world to see.

Depends on her security settings and on whether these were statuses or notes.

from what the articles say, they were status updates, so presumably we'd need to either be her friends or maybe be in the same network as her - assuming she hasn't locked it down even more since becoming international news. i know that i can't see it.

This should be a lesson to everyone. If you don't like your job, are bored by your job, have a temporary grievance about your job, are peeved with someone at your job - don't post anything about it online, don't tell anyone from work, don't tell friends or family (because they might let it slip). Instead, write it down in lemon juice on a piece of paper, then burn it - because, while in the US, England and some other countries, there is freedom of speech, there is, apparently, no freedom from repercussions stemming from a chance remark or venting. I doubt even things said to a psychologist, psychiatrist or in the confessional are safe anymore. It has become, truly, a sad world.

Perhaps while preventing people from being removed from their jobs for trivial/arbitrary reasons, there should be a committee crated to prevent people from leaving their jobs for arbitrary or trivial reasons? After all, if we are to stop employers from harming the economic status of their employees for bad reasons we should also stop employees from harming the economic prospects of their employer and coworkers. I mean, is it fair on a team of staff if one person decides to leave a job just because it is boring if they are vital to the operating of the team? We should create a government department to force them to work.

This should be a lesson to everyone. If you don't like your job, are bored by your job, have a temporary grievance about your job, are peeved with someone at your job - don't post anything about it online, don't tell anyone from work, don't tell friends or family (because they might let it slip). Instead, write it down in lemon juice on a piece of paper, then burn it - because, while in the US, England and some other countries, there is freedom of speech, there is, apparently, no freedom from repercussions stemming from a chance remark or venting. I doubt even things said to a psychologist, psychiatrist or in the confessional are safe anymore. It has become, truly, a sad world.
Well, I think that might be going a little far, but in general, I do believe that one should not be in the habit of saying things behind a person's back that you would not say to their face. So if you hate your job, your boss should not be the last one to know about it. One should either say it up front, own it and be proud of it, or keep one's mouth shut.

Well, I think that might be going a little far, but in general, I do believe that one should not be in the habit of saying things behind a person's back that you would not say to their face. So if you hate your job, your boss should not be the last one to know about it. One should either say it up front, own it and be proud of it, or keep one's mouth shut.

So you're saying that a person who is having issues with his/her job, but who finds him/herself in a situation where it's that job or starve and have your family starve, must not, cannot, vent about it? These days, that's a lot of people. Good recipe for mental health - stay in a job you hate because you have no other alternative and be unable to vent about it, just store it all up inside until you "go postal."

I was in one of those jobs. For the first six-seven years it was a good job, I enjoyed the people and the work. Then one day I woke up and found that the people who made it worthwhile were gone and the corporate culture had changed from one of support and teamwork to one where the management determinedly undermined the workers, up to and including giving unmerited poor evaluations, refusal to give references and public dressing downs for trivia. I stayed in that job, thinking I had no alternatives, for another 16 years, getting progressively more stressed. If I had not had people I could talk to about the situation (telling my boss my feelings would have gotten me fired on the spot and with no recourse) I would have either killed myself or my boss. The day I retired was probably the happiest day of my life.

And don't tell me that this is exceptional, you're going to find more and more situations like this as the economy gets worse. I just hope you don't find yourself in such a case.

Actually, you sound much like my mother, who, without saying a word, indicated that I had no right to my feelings and no right to express them and if I was unhappy about a situation and couldn't change it, well, tough shit.

So you're saying that a person who is having issues with his/her job, but who finds him/herself in a situation where it's that job or starve and have your family starve, must not, cannot, vent about it? These days, that's a lot of people. Good recipe for mental health - stay in a job you hate because you have no other alternative and be unable to vent about it, just store it all up inside until you "go postal."

I was in one of those jobs. For the first six-seven years it was a good job, I enjoyed the people and the work. Then one day I woke up and found that the people who made it worthwhile were gone and the corporate culture had changed from one of support and teamwork to one where the management determinedly undermined the workers, up to and including giving unmerited poor evaluations, refusal to give references and public dressing downs for trivia. I stayed in that job, thinking I had no alternatives, for another 16 years, getting progressively more stressed. If I had not had people I could talk to about the situation (telling my boss my feelings would have gotten me fired on the spot and with no recourse) I would have either killed myself or my boss. The day I retired was probably the happiest day of my life.

And don't tell me that this is exceptional, you're going to find more and more situations like this as the economy gets worse. I just hope you don't find yourself in such a case.

