Emergency Dispatcher Fired For Facebook Drug Joke

kaptink writes "Dana Kuchler, a 21-year veteran of the West Allis Dispatch Department, was fired from her job for making jokes on her Facebook page about taking drugs. She appealed to an arbitrator, claiming the Facebook post was a joke, pointing out she had written 'ha' in it, and noting that urine and hair samples tested negative for drugs. The arbitrator said she should be entitled to go back to work after a 30-day suspension, but the City of West Allis complained that was not appropriate. Is posting bad jokes on Facebook a justifiable reason to give someone the boot?"

Comments

no

[dmitrygr]

Probably not, but by the time it's sorted she'll be bankrupt

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, she should not have been given the boot. She should've instead had the FD's boot on her throat. At least that's what the jack-booted thugs in power today seem to think is the way to go.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not, but by the time it's sorted she'll be bankrupt

Of course it's justifiable -- we live in the age of corporate fear. There's no longer a need for anything to actually happen -- all that's required is for a corp to assert "fear of [whatever]" (litigation, disparagement of business, loss of competitive advantage) for them to justify any extension of control over their employees.

Just look at the way the bastards try to intrude into your home by telling you you'll be fired if your housemate doesn't stop smoking within 90 days. Why??? -- "fear of increased insurance costs".

Craven sons of bitches.

Re:no

[Cryacin]

Just look at the way the bastards try to intrude into your home by telling you you'll be fired if your housemate doesn't stop smoking within 90 days.

Please provide citation. I'm quite interested in that one.

Re:no

[silentcoder]

You do realize this was not a corporation ? It was a the police department, technically a government-run, tax-funded public service.

Isn't their JOB to PROTECT people's constitutional freedoms (like the freedom to tell a joke ?) as opposed to censoring people ?

The article doesn't say if the joke was made during working hours. If she was on the job, in uniform they could make a claim that the joke was conduct unbecoming of somebody employed in law enforcement or something, but surely when she takes that uniform off and walks out the door she's a private citizen with all the rights of such ?
Soldiers can't be charged with conduct unbecoming for bad behavior unless they are in uniform, so why should it be different?

Of course this is just speculation since we don't KNOW if she was in uniform but essentially - if she was off duty, then she wasn't representing the department and if there is any "embarrassment" her behaviour it is only toward herself - so this would seem a crucial point of consideration I believe.

Disclaimers: IANAL. IANAA (I Am Not An American).

Re:no

[Keeper Of Keys]

You think the police's job is to protect people's freedoms? You must be Swedish

Re:no

[pryoplasm]

Soldiers can't be charged with conduct unbecoming for bad behavior unless they are in uniform, so why should it be different?

Actually, they can under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It applies to all US service members regardless of location, in and out of uniform.

I don't see why something similar wouldn't apply to other nations militiaries or other government organizations...

Re:no

[Desert_Scarecrow]

"Soldiers can't be charged with conduct unbecoming for bad behavior unless they are in uniform, so why should it be different?"

Absolutely, 100% wrong. They can. The fact that the individual works for a public service and not a private corporation is actually worse for their case, not better for it.

Re:no

[saider]

My insurance company made us sign an affidavit that all covered persons were non-smokers. If we did not sign they would increase our employee premium by 40%.

Re:no

[silentcoder]

>Actually, they can under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It applies to all US service members regardless of location, in and out of uniform.
>I don't see why something similar wouldn't apply to other nations militiaries or other government organizations...

Because it's just about the most unjust idea since "some people may be forced to labor without reward" ? If I as a private citizen go to a bar, get drunk, get in a fight - I can reasonably expect to be charged with assault and disturbing the peace, and possibly be found guilty. The idea that I can get charged with an ADDITIONAL crime purely on the grounds of the fact that during the day I work for a branch of the government is utterly ludicrous and unjust... and people wonder why I'm a pacifist who thinks soldiers a pitiful weaklings. Nobody with any REAL courage would consent to a life of "following orders with discipline".

Re:no

[DJRumpy]

She actually has a very good legal case here. The assumption that she did this on her own time is now pretty much irrelevant. A joke about using drugs is not a crime regardless of your position in the work world, and the City overstepped it's bounds. If she was at work when she posted this, that wasn't the reason given by her employer, meaning they separated her with cause due to a 'joke on Facebook'. The genie is out of the bottle so to speak. They can't go back and change their reasons for termination now in any case.

Unless the city can prove that posting bad jokes violates some sort of policy, they will probably have a fight on their hands as that was the reason they stated she was dismissed.

Re:no

[silentcoder]

>You think the police's job is to protect people's freedoms? You must be Swedish

Okay, I was speaking purely theoretically of course...

Re:no

[Pax681]

Soldiers can't be charged with conduct unbecoming for bad behavior unless they are in uniform, so why should it be different?.

in the British Army Yes they can, and the other services here too under Section 69 C of the Army Act 1955 in that they brought the Army in the disrepute

in this way a soldier can be charged by civilian authorities, get find guilty and THEN get done by the Army AS WELL under 69 C

it's a form of two charges for the same crime in a sense. As i was a soldier and have had this done for some drunken road sing collecting antics whilst serving in Germany in 1988 i know this well. and it's a VERY common thing to happen when you have been charged by the civilian authorities. sometimes you don't even need to be charged by the civilians to get this military charge. the investigation is enough to bring the wrath of section 69 C down upon you.

thus uniform NOT required at all for charges under military law.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Silentcoder..... Actially the police (not sheriff) are corporations. Yes they get some funding from taxes, and gov. influence. But most are actually incorporated.
Just fyi :)

Re:no

[commodore64_love]

Sounds reasonable to me. Smokers are basically killing themselves, so naturally their hospital costs will be higher. Let THEM pay for the increased costs, not me and other non-self-destructive persons.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

"Soldiers can't be charged with conduct unbecoming for bad behavior unless they are in uniform, so why should it be different?"

Absolutely, 100% wrong. They can. The fact that the individual works for a public service and not a private corporation is actually worse for their case, not better for it.

Perfect. I've seen people get nailed to the wall for DUI's when the case in the real world was dismissed (notably the military punished the servicemember months before any actual legal proceedings). They like to claim that they are holding us to a higher standard.

Re:no

[commodore64_love]

>>>...a government-run, tax-funded public service. Isn't their JOB to PROTECT people's constitutional freedoms (like the freedom to tell a joke?) as opposed to censoring people?

No not really.
You must be new here.
Welcome to planet earth. :-)

Human history shows that governments do the exact opposite (which is places like US have a constitution to chain the government & prevent abuses). Governments don't protect individual rights - they trample over them. The Supreme Law and a jury of the people is what protects you from government

Re:no

[Murdoch5]

If you boot someone from a job for a post on a social networking site the shouldn't you have to take every post at true? So if I say I'm god on my facebook, I expect to have 1000's of holy men on there knees.

Re:no

[michaelhood]

Sounds reasonable to me. Smokers are basically killing themselves, so naturally their hospital costs will be higher. Let THEM pay for the increased costs, not me and other non-self-destructive persons.

I agree. I'm not a smoker but I certainly enjoy self-destructing.. and I don't expect others to pay for it

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Soldiers can't be charged with conduct unbecoming for bad behavior unless they are in uniform

You might want to read the UCMJ again - or ask someone who's actually been in the military.

Re:no

[michaelhood]

As i was a soldier and have had this done for some drunken road sing collecting antics whilst serving in Germany in 1988

I read "drunken road sing collectin' antics" in a Brit soccer hooligan accent in my head several times, wondering what new English slang I'd come on and then I realized you meant road signs. =(

Re:no

[icebrain]

How is it unjust? If you join the military (at least in the US), you did so voluntarily. You chose, of your own free will, to sign over your time (and if need be, your health and/or life) to the military to be used as the leadership sees fit. Part of being in the military means that you are on call all the time, and on the hook be called up at any moment and sent into combat. Going and doing stupid things like getting in trouble with the law impairs your readiness to deploy, hence the additional charges.

Don't like it? Don't sign up. And don't get me started with my take on pacifists.

Re:no

[silentcoder]

>Human history shows that governments do the exact opposite (which is places like US have a constitution to chain the government & prevent abuses). Governments don't protect individual rights - they trample over them. The Supreme Law and a jury of the people is what protects you from government

As if the government alone is the enemy of freedom. If that was the case, abholish the government and be done with it, let the supreme court's decisions BE the law... and here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.
The government's PURPOSE - the reason we consent to being governed, is to protect our rights. The limitations a constitution pus on their power is to prevent THEM abusing it - but the single biggest most grandiose mistake the American founding fathers made was to ONLY protect against government abuse.
A truly free constitution should (at least aim to) protect people's rights from abuse by ANYBODY. A person, a corporation or a government. It should say "these are your rights, so inalienable that you cannot even waive them yourself voluntarily and we demand that any judge who faces a case that appears to be a waiver treat such an agreement with the jurisprudence of saying that it MUS have been signed under duress."

So you can't sign a contract giving a corporation search and siezure right (like EULA's try to do) - because the constitution says NOBODY can search you or your property without a court order. It should not be legally POSSIBLE to "consent" to a search - THEN duress can't happen.

What the police in theory is supposed to be there to do, is ensure that our rights are protected. That if somebody threatens our right to life, the government (in the form of oficers) intercedes and tries to ensure our safety. That if somebody has TAKEN your right to life, they be brought to justice to answer for that crime. That if somebody censors you from speaking your mind - they be prevented from doing so.
This doesn't mean I get a free speach right to write grafiti on YOUR wall (it's your property and that's vandalism) but if I want to write "FUCK THE COPS" on my OWN wall, and my neighbour wants to demand I paint over it -I should be able to call those same policeman and insist they STOP him from attempting to censor me, and be able to do so BEFORE he uses harassment or violence.

I know we don't PRACICALLY live in that world, but that IS what the theory is meant to be (well except where I specifically point out that the theory needs these and these expansions).

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Ours is doing this too. They also say that you will be subject to random testing to see if you or any of those covered are smoking. Refusal will get your insurance raised or dropped.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure you aren't an American? You sound like what you think American's sound like.

Completely ignorant!

This was in Australia, the land of censorship. Police officers do not protect constitutional freedoms, though. It most definitely isn't in their job description, they simply follow the law to the best of their judgement. Judges protect constitutional freedoms.

You'd totally know this if you lived in a Constitutional Republic, right?

Re:no

[crow_t_robot]

Soldiers can't be charged with conduct unbecoming for bad behavior unless they are in uniform, so why should it be different?

IANAL but I did serve in the military. You don't have to be in uniform or on duty to be charged with an Article 133 (Conduct Unbecoming An Officer And A Gentleman). Just FYI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduct_unbecoming_an_officer_and_a_gentleman

Re:no

[shentino]

Rule number one of having a job:

Don't Piss Off Your Boss.

Re:no

[silentcoder]

>How is it unjust? If you join the military (at least in the US), you did so voluntarily. You chose, of your own free will, to sign
>over your time (and if need be, your health and/or life) to the military to be used as the leadership sees fit.

Idiots deserve justice too.
Anyway your argument is false. When there is a draft (you've had them, we've had them) we don't exclude draftees from military law on the ground that the did NOT volunteer but were FORCED to become soldiers and give up their freedom of thought at risk of going to jail instead. Volunteering has nothing to do with it.
How many people signed up for two years and are on their 5th tour ? How come you are bound to your side of the contract at pain of criminal proceedings but the government faces no penalty at all if they repeatedly and unilaterally change THEIR side of it ?