Actually, you sound much like my mother, who, without saying a word, indicated that I had no right to my feelings and no right to express them and if I was unhappy about a situation and couldn't change it, well, tough shit.
And you sound like someone who is assuming I live inside the little box of your personal assumptions. Context:

No, it is NOT exceptional. It is the case for the majority of people in the world that they spend most of their working lives biting their tongues and not saying what is on their mind. And they suffer stress, anxiety, anger, and unhappiness because of it. I have had more bad jobs than good ones. I suffer less than some other people I know because I DON'T keep my mouth shut and take the attitude of "fuck it, let the chips fall where they may" -- but even so I have several times been in jobs I could not afford to quit. Jobs so bad that people I owed money to -- like my landlord in one instance and doctor in another -- urged me to quit. I've had jobs where I was stalked, where I was criticized for not smiling enough (with a count of how many times I had smiled during a given day), where the bosses liked to watch porn in the common areas, where the workplace was infested with rats and cockroaches (these are all different jobs, by the way). The worst job I've ever had was far from boring -- it had me working without a break for up to 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, drinking up to 10 cups of coffee every 8 hours, and getting the first symptoms of an ulcer within two years.

And I've had "omg I'm so totally bord" jobs, too. Only I never got an ulcer from those because I usually quit them in less than two months on the grounds that if they hadn't gotten any more interesting by then, they never would.

In almost 30 years of working, and changing jobs like socks, I've only ever been fired three times -- and all three cited negative attitude as the reason for letting me go. And all three were perfectly right -- I did have an extremely negative attitude towards the jobs and my bosses, and they didn't need to spy on a Facebook page to find out about it. (By the way, two of those three happened within the first month of hire, and the third was the result of an interpersonal conflict that got so out of hand, I ended up bringing in a lawyer to get my record straightened out -- that one I had very good reason to be negative about).

There's one thing that has been constant in my life -- if I've left a job because I was not happy there, my resignation did NOT come as a surprise to my bosses, because I DID express my feelings -- and not behind their backs.

But the bottom line is this: Yes, if you don't like your job, you have two options -- suffer or get a different job. And while you are trying to make that choice, you should not be so stupid as to think that you can bitch about your job in public, under your own name and not have it get back to the boss you don't like. Either do your public bitching and if it gets back to the boss, oh well, take what comes of it. Or else keep your damn mouth shut -- or at least use the shield of a screen alias.

The girl in this story is a naive little prima donna who doesn't understand how reality works. Now she is learning. This is good. This is life. It could have been far worse -- she could have made this mistake when she had rent of her own to pay and maybe a child to feed.

And you sound like someone who is assuming I live inside the little box of your personal assumptions. Context:

No, it is NOT exceptional. It is the case for the majority of people in the world that they spend most of their working lives biting their tongues and not saying what is on their mind. And they suffer stress, anxiety, anger, and unhappiness because of it. I have had more bad jobs than good ones. I suffer less than some other people I know because I DON'T keep my mouth shut and take the attitude of "fuck it, let the chips fall where they may" -- but even so I have several times been in jobs I could not afford to quit. Jobs so bad that people I owed money to -- like my landlord in one instance and doctor in another -- urged me to quit. I've had jobs where I was stalked, where I was criticized for not smiling enough (with a count of how many times I had smiled during a given day), where the bosses liked to watch porn in the common areas, where the workplace was infested with rats and cockroaches (these are all different jobs, by the way). The worst job I've ever had was far from boring -- it had me working without a break for up to 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, drinking up to 10 cups of coffee every 8 hours, and getting the first symptoms of an ulcer within two years.

And I've had "omg I'm so totally bord" jobs, too. Only I never got an ulcer from those because I usually quit them in less than two months on the grounds that if they hadn't gotten any more interesting by then, they never would.

In almost 30 years of working, and changing jobs like socks, I've only ever been fired three times -- and all three cited negative attitude as the reason for letting me go. And all three were perfectly right -- I did have an extremely negative attitude towards the jobs and my bosses, and they didn't need to spy on a Facebook page to find out about it. (By the way, two of those three happened within the first month of hire, and the third was the result of an interpersonal conflict that got so out of hand, I ended up bringing in a lawyer to get my record straightened out -- that one I had very good reason to be negative about).

There's one thing that has been constant in my life -- if I've left a job because I was not happy there, my resignation did NOT come as a surprise to my bosses, because I DID express my feelings -- and not behind their backs.

But the bottom line is this: Yes, if you don't like your job, you have two options -- suffer or get a different job. And while you are trying to make that choice, you should not be so stupid as to think that you can bitch about your job in public, under your own name and not have it get back to the boss you don't like. Either do your public bitching and if it gets back to the boss, oh well, take what comes of it. Or else keep your damn mouth shut -- or at least use the shield of a screen alias.