Sorry, military justice is an oxymoron. There is a REASON we don't let the judges work for the cops - only in the military is this BASIC concept of independent oversight not considered important.

>Part of being in the military means that you are on call all the time, and on the hook be called up at any moment and sent into >combat. Going and doing stupid things like getting in trouble with the law impairs your readiness to deploy, hence the additional >charges.

Tell me... have you ever heard a recruitment officer say those words ? They talk about free college for serving your country, they never tell you about selling your entire soul, your individuality and being turned into a sort of robotic trigger pulling device. If a corporation's marketing is that far from reality - we sue them for fraud.

>Don't like it? Don't sign up.

I never have, never will - because I VALUE my RIGHT to wear long hair and say "Fuck you" to my boss and walk out if I'm not happy - and if I have to give those up to 'defend it' then I've lost. The only way to defend it for ANYBODY is to defend it for EVERYBODY. That means no more soldiers with brushcuts except the ones who like it that way. Try pulling that one off... NOW try having a military with a democracy - where a soldier who DID sign up can say "I'm sorry sir, but this war we are going to now is unjust and in good conscience if you make me go, I shall refuse to ever pull a trigger for I would rather BE shot by a man defending himself from an agressor than to be that agressor" - and get to walk away without any issues ?
If my boss asks me to do something my conscience does not allow, then I can do that- AND I can become a whistleblower and ensure he loses his job. He never gets so much control over my life that I end up following terrible orders with glee -because he doesn't HAVE enough authority to make me hit the torture button (I assume you know the experiment I refer to).
Giving anybody such authority is ALREADY unconscienable in my book.

And don't tell me that such a military as I describe, where only volunteers show up for each BATTLE, where orders are followed only by those who agree - while others simply stay behind and where every soldier gets a say in what the battleplan will be cannot exist or work.
My people had a military like that once. We fought Britain for our freedom - just like you. We beat them. They came back, for two years we beat them AGAIN. In the end the only way they could win was by killing 27 000 women and children, and shipping in soldiers till they outnumbered us more than 13 to 1.
At 10 to 1 they were STILL losing - and this was the height of the British empire, that army was considered the largest and most powerful military on the planet, and we BEAT them and damn near beat them twice- WITHOUT any of the bullshit you are telling me we HAVE to have in a military.
Did the peasant's revolt have drill sergeants ? Well they won right until they were betrayed by the king they followed.
Did the Viking's follow orders ? But they were the most feared military force in the world for centuries.

History says you are wrong.

>And don't get m

Re:no

[silentcoder]

>Rule number one of having a job:

>Don't Piss Off Your Boss.

Rule number one free labour.
If your boss pisses you off- you have the right to resign. If you can't RESIGN from a contract because you feel that you are no longer satisfied with your side of it, then that is called "indentured servitude" or more commonly - slavery, and it's banned in the constitution of every civilized country.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of being in the military means that you are on call all the time, and on the hook be called up at any moment and sent into combat. Going and doing stupid things like getting in trouble with the law impairs your readiness to deploy, hence the additional charges.

Right! That is why members of the military are allowed to consume alcohol while off-duty and when they are not scheduled to be deployed on a mission immediately following the off-duty period. Deployment in the field is more closely aligned with your statement.

Re:no

[English French Man]

I second that. This looks like the company is going too far here. It is still legal to smoke (in France it is, and I'm fairly certain there are extremely few countries where it isn't)

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

The military is not the civilian government. Otherwise, all I can say is that year after year, people don't do anything about protecting their freedoms so blah, blah, blah. Really!

Vietnam protesters were willing to get their hands dirty, not just blog anonymously about their gripes. Did mommy and daddy just have better lawyers then? Did the unions actually provide a valuable service after all? Slashdotters can be so out of touch with just about everything.

Re:no

[joebagodonuts]

Sounds reasonable... Let THEM pay for the increased costs, not me and other non-self-destructive persons.

Sure it sounds reasonable. Except any premium increase for a smoker isn't going to result in a savings for you. You are still going to pay for another's destructive behavior. That cost is just hidden from you.

An industry finding a clever way to generate more revenue, and convincing people to feel smugly superior about themselves at the same time they are getting screwed over. Awesome.

Re:no

[bluefoxlucid]

There are a LOT of smokers and they have pretty fucking high premiums. Drop them and you'll find a huge deficit in the insurance company's cash flow, which WILL have to be made up. Sure, you're still paying for casual alcoholics (mostly harmless, aside from rare cases of cancer and cirrhosis-- things that typically only show up in SERIOUS alcoholics that aren't even vaguely functional), people like me who never go to a doctor (thus far it doesn't matter, but one would assume I'm not being properly maintained and the repair bills will be rather high one day...), and the like; but that's a strawman argument if used to handwave away the value of increased premiums for smokers.

Re:no

[Smauler]

Smokers already do pay for it many times over through taxes.... they also die younger, costing less in pensions. If smokers were not around, you'd have to pay more tax.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only should posting jokes to Facebook be a dismissible offense, simply using it -- or even having a userid -- should be grounds for instant termination. It there even a single Facebook page out of the many hundreds of millions that conveys something other than utter moronicity and pathetitude?

Re:no

[roguetrick]

Military contracts would be completely unenforceable in any other setting. Theres a reason why they would be. Let me add that I'm not saying military contracts are bad, but the contract itself doesn't justify the treatment.

Re:no

[tophermeyer]

Just playing Devils Advocate here (I personally agree with you 100%).

Having a public service dispatcher with such a cavalier attitude toward drug use might injure the professional image of the department. Especially if she had her current employer listed on her FB page; at a previous job, I had to sign a statement basically saying that I would maintain a professional attitude whenever I was representing the company, not just when I was "on the job".

Some people would argue that we should hold public servants to a higher standard than we hold average citizens. We should expect Police officers not to engage in illegal or destructive activities even when not in uniform, and EMTs to offer emergency medical aid even when off duty. In short, we should expect that emergency services employees maintain lawful and safe behaviors at all times.

Ending Devils Advocacy now: If she did in fact sign some sort of morality or conduct agreement and violated that then she was foolish to violate that, and the Department might have been right to fire her. If no such agreement existed, then the Department overstepped. This being a Police Department, it would seem reasonable that they might have exactly this kind of conduct clause in their employment contracts.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that I can get charged with an ADDITIONAL crime purely on the grounds of the fact that during the day I work for a branch of the government is utterly ludicrous and unjust.

The military is more than just "work". It involves a different level of commitment than a civilian job, and different laws apply.

Nobody with any REAL courage would consent to a life of "following orders with discipline".

There are two forms of patriotism: Defend the country, or make it worth defending. The lifestyles are different, but both goals are admirable. It's your military - if you don't like how they are being used, then you need to consider getting involved in politics.

Re:no

[lahvak]

I hate to rain on your parade, especially since I in principle agree with you, but India had several *extremely* violent uprisings against British, and they were suppressed with matching brutality. The number of lives lost were quite staggering. The question is, would any of the peaceful or diplomatic ways of gaining independence succeed without the previous military conflicts? I don't think we have any way of figuring that out.

Re:no

[deKernel]

Congratulations, you just gave three examples of where things turned out groovy. On the flip-side, I will give you examples of where empires have laid waste to populations (both internal and example). Don't believe me, think Hitler, Stalin, Mao just to name a few. Try being a pacifist to a Muslim extremist, and I am pretty sure they will literally hand you your head: think Daniel Pear. Your examples only work because the British are reasonable people. You might not believe that, but they are. When you are on the other side to psychopaths on a mission to cleanse the world of , throwing you your hands is a guarantee of death for not just you, but your family, your clan and possibly your .

Though I understand your goal and applaud your POSSIBLE conviction (I say that because unless you have a 10,000 man army storming down your roads, you can't say for sure what you will do), sometimes an active resistance is a better solution than passive.

Re:no

[Pax681]

lol apologies for being typotastic. however i am NOT English and also do not consider myself even british

I am Scottish first and foremost. but that's a whole other topic bud..lol

Re:no

[MonkWB]

I've seen many drunken fights and brawls started in America and while I was traveling around Europe started by Army dudes on weekend leave. They never see the true consequences because they keep doing it. If they are getting severely punished then they are just stupid for continuing the same behavior over and over.

Re:no

[Keeper Of Keys]

If I as a private citizen go to a bar, get drunk, get in a fight - I can reasonably expect to be charged with assault and disturbing the peace, and possibly be found guilty. The idea that I can get charged with an ADDITIONAL crime purely on the grounds of the fact that during the day I work for a branch of the government is utterly ludicrous and unjust... and people wonder why I'm a pacifist who thinks soldiers a pitiful weaklings. Nobody with any REAL courage would consent to a life of "following orders with discipline".

I agree with everything here apart from the badly-chosen word "weaklings". It's integrity that soldiers must lack to submit to that erasure of the self. Plus they need the psychopathic belief that might is right.

Re:no

[BradleyAndersen]

Hear, hear!

In these glorious U.S. of A., such rights exist only insofar as one's ability to defend them.

As a somewhat unrelated example on the same theme, how many poor people you know have survived five heart attacks, a la Chick Deney?

Re:no

[OneAhead]

This was true... 20 or 30 years ago. Advances in cancer treatment made it possible to keep an ever larger percentage of cancer patients alive for ever longer. At the same time, cost of treatment became ever higher. At a certain point, it started to cost society more to treat them than to just give them a pension for the rest of their lifespan. That's when anti-smoking campaigns started popping up everywhere.

Right now, something similar is happening with heart disease and diabetes. Expect health insurance companies in the US and governments in the rest of the world to start campaigning against unhealthy food and lifestyle that promotes obesity some time in the next decade.

Re:no

[Will.Woodhull]

You do realize this was not a corporation ? It was a the police department

Thanks for pointing this out. I read the article while drinking my first coffee of the day, and all synapses were not yet firing...

Because this is a police department, I have more sympathy for their point of view than I would for a private corp. They are held to a higher standard of behavior, as they should be, since we entrust their employees with guns, etc. They'd certainly be justified in disciplining an employee who was telling racist or ethnic jokes in public that could raise questions about their department's values. I can easily see a police department extending that behavior to jokes that might suggest their employees are drug users.

Dana's jokes may have demonstrated a lack of professional behavior that a police department might reasonably expect of its employees even after work hours. Hard to say whether this was actually the case, but it very well may have been. Myself, I would prefer to have a police department be too harsh on questions of appropriate professional behavior than too lax. But then I'm living in a city where there have been 3 questionable killings by police in the last 10 years and perhaps I'd be less sensitive about this if I were living in a sleepy little suburban town where the women were strong, the men were good looking, and all the children were above average.

Re:no

[jaraxle]

"Soldiers can't be charged with conduct unbecoming for bad behavior unless they are in uniform, so why should it be different?"

Absolutely, 100% wrong. They can. The fact that the individual works for a public service and not a private corporation is actually worse for their case, not better for it.

Correct. I work for a police organization and there are a great many things I simply cannot do in my private life (that could become public knowledge) that I could do while being employed by a private organization. With government/police/paramilitary organizations (and especially the one I work for) perception is everything, and you can get in serious shit for even small things if the perception of the thing gets out of proportion.

What I do on my own time no longer can only be considered as to what could be embarrassing to me, but also the organization I work for. It's unfortunate, but I've come to live with it (and it's not like I go out of my way to do stupid shit, particularly being a family man with teenage kids now).

~jaraxle

Re:no

[Pharmboy]

Soldiers can't be charged with conduct unbecoming for bad behavior unless they are in uniform, so why should it be different?

Yes they can. The standard is much tougher for anything they do while in uniform (on duty or not) but they can be punished for activities they engage in while off duty and out of uniform. Whilst seldom used, it is *technically* illegal for them to be promiscuous, for example, and sleep with a different person every night. (This is part of the moral code they agree to) If they actively take part in a pro-communism rally for example, they can be punished. If they publish stuff on their facebook page about being pro-anarchy, same thing. This is punishment for *ideas* more than actions, but when you sign up, you literally sign a contract agreeing to those terms. And yes, you CAN and WILL be punished if you get a sunburn that is so severe you can't go to work, under Article 108 of the UCMJ for damage to government property.

The military is an exception to virtually every rule in regular society, for good reason. Any military or ex-military person knows this, and is ok with it, understanding it is a necessary function of being in the military. Military members are not without Rights, but those rights are different than for civilians, and overall, the military system tends to be more "color blind" and fair/equal to all, even if a bit harsh at times.

Oft quoted and always applies: "Gentlemen, we are here to protect democracy, not practice it."

Re:no

[networkBoy]

Pacifist protest and War - BOTH overthrow oppresion[sic] with equal efficacy - we HAVE the historical evidence...so how do you justify killing people ?

[troll]: Because I like to?
[troll]: Because they deserve it?
[realist]: Because most people are too impatient to wait 60 years.

[me]: Because, while I think war is unpalatable, I also realize that for most of humanity's history, wars were fought to promote a "just cause" and to defend against "unjust aggression". That is to say, everyone thinks they're right and the other guy is wrong, everyone thinks everyone else's wars are wrong/unjust/pointless/stupid but not *theirs*, it is perfectly justified. I accept this is human nature, thus I accept my country needs a standing army.

Re:no

[theshowmecanuck]

This is good. When threat of litigation intrudes enough, people will vote for or otherwise influence politicians to change the laws on litigation to be more reasonable. Otherwise they get what they deserve.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

" And don't get me started with my take on pacifists."

Oh really ?

FUCK YOU, cocksucker.

Re:no

[sh00z]

So if I say I'm god on my facebook, I expect to have 1000's of holy men on there knees.

Are you sure you aren't BadAnalogyGuy?

Here's the analogy: If you're a deacon at your church, and post to FB saying you're God, you should expect to be fired.

Re:no

[DrMaurer]

I cannot provide a citation, only anecdote. My last 2 health insurance companies surcharged you for being a smoker or living with one. They said they reserved the right to refuse payment for any "traditional smoker's disease" or some-such if you got sick and didn't pay up.

I am assuming, that if you paid then quit smoking and therefore stopped paying the surcharge, you were still screwed for the money later on if you got sick.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical yank version of history

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you figure that hospital costs will be higher? Your statement assumes that if a person doesn't smoke they will never get sick and die.
Everyone is going to die. Everyone is going to have end of life medical expenses. Smoking just changes the age at which that happens.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

why what's your take on pacifists, you dinosaur?

Re:no

[nospam007]

You get a lot of pension for one or 2 multiple bypass operations and a couple of heart attack and stroke hospitalizations not to mention the emphysema and its siblings.

And I didn't even mention the C-word.

Re:no

[nedlohs]

The topic is health insurance. Insurance companies are not usually retarded, if they are charging smokers more it is because the stats tell them that smokers will cost them more. Or the market is uncompetitive - though smoking appears, to me at least, to bring forward health problems that are expensive.

That matters to the insurance company, they don't care if you get cancer after you've retired and no longer have coverage with them. They do care if you get it while you are still covered by them...

Any impact on taxes and pensions is completely irrelevant to the insurance company.

Re:no

[HungryHobo]

I'm curious- are there any limits on what an employer can require in a contract?
particularly when the employer is the government.

could your boss slip it in to the fine print that you can't campaign for the democrats on pain of dismissal?

can they include that you give up your right to be protected from unreasonable search an seizure so that they have the right to have the police search your home periodically?

can they have you sign away your right to a fair trial?

can they have you sign away your right to talk publicly about things they don't approve of?

Re:no

[commodore64_love]

>>>As if the government alone is the enemy of freedom.

STRAWMAN ARGUMENT (poor logic). I don't recall saying government was the "only" enemy of freedom. Those words never left my mouth. Here's what I said: ".....places like the US have a constitution to chain the government & prevent abuses. Governments don't protect individual rights - they trample over them."

I never said government was the only enemy of individual rights. For example there's communists, that would desire to make citizens little more the Serfs of new Masters (see USSR, China, Communist Eastern Europe, Cuba, and so on). Plus there's tyranny of the majority, as in Athens when Socrates was executed by the Demos simply because they didn't like his speeches. And so on.

As for corporations and HMOs, there are an invention of government politicians, so why are you surprised they are so often evil in nature? Evil begat evil. I'm not shocked.

Re:no

[dryeo]

They've been doing that for quite a while in Canada already. Understandable that when the government runs the healthcare they will push exercise and healthy diet. Also medical covers quit smoking programs including I believe the stop smoking drugs.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely ignorant!

This was in Australia...

What was in Australia? Wisconsin is in Australia?
Wisconsin is an Algonquin word. I didn't know there were Algonquin tribes in Australia. I feel so ignorant now.

Re:no

[Starfleet Command]

Actually, there is a thing called the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics that many agencies incorporate into their Policy. The second l line of it goes like this: "I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty." So yeah, they can penalize her for stuff done off duty.

Re:no

[HeckRuler]

How is it unjust? If you join the military (at least in the US), you did so voluntarily.

Yeah, I've seen this argument a few times.
"They moved there, it was their choice, they should have known better"
"It's voluntary, they knew what they were getting into"
"She married him, it's her own fault"
"Well he jumped off the bridge, so of course he died"

That last one is a suicidal crazy fucker. Yeah, he killed himself. But I don't think there's really a solid line distinguishing the difference between being pushed into a bad situation and going there of your own free will. Sure, some people go out and do stupid things. They deserve to be punished for it, otherwise there will be idiots everywhere (more so). But some people don't have any other choice. I know a few kids who's best option in life was to join the military. Too stupid for college, too poor to make it on their own, and not mature enough to left alone with booze. They could have failed out of college and racked up a lot of debt, or startup a failing business, but they were destined for the military.

We can't absolve people from the consequences of their actions, but neither can we ignore the environment that influences their actions.

The world just isn't as simple as that.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Police officers in the US are expected to uphold the law at all times. They may be exempt from some laws in the course of their on-the-job duties (which is why you'll see cops speeding, etc), but in any situation, they are expected to be a cop first and a human being second. Joking like this is unbecoming of the uniform, even if you arent wearing it.

If it was just another 9-5 corporate lackey, then I would say this is completely unfair, however, given the profession that she did have, she should have known the expectations placed on her 24/7.

Re:no

[deKernel]

Sorry, had to do an edit because for some reason, I used greater/less than symbols which were interpreted as HTML: my apologizes.

Congratulations, you just gave three examples of where things turned out groovy. On the flip-side, I will give you examples of where empires have laid waste to populations (both internal and example). Don't believe me, think Hitler, Stalin, Mao just to name a few. Try being a pacifist to a Muslim extremist, and I am pretty sure they will literally hand you your head: think Daniel Pear. Your examples only work because the British are reasonable people. You might not believe that, but they are. When you are on the other side to psychopaths on a mission to cleanse the world of (add your hatred here) throwing you your hands is a guarantee of death for not just you, but your family, your clan and possibly your (insert your love here)

Though I understand your goal and applaud your POSSIBLE conviction (I say that because unless you have a 10,000 man army storming down your roads, you can't say for sure what you will do), sometimes an active resistance is a better solution than passive.

Re:no

[tophermeyer]

I'm curious- are there any limits on what an employer can require in a contract? particularly when the employer is the government.

Not a lawyer, but as far as I know they can put anything they want into the contract, if you sign it you agree to it. Of course the contract may be unenforceable, they will have no legal way to prevent you from campaigning for Democrats or forcing their way into your home; but at the very least failure to comply with those terms might be grounds to dissolve the employment contract.

can they have you sign away your right to talk publicly about things they don't approve of?

I think to some extent yes, this one is actually correct. AFAIK active military are not allowed to publicly express disspproval of their superiors, which includes the CIC. This is admittedly a limited example, but considering this issue is regarding an employee of the police department (also a component of the Executive branch of our Government) I think it applies.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I'm aware Scots spell "sign" the same as the English do. I'm not even going to guess what the woollybacks do. Probably has a y in it, somewhere. "Rhwdsyn" maybe.

Re:no

[thopkins]

I doubt you have a contract in a dispatch job.

Re:no

[Murdoch5]

haha true enough

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't like it? Don't sign up.

Of course, that utterly ignores that people cannot help where they are born, or the people they are born to, and so the military is the only choice for employment for many, many people.

And don't get me started with my take on pacifists.

You're proud of your prejudiced attitude? Wow.

Why would you genuinely have a problem with people who do not want to hurt other people? Unless you think it is OK to hurt people for your own personal gain. Or what you perceive as your gain, which in reality is actually the gain of the major owners of corporations (i.e. banks), whilst the rest of the people are endangered as most of the rest of the world really hates you for acting on the idea that it is OK to hurt people for your own personal gain.

Re:no

[sexconker]

Rule number one of having a job:

Don't Piss Off Your Boss.

I like how "Do Your Job" isn't number one.
It's probably in the low twenties.

Re:no

[d34dluk3]

I AM a pacifist. Most people's take on pacifists is ignorant and wrong

Dude, if you're a representative example, I think I'll stick to being ignorant and wrong.

Re:no

[icebrain]

It's simple, really.

A true pacifist is opposed to the use of force for any reason, under any circumstance, no matter what is at stake. He backs down and cowers from any physical confrontation and lets himself be pushed around by all, no matter what. He does not call the police or rely on others for protection because that is sanctioning the use of force by others, especially when it is on his own behalf. This person disgusts me because they will let the Hitlers and Stalins and KKKs and common thugs and rapists run around doing as they please, even to the detriment of humanity as a whole.

Then you have the fake "pacifists", who fly that status as a flag of convenience. They try to claim some supposed moral high ground by not hurting others, but let fly the jolly roger when they feel threatened enough (with either bodily harm to themselves or loved ones, or until someone does something they don't like). Alternatively, he will sit and refuse to use force himself, even in defense of his own life or of innocents and/or family... but then turn around and ask--nay, demand that someone else like the police use force on his own behalf, and do his "dirty work" for him so he can pretend to keep his conscience clean and "pacifist".

So in short, either they're terminal evolutionary dead-ends for the human race, or they're hypocrites who stand for nothing higher than themselves.

Note that this expressly does not condone war and violence out of hurt feelings, wanting someone else's stuff, general amusement, as a distraction, etc. The use of force is not something to be taken lightly, but it is usually justified when used in self-defense or the prevention of far greater evil.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't their JOB to PROTECT people's constitutional freedoms (like the freedom to tell a joke ?) as opposed to censoring people ?

No.

Soldiers can't be charged with conduct unbecoming for bad behavior unless they are in uniform

Yes, they can.

so why should it be different?

Police Officers are not Soldiers. Police officers are civilians, with exactly the same rights, responsibilities, and constitutional protection as every other civilian. Soldiers are not civilians, and do not have the same rights as civilians.

Re:no

[soppsa]

Wait until you have national healthcare my friend. Then you'll care about your smokers...