The girl in this story is a naive little prima donna who doesn't understand how reality works. Now she is learning. This is good. This is life. It could have been far worse -- she could have made this mistake when she had rent of her own to pay and maybe a child to feed.

I suspect that we may actually have a bit in common. I kept my mouth shut in a horrible job - and because I had been out of work for extended periods (with a family to support), didn't open it because I didn't want to risk my kids' well-being. I still believe that there has to be a safety valve and that people shouldn't have to live in fear of inadvertantly letting something slip or of betrayal by someone they should have been able to trust.

As for the kid, it's a harsh way to learn discretion and I think the employer is lacking in understanding of the thought processes (or lack thereof) of sixteen-year-old children.

or maybe not. we really should get a link to her facebook (can't find one).

She is there(at least the last time I looked). She is set to invites....

yep, petty co-workers. however, such a complaint can be legitemate while what kim did wasn't.
What she did was HARMLESS. The only people hurt by it was the crap manager. You have to show how she is bored damanged the work environment.

yep. but the business world also cares about how much resources would be need to turn someone into a valuable employee.
Yep. "Don't do that anymore!" Really a costly waste of resources.

managers are human to. thus they can only react to problems they know about. to have it revealed that a problem has been existing for 3 weeks and thus lying to the manager.
Nice attempt of distraction. Try to stay with the topic. The only way she could have lied to the manager is if he asked her how things were going.

actually it is. because it's been only what. 3 weeks, they would still have their list of applicants and thus can choose the next one who did well in the interviews.
Actually no it's note. You don't do back ground checks(again assuming since it's an export/import group) and reference checks on people. Then the process of getting the new person inside. Equipment and such.

maybe she would. after all, she was bored.
Ahh admission of the assumption.

administrative assistant? bigger chance than other full time posistions.
No. An AA is the "new" term for secretary. She most likely was the assistant to the AA.

it could very well be. they are a marketting firm after all.
They are a logistics company that does marketing stuff as well. Product design, etc.

maybe maybe not. sponsors dropped an olympic athlete who smoked one joint. customers are fickle creatures.

Well let's see. A person smoking an illegal substance vs "I am so bored"

At least put some effort into it.

which still requires communication skills. and you do know how much information a secretary (yes, even a secretary's secretary) would have to handle?
Not to the extent of the AA. Her job is more about taking orders.

you're the one mentioning her work performance. I'm focusing on her post and what managers would interpret.
Yes. Because a person should be measured on their job and not "I'm so bored"

You are not a manager are you?

who's making assumptions again? ;)

Ah no. I am calling him one. He is a bad manager.

yep. again, you know the difference between saying something and writing it down right?

Yes and do you understand "I am bored" is hardly damaging to a work environment.

gee another assumption.
You are making the assumptions. I am calling him a crap manager. A good manager would have handled this.

just as you assumed he wouldn't.

No. He fired her outright without discussion. He was going to work on nothing.

and the fact that the letter implies more than one comment suggests it wasn't just one post.
No you assumed that was the meaning.

no it wouldn't be that simple. because one employee reported her in. petty or not something had to be done. now if we could evaluate her facebook and see if it was one post or a series of posts and replies then perhaps we can all stop assuming things.

Not damning at all. Even if she gave you access I bet you would declared she deleted the assumed other comments.

look at the reaction so far. a talk with her COULD (yes an assumption) have had her posting "OMG! my boss scolded me today about my facebook post, totall lack of privacy!" (ok, I make a terrible teen blogger).
:rolleyes:

Which again shows the manager could have told her to knock it off and requested the need for a POLICY about social networks. Sorry he is still a crap manager.

and she has very little chance of redress because the company didn't do anything illegal.
I don't know British worker law so I am not commenting.

some contracts have a little clause about how to go about with internal complaints. it's usually tied in with the same clause about using professional mediators. no where does it state to use facebook, nor does it protect any use of facebook or other network sites.

Ahh those are for work related problems such as an abusive staff, manager, theft, etc. The manager is supposed to deal with issues of "I am bored"

Look for complaints about working conditions.

:rolleyes: Don't talk about things you don't know.

or better yet, look at all the other examples of facebook users getting fired with little or no redress. while the numbers are not astronomical, there is a trend.
Yes. Many bad managers out there.

yep. how it plays out is now for the world to see.
Yes and this type of thing doesn't need to be seen by the world. A good manager would have handled it. He couldn't.

The girl in this story is a naive little prima donna who doesn't understand how reality works. Now she is learning. This is good. This is life. It could have been far worse -- she could have made this mistake when she had rent of her own to pay and maybe a child to feed.

I am curious to why you think she is a prima donna?