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Aw, see, you got sympathy until you pulled the 'not even british' bit... You are British, so pitch in and help get things better please rather than relying on 'no no, I'm not a member of that group'. I agree it sucks how people refer to you as English (and I say this as an englishman) pretty much the same way every American thinks I'm from London (Manchester is more like it).

Point is, we'd have a much better country if we all (Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Northern Irish, Even Yorkshire!) pulled together against the London-centricism of things rather than all wanting to go off in our own directions. Together we outnumber them and bring in more money, yet by remaining divided we're powerless.

Re:no

[HungryHobo]

I'm fairly sure only civilian law applies to police unless they can be court martialed now.

Re:no

[Mister Whirly]

And I suppose you have zero unhealthy habits? You work out at least 3 times a week? No caffeine, fatty foods, alcohol, red meat, etc. and you always wear your seat belt, never have unsafe sex, or a single unhealthy thought ever? Because if not - Yo kettle, this is the pot. You are black.

Re:no

[Golddess]

You seem to be confusing what governments should* be doing with what they actually do. But don't feel bad, I'm sure lots of people do that. :)

*I'm not here to say if that is, in fact, what they should be doing. Simply stating that your post makes no sense. GP talks about what they should do, and you come in saying "you're wrong because they actually do this other thing". It'd be like saying "it is not the function of a car to bring you from point A to point B, because all cars eventually stop working".

Re:no

[carp3_noct3m]

I would like to challenge your assumptions. While I agree that it may seem unjust that you would be punished twice for something, you have to remember the UCMJ is for the military dealing with military, and is outside of civilian court. It was also designed as a guide of conduct during war, an accountability system based on "The articles of war" and the later versions were designed so as to make uniform across all branches the system. The fact that it is designed as a system of accountability (though the amount it is actually followed or prosecuted is up for debate) during war is emphasized by the fact that the state national guards are not subject to the UCMJ except under federal order by the president. All that aside, the UCMJ definitely has room for improvement in many areas, but to call the entire thing useless and unjust (which you don't say, but imply, so correct me if I'm wrong) is simply non-pragmatic thinking. The alternative is to have civilian courts be involved in all military matters? What about when it involves TS information? I certainly don't trust some local judge to do such a thing.

Now that aside, the that you are a pacifist should have little to do with your opinion on soldiers. I greatly respect pacifists that stand up for what they believe in. Though I often think that these recent unjust wars (IMHO pretty much WWII and beyond) have soured people in regards to war. You must remember there are more than just the blanket pacifists, there are pragmatic pacifists, principled pacifists, etc, to cover a broad spectrum. I think there are cases when violence or war may be necessary, but they are few and far between, and must be met with much deliberation and thought. What I feel is that it is our nations leaders failed in so many ways in modern times to sufficiently justify war, or to even do it in a constitutional manner. But addressing your misled contempt for military personnel as "weaklings" is that for the most part, the bulk of our military are uneducated and poor, misled by culture from the time of birth to glorify the idea of war, and to see it through the lens of nationalism. How can such people really be expected to know any better? It is like expecting the child who was tied up in a basement until the age of 13 to know how to interact with people, it simply will not happen. This is the great tragedy of the military, that some people must experience it before they can learn the truth of it. It is the leaders of both the military and the government that misled the people who are the truly evil, malicious (be it via ignorance or otherwise), and generally despicable things. I know this because I am an USMC combat vet of the current wars, who started out misled by these same very ideas, but over time have learned the true nature of the beast, and could no longer consider myself to have integrity and continue to serve in unconstitutional wars mismanaged by politicians and blindly supported by the average American idiot. That you have come to the conclusions you have without having to sacrifice so much of your life you should be thankful for, but to degenerate the entire military as weaklings is misguided. That these people, who if led by better leaders, would be the ones to fight in war that is required (say, invasion for example), shows that they are anything but cowards, misused, lied to, abandoned, even ignorant maybe, but to call them that would face the fear of death for their brother beside them cowards does no not have any productive value, though I understand your viewpoint.

Re:no

[Mister Whirly]

Typical ignorant response. Read the post. He is from India - you know, the country who fought off the British? Hardly a "yank" by any means. Nice try though.

Re:no

[Wyatt Earp]

Yes lets have corporate mandated morality to save money for companies that already make profits.

Affidavits for cell phone use, tv viewing, drinking, caffeine, Tylenol, pumping gas, free radicals, red meat, drinking from plastic containers, smog in the air, exposure to sunlight, time around swimming pools, unprotected sex, amount of time on the highway or granite counter tops.

Life has many ways of killing you.

Re:no

[Wyatt Earp]

"Did the Viking's follow orders ? But they were the most feared military force in the world for centuries."

No they weren't and they weren't a military force. The most feared military of that era were the Mongols who had strict military hierarchy.

The partition of Indian cost 12.5 million displaced people and between half and a million dead.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

well facebook is public so whatever you do in PUBLIC such as leaving your facebook WIDE OPEN, your subject to public scrutiny and other laws.

If you make bomb threat on your facebook, you'll get paid a little visit, same as doing a joke about taking drugs and being high while at work (not disclosed)

And like you said PUBLIC SERVANT/DISPATCH / the Fucking police,and advertising that you take drugs is not an opinion, your entitled to YOUR opinion but not making statement that people will interpret as BAD, specialy in THE FUCKING POLICE.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Efficacy, maybe, but you wasted up to 4 generations of lives of the entire population, so your efficiency was wasteful. Lives at the end of a bootheel isn't usually worth living.

In your entire post, you don't mention what country you are from. I'm assuming South Africa given your homepage.

So if you are saying SA overthrows were truly without war, you are freaking kidding me. SA has had plenty of deaths, killings, and retributions during it's rise to political and racial equality. The fallout was especially deadly, even to today. And SAs political end came at the expense of huge political pressure OUTSIDE OF South Africa you moron. SA didn't do it alone, and the time and pressure changed over the time; it was more an advent of other political struggles and warfare that it worked, not because of your pacifism. Further, SA became such a shithole, people gave up on keeping the status quo, not because it was a wonderland, but because it was already a warzone in practice, just not in battlelines. Hell, if you look at your crime numbers, you had essentially a racial civil war that was simply undocumented as such.

As to the religion aspect, it has nothing to do with it. See current Indian/Pakistan political relations. Gandhi and MLK were the exceptions, not the norm, and only Gandhi was against an outside government. btw, the US revolution came after nearly two generations of trying to get things corrected with the British monarchy (see French and Indian War).

Frankly, you are a nutjob.

Re:no

[shentino]

Not doing your job is a fast way to piss off your boss though.

You can slack off all you like though until then. As long as your boss is happy, you're safe.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure there's no draft. People who signed up for two years and did five tours did so because there are no jobs. Let's see...I can't find a job and the only skill I have is shooting people and taking commands...guess it's back to the army! I know a man who's gone from the army to the National Guard because his wife can't find work and they need medical insurance. I didn't bother to read the rest of your comment. Typing random words in caps is so gauche.

Re:no

[aaandre]

Why, what is your take on pacifists? Or, if you are willing to take this a step further and not indulge in stereotypes, maybe you can point out a few wars that brought positive results for the general population of the involved nations and not just for the weapon makers and the tyrants involved?

I fail to see how wars improve anything that is worth the cost of wars. Yes, they bring results from the perspective of powerful people taking what they want and making others submit through violence. How does that bring good to the people who are violated, either by committing the violence (massive mental health cost even for soldiers brainwashed into dehumanizing "the enemy") or being shot, jailed, tortured, maimed, bombed, crippled, burned, killed by said soldiers, with or without a clear reason. This whole process removes any hope for ending terrorism, it breeds it like nothing else, as violence is the natural reaction to the desperation, injustice, pain and hate.

I fail to see the logic behind paying such an enormous cost just to make a few ultrarich people a little richer. Maybe you can help?

I am not being sarcastic, please try to explain using logic.

Re:no

[sabt-pestnu]

Alternately, you get a lot of increased lifespan for the same treatments. Can't spend that pension if you're not alive. It's only when quality of life degrades past a certain point that people would be willing to take the cash instead.

Re:no

[severoon]

Yes, absolutely. The only thing that I'm left wondering is why go after smoking when it's not the largest cost, though? I would much prefer that companies go after the biggest costs to save us the most money...that just makes sense, right? We'd sign affidavits attesting to the fact that we don't eat fast food, transfats, more calories per day than is good for us, and we work out strenuously at least 5 hours per week. We should be required to keep our weight within a reasonable body-mass index...it's killing us!

Addicts of any kind are out. People with a history of addiction in their families will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, if their personal circumstances seem like they will successfully avoid addiction, then they can be covered (I'm not proposing something heartless here). If you have some kind of expensive disability, you're out; and if you're predisposed to expensive conditions developing in the future, you're on your own...family history could be used, or they have these really inexpensive genetic tests now like at 23andme.com. We'd have to have people pay for their own, of course (to keep costs down), and disclose the result to the company, and anything expensive in their future we'd have to drop them.

Did you know that car insurance companies adjust rates based on your race? Why has the insurance company not caught on to this? We ought to adjust the amount you pay based on how much you're going to cost the system after all. Of course, this means that if you're a black male smoker in a high-stress job, you're probably out of luck...but I'm not too worried about President Obama, he can take care of himself.

Re:no

[operagost]

There's no longer a need for anything to actually happen -- all that's required is for a corp to assert "fear of [whatever]" (litigation, disparagement of business, loss of competitive advantage) for them to justify any extension of control over their employees.

This was a GOVERNMENT OFFICE. You've just helped us prove that government is many times more worthy of fear than evil corporations.

Re:no

[operagost]

I see more unmarked police cars (yes, I am good at detecting them) than marked anymore. Even the marked ones are almost incognito with no markings on the hood and low-profile lights. The few that are marked should say "to protect and serve OURSELVES" on the side.

Re:no

[kronosopher]

And now you know how the establishment sells world-wide eugenics programs! This is like Warren Buffet telling the taxpayer, "Hey, taxpayer, you could pay less taxes if you remain complicit in the systematic destruction of the society around you."

Re:no

[Achromatic1978]

Correct. I work for a police organization and there are a great many things I simply cannot do in my private life (that could become public knowledge) that I could do while being employed by a private organization. With government/police/paramilitary organizations (and especially the one I work for) perception is everything, and you can get in serious shit for even small things if the perception of the thing gets out of proportion.

Is true. As a firefighter/EMS guy, if you go to a bar with some of your buddies, and are silly enough to wear anything identifying you as Fire, let alone your district (and most districts forbid it), or say / do anything identifying you as such... are stupid enough to get into a bar fight, whatever... expect it to be a "career-limiting move". You /will/ be bent over by your Chief, and you will be spanked. Hard.

Re:no

[phantomfive]

I AM a pacifist. Most people's take on pacifists is ignorant and wrong, and clung to because if you admit that loving peace means your MUST hate AL wars and admit that they are always a terribly tragic blot on human history... then you can't justify being a warmonger.

You're too angry. You can't be a true pacifist until you learn to create peace around you first.

Even Gandhi wasn't opposed to violence in itself, rather he considered non-violence to be a more powerful weapon. He said, "I do believe, that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence........At every meeting I repeated the warning that unless they felt that in non-violence they had come into possession of a force infinitely superior to the one they had and in the use of which they were adept, they should have nothing to do with non-violence and resume the arms they possessed before."

If you want peace, first cultivate the spirit of peace and ahimsa within yourself. Then you will be able to spread it to others.

Re:no

[icebrain]

Hmm, let's see. WWII wasn't worth it, you see, because a genocidal madman taking over half the world and executing everyone he thought of as subhuman is a better outcome. Ending slavery in the United States was bad, too, because things were better off for the slaves. And every single violent felon that the police forcibly take down should have rather been left alone to keep running around and doing as he pleases.

Look, I'm talking about the theory of "just war" and the general expectation that society (and individuals) sometimes have to use force for survival and the common benefit. The police use force (up to and including deadly, if necessary) to stop criminals from hurting others. Individuals use force to protect themselves when their lives (or those of their family) are in immediate danger. Nations and groups thereof sometimes use force when their people (and more recently, other people) are faced with major threats; this would be things like genocidal dictators and severe oppression. Are you going to tell me that all this is wrong, too?

I don't know where you got out of my statement that I supported going to war for an individual's personal benefit or just to get one's jollies off. I just take a very dim view of those who think any use of force is wrong for any reason, and those who claim to do so but actually don't, as explained here. In short, there are some things worth fighting for, but that certainly doesn't make "hey, let's have a war!" the first go-to option or the best one in most cases.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a job where you don't have a contract. Congratulations, you live in the third world!

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

No caffeine? No alcohol. That's unhealthy. It's been shown that a cup of coffee or tea and a glass of wine or real beer a day improves health.

Don't worry, I'm not undermining your point... far more people actually consume no alcohol than limit themselves to one drink a day. More people consume no caffeine than limiting themselves to one serving a day.

Re:no

[jc42]

You do realize this was not a corporation ? It was a the police department, technically a government-run, tax-funded public service.

Ummm, it's an American town (in Wisconsin). You should realize that in the US (and in many other countries) almost all cities, towns, villages, and other government organizations based on real estate are corporations. Many of them even post the word "incorporated" plus a date on their welcoming signs at their borders. So it's almost certain that she was working for, and fired from, a corporation.

Granted, this is a "public" corporation. But then, General Motors, AT&T and google.com are also "public" corporations, so the government/corporation distinction has little basis in reality. The corporations we call "governments" are not all that easy to distinguish from the ones we call "private" (and which often call themselves "public"). Especially now that the US has taken to subcontracting out many of its military operations in the rest of the world to private security corporations.

I wonder how many American municipalities have caught onto this approach? After all, as many people here keep pointing out, "private" contractors are often exempt, in practice if not in law, from many of the protections that Americans have from actions by government agencies. But I don't recall reading very much on the topic.

Re:no

[Mister Whirly]

Everything is best in moderation. Including moderation.

Even though small amounts of caffeine or alcohol may be beneficial, that does not mean that not ingesting small amounts is unhealthy.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Just playing Devils Advocate here (I personally agree with you 100%). Having a public service dispatcher with such a cavalier attitude toward drug use might injure the professional image of the department. Especially if she had her current employer listed on her FB page; at a previous job, I had to sign a statement basically saying that I would maintain a professional attitude whenever I was representing the company, not just when I was "on the job".

Posting anonymously because this decision is not mine to make:

When I went through Emergency Medical Technician training for my fire department, as run by our county, we had several paramedics and officials of the organizing agency give lectures. More than one, stated, in no uncertain terms, that having the authority (and ability, as one was hypothesizing on a potential) to administer marijuana for certain conditions would be beneficial. One stated that he "felt he could retire happily if he knew that they had been given authority to give THC via metered dose inhaler".

There was general agreement on a realistic perspective and world view from medical professionals "on the street".

On the other hand... I could imagine some of the county commissioners not being quite so happy with such statements ...

Re:no

[Stoutlimb]

While you may respect pacifists, I don't. Take this little thought experiment...

Suppose some pacifist's children were being assaulted right before his eyes by some very bad individual. A pacifist would either allow it to happen, or attempt some nonviolent way to stop the situation. If the situation is such that the only way to keep the children safe is to use maximum violence on the attacker, any parent who has the ability but choses not to use it in that situation would be a very morally repugnant pacifist.

The problem with pacifists is that the world doesn't work the way they think it works. Occasionally it's a useful and noble tactic, but to assume that pacifism is acceptable as some kind of universal doctrine is madness. And that's exactly what pacifists believe.

Re:no

[aergern]

And when there are no more smokers then you fat, donut eating geeks will have to get off your butts. When 80% of this country are classified as obese .. it's TIME to stop blaming the 7% of this country that still smoke for YOUR high costs. Tis a joke .. whenever I'm standing outside and one of you double bubble rolls walk by with your nose in the air because *I* am smoking .. all I can say is that maybe that triple cheeseburger and order of chili-cheese fries ISN'T such a good idea. ;)

Re:no

[BobMcD]

I've seen many drunken fights and brawls started in America and while I was traveling around Europe started by Army dudes on weekend leave. They never see the true consequences because they keep doing it. If they are getting severely punished then they are just stupid for continuing the same behavior over and over.

I highly doubt the consequences would impact this behavior in any way whatsoever.

Say what you will about the honor those individuals deserve, but they have been programmed to both believe they are superior to any other being on two legs AND to deploy extreme violence without hesitation.

Mixing these two traits with a chemical substance that lowers inhibitions will always, always lead to criminal behavior in at least a few specimens - despite even the most severe consequences.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite as much trouble as you would for identifying yourself as a police officer during a bar fight... when in fact you are not.

Re:no

[tophermeyer]

See, that strikes me as a professional opinion based on the speakers knowledge and real-world field experience. Seems to me that is different from the statement made by the woman in the article. They were advocating a change in the law and practices to add a capability rather than simply joking that they were addicted to illegal drugs.

I want to say the two are completely different, but I understand your point that the difference is open to interpretation.

Re:no

[Mike Buddha]

The constitution guarantees your right to free speech, not the right to have no consequences for that free speech. In point of fact, the founders of our nation made it very clear that you are responsible for your speech.

This argument that you should be free to speak your mind without any consequences is a juvenile fantasy.

Re:no

[carp3_noct3m]

This is where the difference in pacifist comes into play, the common misconception is that pacifist = never resorts to violence. I consider myself a pacifist, but will not hesitate to kill someone who puts my or my families life in danger. You're definition of pacifist is flawed.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

The casual alcoholics are delectably "mostly harmless".

Considering all the drunk drivers, of which a goodly portion (most??) of them are of the group on the sliding scale you're applying which ranges from "casual" to "SERIOUS".

Re:no

[mea37]

That doesn't sound like much of a citation. GGP claimed the pressure was on getting his roommate to quit smoking; a roommate is almost never a "covered person". Either way, an increase in premium is not the same as being fired.

Clever change of subject, though.

Re:no

[xaoslaad]

OK, so as a former enlisted Marine I can PROMISE you that you can be punished for acting or behaving poorly out of uniform. IANAL and it may not be conduct unbecoming but it's covered by probably 50 trillion other things including your strongest desire to not run until you die come monday morning. Something as stupid as running into your Gunnery Sergeant out in town without a proper shave. Out of uniform. In civilian cloths. Yes. Hell to Pay. You have no freedom in the military. Your liberty is a gift. You have no right to it. They can and will tell you how to enjoy it. Where you can go, how you can dress, how you can behave. You signed the papers, you do what they say. End of the story.

Re:no

[nbauman]

I cannot provide a citation, only anecdote. My last 2 health insurance companies surcharged you for being a smoker or living with one. They said they reserved the right to refuse payment for any "traditional smoker's disease" or some-such if you got sick and didn't pay up.

I am assuming, that if you paid then quit smoking and therefore stopped paying the surcharge, you were still screwed for the money later on if you got sick.

I can't believe that.

There are some companies that have surcharges for smokers, but refusing payment for "traditional smoker's disease" doesn't make sense. Smoking increases or worsens so many of the most common diseases that such a policy would be worthless. It wouldn't cover heart disease, stroke, or most cancers.

That's not a rational stop-smoking policy, it's just an excuse for the insurance company to blame the victim and refuse to fulfill their end of the bargain.

Can you give me the names and state of those insurance companies?

Re:no

[Hadlock]

Yeah but people who smoke do so at work, and they're looked down upon by their non-smoker coworkers for being lazy and taking too many smoke breaks. Nobody minds people who only smoke while they drink, because very few people drink at work. If you're showing up to work drunk you're probably on someone's list to fire anyways. The fewer coworkers who waste their time taking smoke breaks, the better IMO.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so glad I live in Europe. Usually I'd go for the 'you're so fucked up and miserable in the US with laws like that and with corps like that'. But I'm still mourning the death of Martin Gardner. So I'll just say that this is another example of a very sad state of affairs in the US.

Re:no

[orgelspieler]

If you have some kind of expensive disability, you're out; and if you're predisposed to expensive conditions developing in the future, you're on your own...family history could be used, or they have these really inexpensive genetic tests now like at 23andme.com. We'd have to have people pay for their own, of course (to keep costs down), and disclose the result to the company, and anything expensive in their future we'd have to drop them.

GINA makes this illegal.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. You believe in the Just World Hypothesis (see wikipedia. Do it now! you lazy slashdotter!) If smokers didn't exist you'd pay the same taxes. Where do you think government stops and says: 'wait, we have enough money already, don't increase taxes'.

Re:no

[severoon]

I don't care how people at work manage their schedules. I care if they're good at their jobs and not much else...what difference does it make if they're dropping the ball specifically because they're smoking?

Regardless of the reason someone is failing at work, I think the proper thing to do is address the performance issue, not deprive them of health insurance or jack their rates as punishment. What you're advocating for here makes no sense to me...

Re:no

[stewbacca]

Soldiers can't be charged with conduct unbecoming for bad behavior unless they are in uniform, so why should it be different?

This is the least true statement I've read on slashdot in a long time.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Obamacare kicks in and we're paying extensive amounts of money treating lung cancer.

I hate the idea of pre-existing conditions, but I equally hate the idea of tax dollars paying for a smoker's lung cancer.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoking changes the speed it happens at too. Most smokers slowly die over a period of years, requiring lots of medical attention the whole time, from cancer treatments to oxygen bottles.

Re:no

[fishexe]

You think the police's job is to protect people's freedoms? You must be Swedish

Borg? Sounds Swedish.

Re:no

[fishexe]

There's no longer a need for anything to actually happen -- all that's required is for a corp to assert "fear of [whatever]" (litigation, disparagement of business, loss of competitive advantage) for them to justify any extension of control over their employees.

Well, I don't think anyone could litigate them for this, and I doubt the city of West Allis is going to suffer loss of competitive advantage or disparagement of business...

Re:no

[fishexe]

Don't like it? Don't sign up. And don't get me started with my take on pacifists.

Wait...so we can't refuse to sign up, and we can't sign up if we "don't like it?" Is it just me, or are you telling us all what to like?

Re:no

[aaandre]

I think we look at war from different perspectives. Was WWII worth for the people of Germany? I agree with the fact that Europe and the U.S. had to react with battle to the insanity of the German leaders at the time.

And, what did the war improve and for how many people? Millions suffered and died because of it. Starting it (by the German leaders) was not worth it. They were either delusional or serving the very few who made profit from it.

I can see the cause of ending slavery as a war worth fighting...

I got your points and yes, it makes sense to use force when necessary.

When a state is being attacked, I can see resistance as "just." Same with violent criminals. Still, I can find very few examples of "just wars" in recent history. And, I see a lot of examples of police brutality and power abuse in the U.S. and abroad. This is not OK and is a sign of things going in a direction opposite of individual rights.

I think that killing hundreds of thousands of people as a part of calculated economical (wealth-related) decision is unjustified. This is my own bias, not implied by your statement. I also think that with contemporary weaponry and intelligence, wars can be replaced by small, high-precision operations.