I think it's rather funny that anyone would suggest that calling this guy a bad manager requires an assumption. This dude took a harmless comment that, as far as anyone here knows, was made once, and turned it into international news. Negative news. He made the explicit comment he didn't want bad things said about it in the news. He wasn't in the news till he touched this situation. That's a bad manager by every definition of the word.

She was a teenager who complained about being bored. If you're too stupid or too incompetent as a manager to deal with that issue without jumping immediately to firing, you are not qualified for the job.

I suspect that we may actually have a bit in common. I kept my mouth shut in a horrible job - and because I had been out of work for extended periods (with a family to support), didn't open it because I didn't want to risk my kids' well-being. I still believe that there has to be a safety valve and that people shouldn't have to live in fear of inadvertantly letting something slip or of betrayal by someone they should have been able to trust.

As for the kid, it's a harsh way to learn discretion and I think the employer is lacking in understanding of the thought processes (or lack thereof) of sixteen-year-old children.
Everyone who has ever really had to work has this kind of thing in common. Dealing with bad work situations that we can't afford to get out of at a given time in our lives is just part of life and has been for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

As for safety valves, there are many -- at least two I can think of off the top of my head. In fact, they are the two I've been mentioning throughout this thread -- (1) do your venting off line, among your personal friends and family who are not associated with the job; or (2) use an online alias to vent under until you stop working there.

As for people we should be able to trust -- why should we assume we can trust our co-workers? Especially on a job we have not had for very long. Those people are strangers to us, not part of our lives. We don't know their character, and they don't know ours.

Kids These Days (tm) like the girl in the OP story seem to think they should be able to flit about the world saying and doing whatever they like without repercussions. Realizing that life does not work that way, that sometimes something they say or do will come back to bite them, even if it's not fair, is part of growing up. So is learning how to tell whom to trust and whom to call friend and how to behave around the different people in and outside that group. Flubbing a job in some childish manner, suffering a bitter and embarassing setback (like getting fired), is part of entering the work force early -- I had embarrassing exits from jobs when I was a teen (though I quit my summer jobs -- I'm pretty impatient with jobs). So did all my little neighborhood friends. People are acting like this is some enormous tragedy -- a 16-year-old acted her age and got fired = not news. Just one of the knocks we get in gaining experience.

As for the insensitivity of the boss -- I've said over and over again (really, do people seriously not read any posts in threads unless they are addressed directly to them?), that this boss acted like an ass. But so what? He was her boss, not her parent or teacher or counselor. He doesn't have to care about the though processes of a child. He only needs to care about the deeds of an employee. Now he can go down in her life as an example of a bad boss and how you can't make assumptions about how people you don't really know are going to react to something you might do.

I am curious to why you think she is a prima donna?
The fact that she thought her job was supposed to be fun and entertaining for her. The fact that she fussed and whined about it on Facebook. The fact that she invited others to come look at her venting. The fact that she embraces press coverage about the fall out from that. All that suggests to me a typical teen-age attention-and-drama maven who feels the world revolving around her, i.e. prima donna.

The fact that she thought her job was supposed to be fun and entertaining for her. The fact that she fussed and whined about it on Facebook. The fact that she invited others to come look at her venting. The fact that she embraces press coverage about the fall out from that. All that suggests to me a typical teen-age attention-and-drama maven who feels the world revolving around her, i.e. prima donna.

Ok.

In re safety valves for venting:

I've heard tall tales that, in Japan, where it is common practice for office staff to go out drinking all together after work, with their bosses, there is an unofficial rule that a boss cannot punish a worker for anything they might say while they are drunk. So if a worker gets totally tanked after work and tells his boss in the bar that he's a cocksucking whore who sucked cock to get his job and licks balls to keep it, that won't be held against him on account of he was plastered when he said it.

I have no idea if that is even partially true, but if it isn't, it should be.

Of course, it would not have helped the OP girl because I believe she's too young to drink? 16 is too young in the UK, right?

Everyone who has ever really had to work has this kind of thing in common. Dealing with bad work situations that we can't afford to get out of at a given time in our lives is just part of life and has been for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

As for safety valves, there are many -- at least two I can think of off the top of my head. In fact, they are the two I've been mentioning throughout this thread -- (1) do your venting off line, among your personal friends and family who are not associated with the job; or (2) use an online alias to vent under until you stop working there.

As for people we should be able to trust -- why should we assume we can trust our co-workers? Especially on a job we have not had for very long. Those people are strangers to us, not part of our lives. We don't know their character, and they don't know ours.