Re:no

[AtomicOrange]

How many frat boys on a Saturday night really pay for their behavior? Let's not just pin stupid behavior on the military, the world has plenty of idiots to share the wealth.

Re:no

[laddiebuck]

I'm guessing by your description that you're Afrikaner and are referring to the Boer Wars. I'll proceed as such but correct me if I'm wrong.

As another poster has pointed out, the tactics you use depend on your adversary. The British, with their accidental empires and their sense of fair play, are one thing and the Russians, with their calculated brutality and naked aggression, are another.

But even on strictly military terms, the first Boer war was a very small affair, against a few local and totally unprepared British troops, which is the only reason it could be run successfully with that very loose structure you describe. The second one was a quite different affair, with professionally run armies on both sides and a significant investment of resources from both. You lost that one. The British were perfectly prepared to give your country self-government along with other Dominions in due course, less than 30 years later, with the Statute of Westminster in '31. The reason for the original intervention wasn't some master policy to exploit your resources -- you were immigrants to begin with, and all that happened was that there were a lot of British immigrants who wanted some power and protection. When the same thing happened between the US and Mexico and the US and Britain (in the Pacific Northwest) nobody portrayed it in terms of an independence struggle, because it wasn't. All of these cases were just conflicts between classes of immigrants who got there at different times and had loyalties to different original cultures/countries, the difference being since your side eventually won you try to talk about it unhistorically.

Put another way, you paint an appealing enough picture, but it is just historical sleight of hand. No, you can't run a military on the terms you describe and no, your country didn't fight two valiant wars of independence. Just ask the British on how to run an army, since their historical record of success actually backs them up. Iron discipline, but not top-down absolutism like the Prussian tradition (there was room for more initiative).

Re:no

[laddiebuck]

South Africa actually, but I'm sure it's easier to call others ignorant than to spend a moment in thought.

Re:no

[silentcoder]

Is that actually what you believe ?
Sheez... the historical records are very clear on how wrong you are. You basically got EVERY detail wrong.

But then, I once saw a page from a British history text book that wrote "the women and children weren't put in concentration camps as part of the war of course, but to protect them from starvation on their farms with their husbands gone. The lack of resources in the camps are to blame for the deaths"

Winners tell their story. But that is just as false. The farms were doing fine. What do you think those women did when the husband got sick ? They were USED to running the farms - in that regard the Afrikaners were a very equal society, not only were the women ALLOWED to do the same jobs as the men - they were EXPECTED to.
In fact, the real reason was that during the guerilla phase of the war- those farms were constantly SUPPLYING the troops with food and shelter, burning them down and taking the women and children off the land was the only way to stop losing.

The first boer war was a small war, but Britain was hardly that unprepared -the difference is that our lose-knit tactics WORKED better, we knew the country, we knew the teritory and my ancestors were excellent marksman - it was a basic survival skill for them. They took down a soldier with every single bullet fired - and could take out a squadron before anybody even managed to see ONE of them because they were THAT good at camouflage (again - a basic survival skill in their culture).

In the second war, we repeatedly won almost every battle, in fact in the first two years of the war Britain achieved only TWO successes. They took Pretoria and they won one battle. So we laid siege to Pretoria, and also most of the cities where British folk lived - and kept winning every battle.
When it got to 10-to-1 numbers by the end of the second year - there was no POSSIBILITY anymore of winning a conventional war, so we came up with our guerilla warfare, small squads of between three and five highly mobile soldiers, working entirely indepently - raiding supply chains and taking on (and defeating) much bigger squads by being better at fighting in this country. Again - we were winning. Without the concentration camps we WOULD have won the war.

Now... as for the rest. Yes it bloody well WAS a struggle for liberation. We were NEVER British immigrants, our ancestry was predominantly Flemish, Dutch, French and German - in fact Modern day Afrikaans is so close to Flemish that I can chit-chat with Flemish people as if we're both speaking to a mothertongue speaker.
The two boer republics WERE independent republics for nearly 80 years by the time of the first boer war - and their independence had previously been recognized by Britain in 1853.
The desire for our gold and diamonds was the major reason why you decided that you now wanted to conquer these democratic republics we had built and reinstall over us the monarchic rule we had fled from more than a century before, the process that culminated in the foundation of these republics.
The major players were Alfred Milner and Cecil John Rhodes and the immigrant-question was NEVER something Britain gave a flying fuck about. It was a very good EXCUSE for war however. Recorded letters between Milner, Rhodes and the British minister of Colonies show them plotting a war of conquest - to fulfill Rhodes' dream of a railway from Cape Town to Cairo running over nothing but British soil all the way.
It was a struggle for independence. Under modern day international law, Britain would have had been considered guilty of crimes against humanity if the UN had existed then, and the very declaration of war as against international law. Sepperate geographic region, inhabited by a markedly unique culture -under CURRENT international law has the right (should they wish to) to seccede from their governing nation and form a new republic. It's not often used, but it has been used in the past when minorities living in the same region felt they were oppressed by the governmen

Re:no

[wgoodman]

So let me get this straight.. If you have a disability, they should drop coverage. If you are at a greater risk to getting sick with X, they should drop coverage. So essentially, you're saying that the people who need health insurance should be canceled. That way the healthy people can pay less for their coverage. Well, until they get sick and their coverage is canceled.

Yes, that's a brilliant plan.

Re:no

[RockDoctor]

My insurance company made us sign an affidavit that all covered persons were non-smokers.

Yes, but what the hell has your health service got to do with your employment? What sort of third-world country do you live in that you don't have health care as a universal right?

Re:no

[Mr. Slippery]

I accept this is human nature, thus I accept my country needs a standing army.

A standing army is only necessary for an aggressive state.

An effective militia is sufficient for national self-defense.

Re:no

[Khomar]

The early Christian church did not fight back against the oppressions of Rome. They were killed by the thousands in gladiator stadiums, torn apart by animals, and crucified for their faith. But they did not resist with arms. They did not fight back with armies or even political campaigns. They fought back with love, forgiveness, and peace. And in less than four hundred years, they defeated one of the strongest empires the world has ever seen.

The Christian church in China did not resist with politics or violence or terrorism while Mao tried to eradicate all Christianity from China. He killed thousands of Chinese Christians in an attempt to wipe them out, but when the restrictions were lifted, the church of 2 million Christians had peacefully grown to 80 million, and the heart of China is now being changed.

The Dutch and Norwegians peacefully resisted Nazi Germany and as a result, far fewer of their Jews were turned over and killed by the Nazi soldiers than those of neighboring countries who fought back.

History is replete with examples of the power of peaceful resistance. It is not an easy path, but there is victory at the end. Either way, people will die, but with pacifism, those who desire peace will not have blood on their hands, and their victory will be a true victory for goodness and justice and mercy. Violent revolutions only end with more violence and a government that is just as oppressive if not more so than the one they replaced because they had to become the enemy to defeat the enemy. Pacifism does not change what it is and so remains pure.

Violence begets violence, and with each death comes more desire for revenge and retribution. I think in the end we would find that far fewer people die as a result of pacifism -- even against the most evil of regimes -- than would have died if a war had been waged.

Re:no

[Mr. Slippery]

A true pacifist is opposed to the use of force for any reason, under any circumstance, no matter what is at stake. He backs down and cowers from any physical confrontation and lets himself be pushed around by all, no matter what.

According to a more neutral point of view, "Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defence of self and others." [emphasis added]

So there are "true pacifists" who say there are cases where the use of force is necessary.

Re:no

[Monchanger]

Strange. You do notice it's a bad analogy when you equate eastern dictatorships to western nations with codified civil rights and populations aware of their freedoms. Yet you still dismiss the GP's ideal of pacifism regardless of the situation in which it's employed by using examples in which it is not and cannot.

Of course Stalin and today Kim Jong-il could oppress and even starve their respective populations. As you point out, there's nothing to stop them if the people risk life by objecting even in a peaceful manner. Compared with the early Americans' ability to peacefully protest against King George without fear of death. When the king's forces did infringe on that right and killed a handful civilians in Boston, that was enough to cause resentment to fester in the population. That the colonists decided to use force was not a necessary course of action, and as GP suggested perhaps arguably necessary for independence itself. (I mean in the philosophical sense of necessity)

My understanding of pacifists is that they act to influence their own governments to avoid military conflicts whenever possible with some acting personally against government drafting and recruitment efforts. Note the word "act", which while not generally forceful in nature still counts as political action, just as does anything a politician does short of voting to authorize use of their nation's armed forces. As such it is incorrect to label pacifism as passive, words which may sound alike but are not only different in meaning but come from different languages. You'd never hear of Gandhi if all he did was sit alone at home singing kumbaya.

As for "turning out groovy", I'm not sure that the US Bill of Rights would look exactly the way it does had America's founding fathers not engaged in bloody conflict and seen a need to secure the population from a future King George. Would they have included the second amendment as it was written, or at all? My point is that you make it sound like the current situation is ideal, whereas I (and would boldly assume GP agrees) find the second to be well-intentioned yet the repercussions are just one of many tragic consequences of history, which is too often shaped by those quick to use force.

Re:no

[Mr. Slippery]

WWII wasn't worth it, you see, because a genocidal madman taking over half the world and executing everyone he thought of as subhuman is a better outcome.

The European part of WWII would never have happened if it wasn't for the aftermath of WWI. (The Pacific war was a straight-up conflict between two imperialist powers, though U.S. imperialism was somewhat less brutal -- but by no means benign.) WWI was a pointless exercise in militarism and imperialism. If the "violence is bad" meme were more wide-spread, WWI would not have happened, and Hitler would not have been able to come to power.

(If other nations had acted more quickly to put sanctions and a blockade on Hitler, if the U.S. had not allowed American companies to help build the German war machine, Hitler could have been contained. But again, that would require the "violence is bad" meme to be much more powerful, stronger than the "let's make some money and damn the consequences!" or the "dem dang Commie Russians must be stopped!" meme.)

"X is necessary, because without X, you couldn't clean up the mess that X causes" is a rather sad argument, don't you think?

Ending slavery in the United States was bad, too, because things were better off for the slaves.

Of course, if the "violence is bad" meme were more wide-spread, the U.S. would not have accepted slavery in the first place. Again, "we need violence to mop up the results of our past use of violence!"

I'm not 100% opposed to the use of force in 100% of cases; hell, I teach people how to maim and kill in self-defense, if necessary. If violence is the best option, somebody somewhere has fucked up very very badly -- but sometimes the person who has to deal with the situation is not the one who fucked up.

But "just war" theory is a shallow justification that ignores the way that violence almost always begets violence. Only when one can use force while at the same time loving the "enemy" can force work for peace -- a hell of a dilemma to swallow, and one completely incompatible with all forms of militarism.

Re:no

[Kelsen]

I'm fat AND I smoke, you insensitive clod.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
Personally, I like my flying brains dark and evil.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

My insurance company made us sign an affidavit that all covered persons were non-smokers. If we did not sign they would increase our employee premium by 40%.

40%?

sir as someone who is currently sitting in an insurance company as an actuarial pricing employee i can tell you that this is ridiculous and there is no justification for that much of a price increase....

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I expect the insurance company to pay a shrink to see me so that I can cut down on self-destructive behavior.

Re:no

[jp10558]

Hmmm, ok, so pacifist isn't the term you like. What would you call someone who isn't interested in being an agressor? That is, while I certainly would defend myself or my family, I can't think of any situation where it would be OK with me to be an attacker that someone else had to defend against.

Re:no

[quanticle]

Sure, the revolution that succeeded in driving out the British from India was a peaceful one (if you don't consider British actions or the religious rioting that occurred after partition). However, the unsuccessful Sepoy Mutiny that preceded it was quite violent.

Re:no

[splatter]

There hasn't been a draft in over thirty years get over it. Everyone in the military at this point went in under their own free will. They even stopped the go to jail or join thing over 20 years ago.

The reason you can be changed with conduct unbecoming is your expected as a military member to exhibit behavior above civilian population. As for agreeing to what battle your in, you are expected to follow lawful orders. If you want to argue the meaning of lawful go for it I'm not interested in that argument. There is never any hiding the fact that when you sign on that line your ass belongs to Uncle Sam, as a disposable cog in a big wheel. I believe the saying is your heart belongs to jesus your ass belongs to the USA.

Take your military hate some were else. I also am a pacifist but the sixties are over, I'm proud of our men in the militarily and I'm proud to have served quite spreading crap nonsense.

Re:no

[silentcoder]

Which bit of "I am not American" didn't you understand ?

Our most recent draft was still in my teenages, I missed it by just a few years.

You also seemed to ignore the bit about the fact that military justice is inherently flawed. Civilian justice systems figured out a very long time ago that the judiciary needs to be independent of both law-making AND law-enforcement or nobody gets a fair trial... how many military court justices are not serving members of the military then ? ... oh right NONE.

Re:no

[silentcoder]

But that failed... that's rather the point, isn't it ?

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Slavery != indentured servitude. Slavery is permanent, and uncompensated. Indentured servitude is by definition temporary, and was historically used as a means of paying back a debt that was owed, so in a sense it's also compensated.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

Please provide citation. I'm quite interested in that one.

Sorry, can't even google it right now -- it's been some years.

However, some companies were on a kick to lower insurance rates, so they told employees they'd pay for smoking-cessation sessions, which had to result in stopping within 90 days "as a condition of continued employment".

But it was not enough for just the employees to stop -- other smokers living with the employee had to stop as well.

Whether this was part of the "Oh, Jeebus -- second hand smoke" thing or as a way to prevent employees from blaming their smoke-aura on others, while secretly continuing smoking off-hours, I can't guess. Probably both.

Re:no

[laddiebuck]

Just to clarify one thing for you: I'm not British (nor a woman). I'm
Hungarian, and the total time I've spent in Britain is roughly a day
between two flights. Nor have I ever learnt history from them through
textbooks or whatever. My country actually has good reason to be angry
at the Allied decision to ignore the southern front during the War,
though I understand Churchill was overruled on that by Roosevelt.

> Is that actually what you believe ? Sheez... the historical records
> are very clear on how wrong you are. You basically got EVERY detail wrong.

I'm afraid it's your details that are wrong, but I can understand they
would be, for nationalistic reasons.

> The first boer war was a small war, but Britain was hardly that unprepared
> -the difference is that our lose-knit tactics WORKED better, we knew the
> country, we knew the teritory and my ancestors were excellent marksman -
> it was a basic survival skill for them. They took down a soldier with
> every single bullet fired - and could take out a squadron before anybody
> even managed to see ONE of them because they were THAT good at camouflage
> (again - a basic survival skill in their culture).

The first Boer war involved a few thousand Boers and about a thousand
British soldiers, who being unprepared (untrained) for the conditions and
terrain with which the Boers were perfectly familiar, was a predictable
and one-sided affair. I think we have no disagreement here.

> In the second war, we repeatedly won almost every battle, in fact in the
> first two years of the war Britain achieved only TWO successes. They
> took Pretoria and they won one battle. So we laid siege to Pretoria,
> and also most of the cities where British folk lived - and kept winning
> every battle. When it got to 10-to-1 numbers by the end of the second
> year - there was no POSSIBILITY anymore of winning a conventional war,
> so we came up with our guerilla warfare, small squads of between three
> and five highly mobile soldiers, working entirely indepently - raiding
> supply chains and taking on (and defeating) much bigger squads by being
> better at fighting in this country. Again - we were winning. Without
> the concentration camps we WOULD have won the war.

The second Boer war was not the same as the first. You fielded tens
of thousands of troops, properly organised and equipped with proper
artillery. When these failed, you turned to guerilla tactics, which the
British countered by locking down supply lines and key infrastructure
points and with a scorched earth policy. Both of you fought with small
mobile units, but that doesn't mean that they were on either side these
undisciplined free-thinking hippies you try to paint them as. I would
say neither of you fought much differently from the other; for instance
you both shot spies out of hand and often with little proof.

> Now... as for the rest. Yes it bloody well WAS a struggle for
> liberation. We were NEVER British immigrants, our ancestry was
> predominantly Flemish, Dutch, French and German - in fact Modern day
> Afrikaans is so close to Flemish that I can chit-chat with Flemish
> people as if we're both speaking to a mothertongue speaker. The two
> boer republics WERE independent republics for nearly 80 years by the
> time of the first boer war - and their independence had previously
> been recognized by Britain in 1853. The desire for our gold and
> diamonds was the major reason why you decided that you now wanted to
> conquer these democratic republics we had built and reinstall over
> us the monarchic rule we had fled from more than a century before,
> the process that culminated in the foundation of these republics.

BS. You were not British immigrants, but immigrants nonetheless. When

Re:no

[silentcoder]

I do like your attitude in this post a lot more, but the facts you cite are almost all wrong (you're right, my memory let me down and I got Emily Hobhouse's name wrong... to my shame).

Allow me then - to give my source: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Boer-War-Thomas-Pakenham/dp/0349104662

Written by an English historian, each page clearly showing it's genuine documented sources - it basically backs up everything I say. Rhodes may not have been a policy maker but make no mistake he had enormous power and influence - and Milner acted on his instructions -the documentation to that effect exists and can be verified.

>The first Boer war involved a few thousand Boers and about a thousand
>British soldiers, who being unprepared (untrained) for the conditions and
>terrain with which the Boers were perfectly familiar, was a predictable
>and one-sided affair. I think we have no disagreement here.

While not the description I would use, I cant' find factual fault with this assesment. Remember though - it was Britain who declared the first war.

>The second Boer war was not the same as the first. You fielded tens
>of thousands of troops, properly organised and equipped with proper
>artillery.

None of those troops had ever had military training of any kind. They were simply volunteers who answered the call. The proper artillery is true - though don't overestimate the amount, we had a total of 6 cannons for that army.

>When these failed, you turned to guerilla tactics, which the
>British countered by locking down supply lines and key infrastructure
>points and with a scorched earth policy.

They did fail - but only after Britain shipped in enough soldiers to outnumber us ten to one. That's a very key point. At every stage before that, we were winning.
It's known that we fielded child-soldiers in that war, of this I feel greatly ashamed -but in some mitigation - none of them were sent, they were mostly runaways, often orphans who insisted (and due to the lack of authority or discipline) could participate without any oversight to get rid of them. The only case where one of them was officially enlisted was one 13 year old boy (I'm sorry, I forgot his name) who went to Pretoria with his father. His father was enlisting and bringing a wagonload of farm produce to donate to the war effort. The boy was to drive the wagon home afterward. As it happened they bumped into Kruger - who heard them arguing. The boy was demanding to fight along, the father refusing.
Kruger is reported to have said: "Boy, right now there are three English soldiers for every one I got... will you shoot three Englishmen for me ?"
When the boy said yes - Kruger himself gave him special dispensation. Technically the law decreed that nobody under the age of 16 could serve.
It is not known what happened to him, and if he managed to keep his promise or even survived the war.

>Both of you fought with small
>mobile units, but that doesn't mean that they were on either side these
>undisciplined free-thinking hippies you try to paint them as.

The British never did small mobile units. Try reading up on the first, second and third wave. Their tactics was to basically send a giant line of soldiers from one side of the country swooping to the other trying to pin the boers down... the boers managed to actually get THROUGH those lines unseen repeatedly. Christiaan De Wet got his fame because all three waves were specifically intended to capture him - and he escaped every one of them.
To imagine that the boer soldiers were disciplined however is to show a complete lack of understanding of their culture. They didn't ever go through a bootcamp, schooling at that stage was limited to "can write your name". The average family would see their neighbours no more than once in three months. There was no social cohesion, and no structure. They had lived a life dependent on being able to

Re:no

[splatter]

What part of my post mattered were you are from? Hate is hate no matter what the source.

Unfortunately the American justice system is inherently flawed period.

The civilian courts it's the cops word over the individual regardless of what they tell kids in school "innocent till proven guilty." Whole trials can be concocted on something as small as a cops intuition. Not to mention the fact that they hold you while your awaiting trial shows which way the system leans.

In the federal system there is so much red tape that it's nearly impossible to get things done and in fact lawyers in the system use this to their advantage by prolonging dates till they are no longer relevant or even a chargeable offense. In the military there is the god head aka "The Captain" or CO who decides the fate but also has enough leeway to figuratively hang a man if he or she sees fit. The sentences are stricter for big offenses but there is a cap on how much punishment any CO can give with out a formal court marshal procedure which includes a jury. So really the U.C.M.J. has two tiers of justice. Most small stuff a CO sees tends to be a fine up to 3 days in the brig. The anvil is the Big Chicken Dinner (bad conduct discharge) which follows you for life but is only given out to offenses with more jail time, mostly they give general discharges to offenders. So really the U.C.M.J. has two tiers of justice.

If I had to choose between the three justice systems I would probably go for the military one simply because you get to bring character references and I think the punishments are more humane.

Thankfully I have never had to participate in a military trial I kept my nose clean in the service, but I have seen first hand how corrupt the civilian police are and how the courts work and deals with their inmates and I tell you I'd take a MP, trip in front of the old man, and two days in the brig or that any day.

Re:no

[laddiebuck]

Hi,

Thanks for the wealth of info. I see I've been wrong about some of my ideas about the two Boer wars. I'm going to order Pakenham's book and read through it, but obviously that will take months, so I'm afraid our debate, which has been interesting and informative for me, is over. Thanks and have fun.

Cheers,
laddie

Re:no

[severoon]

Just in case you needed one more bit of proof that the literal mind cannot understand the ironic mind...

Re:no

[DrMaurer]

Hmm, Blue Cross of Minn, IIRC.

Re:no

[yuhong]

Yea, definitely not recommended and needs to be fixed.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

in this way a soldier can be charged by civilian authorities, get find guilty and THEN get done by the Army AS WELL

Same in the US Marine Corps under the UCMJ (Uniform code of military justice). Sadly, double jeopardy is alive in well if you're in the US Military (and probably any other military service in the world). If you get busted for a civilian crime, there's a good chance you'll be tried by a civillian court then tried by the military court after or even during. I believe I have heard of some civilian courts not pursing charges since the military courts would be doing so but I believe that would only be for minor offenses. Typically though, whatever minor offense in the civilian world would net you 30 days in jail, expect a year or more in the brig and a 'condition other than honorable' or even a 'dishonorable' discharge afterwards. The military is not a good place to be if someone higher up the ranks doesn't like you or if the case becomes more of a media circus in which the military decides then to make a nice little example out of you. Article 31 of the navy UCMJ can get you for anything ... anything at all. It's called conduct unbecoming which is so broad that they can just make something up and next thing you know, you're in prison forever without rhyme or reason. That's half the reason I didn't re-up my enlistment in the Marines after my 4 year contract came to an end. If I would have known about such broad 'no real crime committed' type laws, I probably would have never signed up in the first place.