Kids These Days (tm) like the girl in the OP story seem to think they should be able to flit about the world saying and doing whatever they like without repercussions. Realizing that life does not work that way, that sometimes something they say or do will come back to bite them, even if it's not fair, is part of growing up. So is learning how to tell whom to trust and whom to call friend and how to behave around the different people in and outside that group. Flubbing a job in some childish manner, suffering a bitter and embarassing setback (like getting fired), is part of entering the work force early -- I had embarrassing exits from jobs when I was a teen (though I quit my summer jobs -- I'm pretty impatient with jobs). So did all my little neighborhood friends. People are acting like this is some enormous tragedy -- a 16-year-old acted her age and got fired = not news. Just one of the knocks we get in gaining experience.

As for the insensitivity of the boss -- I've said over and over again (really, do people seriously not read any posts in threads unless they are addressed directly to them?), that this boss acted like an ass. But so what? He was her boss, not her parent or teacher or counselor. He doesn't have to care about the though processes of a child. He only needs to care about the deeds of an employee. Now he can go down in her life as an example of a bad boss and how you can't make assumptions about how people you don't really know are going to react to something you might do.

Or maybe, she thought employers had an ounce of sense. She made a comment on the first day she worked at the company. Over time, she made friends and work and invited them to friend her on a social networking site.

Companies do and should encourage friendships to form at work. They expect that people talk about work outside of work and that occasionally those people vent.

If this manager were remotely rational, he'd have noticed this was three weeks ago, that there was not any evidence of another case of her saying anything negative and instead of telling an employee to go find something useful to do, he encouraged a terribly distrustful atmosphere.

There is nothing positive about this move by the company and any reasonable employee should think they can say something as mundane as "my first day at work was dull" without getting fired. That you gathered from such behavior that she's a "prima donna" and went on an ageist rant is astonishing.

Or maybe, she thought employers had an ounce of sense. She made a comment on the first day she worked at the company. Over time, she made friends and work and invited them to friend her on a social networking site.
You apparently only skimmed the OP. The girl was 16. She had no experience upon which to make any assumptions about employers. She exhibited remarkably little sense in the quoted Facebook comments. There is little evidence that she had been on the job all that long.

Companies do and should encourage friendships to form at work. They expect that people talk about work outside of work and that occasionally those people vent.

If this manager were remotely rational, he'd have noticed this was three weeks ago, that there was not any evidence of another case of her saying anything negative and instead of telling an employee to go find something useful to do, he encouraged a terribly distrustful atmosphere.

There is nothing positive about this move by the company and any reasonable employee should think they can say something as mundane as "my first day at work was dull" without getting fired. That you gathered from such behavior that she's a "prima donna" and went on an ageist rant is astonishing.
Remind me, if I ever end up working at the same place as you, never to tell you anything personal about myself and never to go out drinking after work with you. Sure, that boss was a jackass -- and I'm really getting pissed off at all the people who make me keep repeating that in this thread -- but your apparent beliefs about what workplace dynamics are supposed to be are exactly the kind of too-personal shit that makes me keep quitting jobs, just to avoid sinking into the totally-unrelated-to-the-work morass of people expecting me to pay attention to them.

Tell me, have you ever sat at your desk and counted the number of times your office mate smiled during the day?

Also "ageist rant" made me lol. You know, if you had read the fucking thread, you would have understood my position on this issue.

And no, I'm not going to outline it again just for you. Prima donna.

The fact that she thought her job was supposed to be fun and entertaining for her. The fact that she fussed and whined about it on Facebook. The fact that she invited others to come look at her venting. The fact that she embraces press coverage about the fall out from that. All that suggests to me a typical teen-age attention-and-drama maven who feels the world revolving around her, i.e. prima donna.

Writing a comment in your status is "fussing and whining"? A single comment. The comments move along your page. She'd probably forgotten about it by the time she befriended coworkers.

Is it possible, just possible, that she didn't think her company was so petty as to fire her for three-week-old comments that were totally mundane and not indicative of her feelings about the job, in general?

In fact, the girl said later that she fully expected the first few days to be boring and for it to get better. Sounds like she had a pretty reasonable outlook in regards to her employment. She quite reasonably determined that it would be silly to complain to her boss that her first day was boring, so she instead made an aside comment on facebook about it.

Am I the only one that thinks adding so much weight to an offhand comment is wildly irrational (yes, I know I'm not)? You're not going by her actions. You're adding things that aren't there.

Let's give it the irrational test "All that suggests to me a typical black welfare queen who feels the world revolving around her."

Yup, fail.

Writing a comment in your status is "fussing and whining"? A single comment. The comments move along your page. She'd probably forgotten about it by the time she befriended coworkers.

Is it possible, just possible, that she didn't think her company was so petty as to fire her for three-week-old comments that were totally mundane and not indicative of her feelings about the job, in general?

In fact, the girl said later that she fully expected the first few days to be boring and for it to get better. Sounds like she had a pretty reasonable outlook in regards to her employment. She quite reasonably determined that it would be silly to complain to her boss that her first day was boring, so she instead made an aside comment on facebook about it.

Am I the only one that thinks adding so much weight to an offhand comment is wildly irrational (yes, I know I'm not)? You're not going by her actions. You're adding things that aren't there.

Let's give it the irrational test "All that suggests to me a typical black welfare queen who feels the world revolving around her."

Yup, fail.
And you still refuse to read the thread. You failed first.

You know, when I specified that her behavior was "teen" it was because I see that as a mitigating factor. She lacks the direct experience to know what she can/should do and what she should avoid because people she doesn't really know personally might react badly, unreasonably, unpredictably. Being a teen means she can't be blamed for it, even though she shouldn't be coddled over it, either.

But when people, oh, say, your age act in a similar way, they have no excuse. *puts J on the same pile as FS*

You apparently only skimmed the OP. The girl was 16. She had no experience upon which to make any assumptions about employers. She exhibited remarkably little sense in the quoted Facebook comments. There is little evidence that she had been on the job all that long.

Uh, actually, you don't know that to be true. You're making an assumption that this girl has never seen or read about a place of employment. Can you show what information you ahve to base that on?

By the time I was sixteen, I'd worked for three seperate employers and spent a large portion of my time out of school (prior to getting a job) hanging out with my father at his shop or my mother at the hospital.

Remind me, if I ever end up working at the same place as you, never to tell you anything personal about myself and never to go out drinking after work with you. Sure, that boss was a jackass -- and I'm really getting pissed off at all the people who make me keep repeating that in this thread -- but your apparent beliefs about what workplace dynamics are supposed to be are exactly the kind of too-personal shit that makes me keep quitting jobs, just to avoid sinking into the totally-unrelated-to-the-work morass of people expecting me to pay attention to them.

Tell me, have you ever sat at your desk and counted the number of times your office mate smiled during the day?

Also "ageist rant" made me lol. You know, if you had read the fucking thread, you would have understood my position on this issue.

And no, I'm not going to outline it again just for you. Prima donna.

Amusing. I love that you go an obviously ageist rant and then turn my comment about the fact that people who work together form interpersonal relationships into the exact opposiite of what you're claiming. See, you can make all the personal comments to me you like outside of work. You can do that because my company let's people have actual off-work time. Now, if I caught you talking about clients with no discretion, that would be different. But this girl did neither. She didn't make a personal comment about an employee. She didn't make a personal comment about her boss. She didn't make comments about clients. She didn't make comments about the company. She didn't even make a general comment about her job. She made a comment about her first day being dull. One comment. The first day.

I've been an employer and an employee for 20 years. I quite reasonably expect employers and clients, at least any that I would ever want to do business with, to make their decisions based on value. Not based on petty comments that no one every intended to reflect negatively on the company, clients or employees.

The only negative thing that the company suffered in any way was as the result of a crazy overreaction. And, frankly, given your reactions, this girl could give you some lessons on how to handle a job.

And you still refuse to read the thread. You failed first.

You know, when I specified that her behavior was "teen" it was because I see that as a mitigating factor. She lacks the direct experience to know what she can/should do and what she should avoid because people she doesn't really know personally might react badly, unreasonably, unpredictably. Being a teen means she can't be blamed for it, even though she shouldn't be coddled over it, either.

But when people, oh, say, your age act in a similar way, they have no excuse. *puts J on the same pile as FS*

People my age do act the same way. You want me to find how many people I know have made comments about having a crappy day at work in my friends list on facebook in the last three weeks. Jesus, I'm not sure I'm even interested in make the list of comments. If employers start firing employees for every comment that gets back to them where someone said they didn't enjoy some particular day at work, no one would have a job.

You aren't assessing this rationally. You're reading things in that aren't there based on the girl's age and then going on rants about "teenagers these days".

I love how you go on about how I didn't read the thread. Please, point to a post that will make your rants look like calm, rational assessments of the evidence? Go ahead. Provide a link.

In re safety valves for venting:

I've heard tall tales that, in Japan, where it is common practice for office staff to go out drinking all together after work, with their bosses, there is an unofficial rule that a boss cannot punish a worker for anything they might say while they are drunk. So if a worker gets totally tanked after work and tells his boss in the bar that he's a cocksucking whore who sucked cock to get his job and licks balls to keep it, that won't be held against him on account of he was plastered when he said it.

I have no idea if that is even partially true, but if it isn't, it should be.

Of course, it would not have helped the OP girl because I believe she's too young to drink? 16 is too young in the UK, right?

I don't know the protocol or the level of insults but my old boss was in Japan and he went out with our people and was stunned by the comments that flew around. His other horror was a rather tiny Japanese woman drank more then he cared to count. As he said "If I tried to match her, I would have been in a coma."

People my age do act the same way.
Yes, I know. And I don't talk to those people. All they do is bitch and yell and demand that I re-post threads that are not too long for them to read in the first place, and they insist in trying to drag me off to chase them around their favorite outrage-of-the-day bush for no reason and to no purpose. Boring, repetitive, and unproductive. At least a teen can learn. Buh-bye. You and FS can amuse yourselves with your playacting and complaints about what a useless bore I am, if either of you wants to. Or not. Ciao.

A: Holy crap! I said my first day was dull and my company fired me over it three weeks later.
B: Well, geez, you must be a typical teen-age attention-and-drama maven who feels the world revolving around her.

Yup, that's perfectly rational. Clearly, you're not making ageist comments when you say "typical". Nah.

A: Holy crap! I said my first day was dull and my company fired me over it three weeks later.
B: Well, geez, you must be a typical teen-age attention-and-drama maven who feels the world revolving around her.

Yup, that's perfectly rational. Clearly, you're not making ageist comments when you say "typical". Nah.
Meow-meow-meow. Bark-bark-bark. Sorry, that's all I hear, and all I will hear from you until you (a) read the thread AND (b) stop trying to force me to play the villain in the little play you brought with you to act out here.

As with FS, this is the last post from me to you in this thread until you say something that is actually relevant to me (to be determined by me). 'Night.

Yes, I know. And I don't talk to those people. All they do is bitch and yell and demand that I re-post threads that are not too long for them to read in the first place, and they insist in trying to drag me off to chase them around their favorite outrage-of-the-day bush for no reason and to no purpose. Boring, repetitive, and unproductive. At least a teen can learn. Buh-bye. You and FS can amuse yourselves with your playacting and complaints about what a useless bore I am, if either of you wants to. Or not. Ciao.

I love how personal you've made this. What's the matter? You don't have a rational argument so you have to attack me?

I read the whole thread. You're claiming I missed some point that someone mitigates your calling her "typical" while basically trolling all teenagers. I'm asking for you to offer up this supposed magical posts somehow negates what your current posts say.

I've seen you castrate posters for claiming somehow there is some magical post in a 20 page thread that resurrects their posts. And rightly so. Because while I can't prove there isn't such a post, you can certainly prove there is. Or you can admit that it doesn't matter what you've posted earlier in the thread, your rants are not reflective of any evidence anyone has. She made one status comment that said she'd had a dull day. It didn't even call her job dull. It just said her first day was dull. It was a comment that wasn't repeated. It wasn't spread around. She befriended people at work as the employer actually claims to be promoting based on his comments. The employer took a completely mundane comment that is common among the work force and immediately terminated an employee for something that was completely off-the-job. I certainly hope she doesn't think it's something she should expect in the workforce, because it isn't. In 20 years, I've never encountered such a thing.

Employees are valuable. Moreso, employees feeling comfortable in their jobs and with their fellow employees is valuable. This manager undermined an entire workforce with this move, brought bad press to his company and fired a person for perfectly reasonable behavior that was not work-related. This teenager should learn from this that unfortunately, some managers are qualified to hold the job. That's all she should learn. There is no reason for her to change her behavior because she did nothing wrong.

Honestly, would it be okay with you that I imagine you shaking a cane at the screen right now after just coming back inside for shooing kids off your lawn? Because that's the equivalent of the rant you're making about this girl and with far less evidence.

You and FS can amuse yourselves with your playacting and complaints about what a useless bore I am, if either of you wants to. Or not. Ciao.

dude, does J now remind you of an ex too?

Meow-meow-meow. Bark-bark-bark. Sorry, that's all I hear, and all I will hear from you until you (a) read the thread AND (b) stop trying to force me to play the villain in the little play you brought with you to act out here.

As with FS, this is the last post from me to you in this thread until you say something that is actually relevant to me (to be determined by me). 'Night.

Ah, yes, I wonder how many times you've gotten on various posters that claim the evidence that you aren't seeing was posted if only they search the thread hard enough. Search the thread, they cry.

And if I read the whole thread and found nothing that could be construed to mitigate your ageist rants, then what? How do I demonstrate that?

Or maybe, just maybe, you could make an argument about my points rather than making invalid assumptions about me personally. How about that? Point to something you think I didn't read instead of vague accusations you wouldn't let anyone else make about you. How about that?

Is asking you to make an argument to much to ask? Based on this page, it appears to be. It seems like you'd much rather make this personal. It's no wonder why. You don't actually have an argument.

I love how personal you've made this. What's the matter? You don't have a rational argument so you have to attack me?

I love the way you start telling me how irrational I'm being and then accuse me of making it personal. Look, it's clear that you, like FS, entered this thread with a bug up your ass to pick on a certain point and push a certain conclusion about it. It is clear that you have no intention of entertaining anyone else's arguments on the matter, nor any intention of discussing any other aspect of the topic. You won't even do the other person the courtesy of looking at the whole of their statements in the thread dispassionately and judging them on their content rather than on how well they fit with your pre-existing desired conclusion. You are clearly here not to debate a point about workplace cautiousness, but rather just to pick a fight. I've seen your fights many times. They are not fun. I am not going to play with you because it's not fun. I'm sure you will be able to find plenty of other people who will be willing to do what you want. I'm not going to.

I wanted to make that clear. After this point, there will be no further posts from me to you. Continuing to tell me how irrational I am after this and other such comments will be pointless and potentially might seem like flamebaiting. You might want to just write me off at this point. Now I'm going to bed.

dude, does J now remind you of an ex too?

You must not have read the thread, too. Or it must be the shoes we're wearing. Or some other irrelevant bit.

It's obviously to difficult to actually focus on arguments. Yeah, that's just too much. Instead what we need are tirades about prima donnas based on our very brief knowledge of a teenager who said one day of work was dull. How dare that awful and ignorant twat dare to openly admit she found a work day dull? Someday she'll learn that you're never supposed to say something out loud that's you fully mean at the time, but isn't something you expect the company to do anything about.

I had a very boring meeting today. Read that, world! Gee, I sure hope I'm not fired tomorrow. I'm sure everyone would be shocked that I found some moment or another at work, boring.

dude, does J now remind you of an ex too?
No. You still are the only one who reminds me of the most annoying man I've ever known. Good night.

I had a very boring meeting today. Read that, world! Gee, I sure hope I'm not fired tomorrow. I'm sure everyone would be shocked that I found some moment or another at work, boring.

your firing will have to wait until i purchase your company for the express purpose of firing you for your poor attitude about work. so it could be a couple weeks.

No. You still are the only one who reminds me of the most annoying man I've ever known. Good night.

good, because i was gonna start feeling jealous otherwise

I love the way you start telling me how irrational I'm being and then accuse me of making it personal. Look, it's clear that you, like FS, entered this thread with a bug up your ass to pick on a certain point and push a certain conclusion about it. It is clear that you have no intention of entertaining anyone else's arguments on the matter, nor any intention of discussing any other aspect of the topic. You won't even do the other person the courtesy of looking at the whole of their statements in the thread dispassionately and judging them on their content rather than on how well they fit with your pre-existing desired conclusion. You are clearly here not to debate a point about workplace cautiousness, but rather just to pick a fight. I've seen your fights many times. They are not fun. I am not going to play with you because it's not fun. I'm sure you will be able to find plenty of other people who will be willing to do what you want. I'm not going to.

I wanted to make that clear. After this point, there will be no further posts from me to you. Continuing to tell me how irrational I am after this and other such comments will be pointless and potentially might seem like flamebaiting. You might want to just write me off at this point. Now I'm going to bed.

Actually, irrational is about your argument. Would it be a personal comment for you to say I"m verbose when I'm actually making very wordy arguments? Or would that simply be a comment on the posts in the thread?

As far as the rest of your post, I find that amusing. I'm asking you for your argument, which you're claiming I don't know but could find if only I read the thread I already read. You refuse to state an argument, but instead attack me.

My reply has been to ask you for your argument, to ask you to leave you and me out of it, and to point out things you actually said. Yeah, it's clearly me that isn't listening and just wants to make this personal.

What is clear is that you don't have the confidence in your argument to rely on it. I don't need to make comments about how you remind me of someone else. I don't need to make comments about your friends or your employment or how I'd hate to talk to you in a bar.

My comments are reserved for things you've said in the thread and how they don't have supportive evidence and are thus irrational. They're wholesale generalizations based on your problem with teenagers. Now, if I'm wrong, then show me what evidence you have or what comment you've made that you believe alters your current posts. Clearly you feel that your current posts do you a disservice since you keep suggesting you'd be better served if I looked back further. So show me the posts from when you were making good arguments. They exist, no?

your firing will have to wait until i purchase your company for the express purpose of firing you for your poor attitude about work. so it could be a couple weeks.

I'll post the company. Tennessee Valley Authority. It's true, dear God. Tennessee Valley Authority occassionally has meetings that are boring. Hell, they even have whole days where I didn't enjoy my work.

The thing is, if they're remotely rational... It wouldn't astonish them that I said that. It wouldn't astonish that I think that. It would astonish them if I didn't every find work boring or didn't ever complain about it. Honestly, are people really arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to use social situations to make unimportant and reasonable complaints about work if there is a chance their boss might find out?