Re:no

[DaleSwanson]

First off, was it the same person repeatedly causing problems? If it was just random different people it shouldn't be any more surprising to you than when random different civilians cause problems. It seems unlikely that the same service member would be allowed the opportunity to cause multiple fights out in town (in other words they'd be barred from even leaving base after being arrested a couple of times). Perhaps in the US, but overseas any sort of interaction with the local police is severely frowned upon (international incident and all).

If it was the same person, I can tell you that those service members were being punished by the military (unless they somehow kept it secret from the military, and if civilian law enforcement was involved that is unlikely). I can also tell you that despite rather harsh punishments for rather trivial offences some people just don't care. I've seen people get punished for the same thing (often underaged drinking), multiple times. The typical punishment for something like this (or a bar fight) would be an NJP, with 60 days restriction (in uniform 24/7, can only go to work/room/food), reduction in rank (loss of pay), and 60 days reduction in pay (on top of the permanent loss from the loss of rank).

Some people simply do no consider the consequences of their actions. The military probably attracts those people more so than average.

Sounds unreasonable

[Tukz]

Maybe they had other reasons, but needed an excuse to lay her off?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[arndawg]

Yeah I was thinking this. Sounds like they really wanted to get rid of her but couldn't do it "legally".

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Ethanol-fueled]

Dana Kuchler, a 21-year veteran

'nuff said. That's a lotta retirement money the get to keep.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[linzeal]

21 year veteran with mandatory raises is pry a nice chunk of change. My friend's girlfriend worked in dispatch and with OT pulled in enough to get a loan for a 300k house and a 50k car with no cosigner. I don't know what she makes but it is pry ridiculous for the amount of skill involved.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[MadnessASAP]

Is your o, a, b and l keys broken? I'm assuming not since you seemed to use them elsewhere in your post without difficulty. So why the problem spelling 'probably'? In the era of high speed internet access and multimedia rich web content bytes are cheap. Don't feel that you are doing anybody a favor by heavily condensing words, especially when you seem to have no problem using other equally long words.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[P0ltergeist333]

Nerd rage about spelling often?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[phatcabbage]

No, nerd rage about spelling only sometimes.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[nacturation]

21 year veteran with mandatory raises is pry a nice chunk of change.

You're probably right. I bet many do pray for a nice chunk of change. It's improbable that they'll get it, but they still pray and pray.

I don't know what she makes but it is pry ridiculous for the amount of skill involved.

Why would you want to pray that it be ridiculous? Really, dude... you're probably a religious man given that you pray so much. No big deal if you are, there's probably a lot of people like you who pray over probably everything.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Threni]

>Is your o, a, b and l keys broken?

Any reason you typed 'is' and not 'are' there? I assume those keys work on your keyboard, as you use them elsewhere, so why make that basic mistake while nit-picking someone else's comment?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[BrokenHalo]

Being so stupid as to say dumb things on Facebook without realising her words could come back to bite her might be good grounds for not employing her in the first place.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[dbIII]

I doubt it.
I expect instead that HR had to justify the time they spend idly surfing the net and playing with Facebook.

It is of course entirely inappropriate for them to do this but it's an expected outcome when you put things on the net under your real name for any nitpicking bastard to see. These are the sort of people that would try to get you fired for wearing a T-shirt with a joke on it so nobody should be really suprised by this.
Enough of that, everyone else went home an hour ago so time for me to stop idily looking at slashdot - something I can justify by not keeping 9-5 hours.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

I've done some work with the police...

They take social interaction VERY seriously, they're really particular about who they're seen with, who they associate with and especially what other cops think of them.

It's like high school cliques but far more intense.

So, it really doesn't surprise me they'd fire someone over a comment like that. Just having a "facebook" page and being "friends" with someone ELSE who makes jokes like that could get you into trouble (at least, social trouble with your peers)

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[MoeDumb]

Why oh why do people use their real names on this Net we call Inter? It just isn't worth the potential aggravation. Oh sure, I'm using mine, but this is /. for crying out loud. Nobody comes here.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Capsaicin]

Being so stupid as to say dumb things on Facebook

It wasn't a dumb thing, it was a joke. It was clearly marked as a joke. The physical The "dumb thing" is that the humourless irony-deprived grey flannel dwarf who reported her did not understand it was a joke.

Stop being an apologist for the implementation of a regime of "thought crime." Please stop.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

English isn't my native language, so I'm probably missing something here, but what construct is "21 year veteran with mandatory raises is pry a nice chunk of change"? The subject is "21 year veteran with mandatory raises" and then you lost me. "is pry"? Pry is a verb as in "pry it from my cold dead hands", right? Shouldn't that be "is prying"? But then I don't get what you're saying: "21 year old veteran is prying a nice chunk of change." From what or whom, and why is she so aggressive? Please enlighten me.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[oji-sama]

Being so stupid as to say dumb things on Facebook without realising her words could come back to bite her might be good grounds for not employing her in the first place.

I think you'll find that [the Universe/saying dumb things] pretty much covers [everything/everyone]

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[mwvdlee]

A help dispatcher having to pry her wages from here employer... probably you meant to say something differently.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[MichaelSmith]

IIRC President Obama wrote about taking drugs in his autobiography. So does that make him stupid or honest?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[TOGSolid]

Yep, the city made out like a bandit and got a convenient excuse.

This also happens to be exactly why I keep my Facebook free of anyone from work. People seem to think that they need to "friend" anyone they met even briefly and then wonder why it gets them into trouble. You can't be fired for things you said on your Facebook page if your page is set to private and nobody from work can read it. It's that damned simple.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[somersault]

I don't think that stupid and honest are always mutually exclusive.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically I think he/she meant "pretty" not "probably".

I've never met someone who has zero experience with txting before. Nice to meet you!

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[RedWizzard]

English isn't my native language, so I'm probably missing something here, but what construct is "21 year veteran with mandatory raises is pry a nice chunk of change"?

English is my native language and I have no idea WTF he means by "pry".

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[somersault]

I was wondering if he was posting with the aid of Google translate and "pry" was an untranslatable word in his native language. Then I realise on re-reading that he meant "probably". English is my first language, but there wasn't much contextual indication of what the guy actually meant in this case.

I do say "probly" in online chat despite knowing how to spell "probably", but anything shorter than that is just really annoying to me.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[siloko]

This also happens to be exactly why I keep my Facebook free of anyone from work.

I take this one step further by not having anything to do with Facebook. That's after I've made sure I have no friends of course. That'll learn 'em!

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Being so stupid as to say dumb things on Facebook without realising her words could come back to bite her might be good grounds for not employing her in the first place.

You're way too much of a fucking moron.

She was a TWENTY-ONE YEAR veteran of the department. Do you really think an assessment on her interaction with FACEBOOK could have been made TWENTY-ONE YEARS AGO?

What would you suggest the app for my future employees ask about that won't be invented until fifteen years after I hire them?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[yotto]

Obama wrote that he was addicted to marijuana in his autobiography and wrote "ha" after it?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[alfredos]

I have a friend who used to be a public servant at a big utility here in Spain. At one point, the gov't was uncomfortable with him in his position. Not because of his performance, but because they wanted the position for someone else. One day he made a joke about mistreatment to women, and a pretty innocent one at that; but he apologyzed immediately just in case. He was fired the same day (actually an early retirement.)

It seems some things are pretty universal.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[bjourne]

If they did, then they should have to put those reasons forward. Otherwise the "other reasons" may be a personal vendetta from her boss which is a fucking shitty reason. The burden of proof is on them to prove that she did a shitty job, not on her to prove that she is innocent.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[jonadab]

> This also happens to be exactly why I keep my Facebook free of anyone from work.

I try to minimize *any* contact with my coworkers outside of work, for several reasons.

In the first place, spending non-work time in contact with my coworkers would risk the development of personal friendships with some of them more than others, which would create a conflict of interests, opening up the door for unintentional favoritism, compromising my ability to perform my job duties objectively and putting me in a difficult position ethically. I realize it's not officially against (most employers') policy to be friends with a coworker (to *date* coworkers, of course, is almost universally frowned upon, but mere friendships are usually tolerated), but it's still not a good idea.

Additionally, I already spend an entire shift with these people five days a week. Frankly, that's significantly more time than I spend with my closest friends. Isn't that enough?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Rysc]

I don't agree that her remarks, joke or not, merit termination, but I do agree that her behavior was stupid.

People need to learn this and learn it well: Whatever you post on the internet is forever and irrevocably attached to you and will be used against you in every way possible. This is not like other, earlier forms of communication because in other, earlier forms of communication remarks were not preserved and were mostly limited to a small set of known recipients.

This is why your internet handle should not be your name. This is why routine anonymity is a good thing for everyone. Yes, her employer acted badly and yes, whoever reported her is a humorless jerk. You cannot build a society on the assumption that there are no jerks and everyone has truth and justice as their primary motive!

Don't post anything on facebook, or any other site, unless you want it to be known by all future employers, the police, all future boy- and girl-friends, your mother, your current or future children, historians attempting to demonize you, etc., etc.. It is no exaggeration to say that what she did was stupid and that she, and everyone, ought to know better. A joke among friends is one thing, a joke to your boss's face is quite another; and (like it or not) when you post on facebook you are talking directly to your boss, and your mother, and the cops, and so forth and so on.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever worked as a dispatcher? It can be a very stressful job and is certainly hard work. You are being amazingly elitist with your sentiment and im sure you would be the kind of person the cried loudest if some underpayed underskilled dispatcher sent the police to the wrong house when you called in that you are being robbed.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[captainpanic]

The sad truth is that we're all guilty of this regime where jokes are not acceptable anymore. We all demanded 100% security. Nobody protested after 9/11 (because that would be unpatriotic). Even on the other side of the oceans, nobody protested against the crazy screams for more security.

So... Try joking to a security officer at an airport that you had a love explosivion last night with your girlfriend. Merely mentioning half the word "explo..." will make you miss your flight.
We all demanded security - so, we got it.

Obviously, I think that people should use their brains - brains capable if interpreting phrases rather than only single words. Especially if that person is your boss, someone who should know you and who should be able to find a few seconds to properly think about the proper reaction.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[AikonMGB]

I think you'll find that [the Universe/saying dumb things] pretty much covers [everything/everyone]

Shutup woman, get on my horse.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[icebrain]

I've never worked on the dispatch side of things, but there is a huge difference between a good dispatcher and a bad one. The good ones are true multitaskers; they not only know what goes on during a fire/EMS call, but can tell what's happening just by the sound of someone's voice, and can manage to keep track of five or six separate incidents at one time. Many of them are former fire/EMS/law enforcement who either retired or had to quit for medical reasons.

Most dispatchers pull 12-hour shifts, often overnight. It's a stressful job where you're sitting at a desk all day trying to help coordinate a response to life-threatening situations solely by radio. I'd imagine it's a little like air traffic control, actually.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Barny]

Remember, her job is customer/public service, it wasn't just a joke to her boss, a family member, or a workmate, it was to the public at large.

That's not just stupid, that is personal negligence to your own career :)

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[tverbeek]

They needed an excuse? Lucky her. One of my former employers fired me one day for no stated reason whatsoever (and no legitimate reason I could figure out). At-will employment sucks for the employee.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[krou]

Funny, you just reminded of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and a few other places where people had to watch (and still do watch) what they say because they were never entirely sure whether or not the person they were talking to would be an informer of some sort. It didn't matter if those remarks were not preserved, or limited to a small set of known recipients. You just never really knew, and self-censored what you said.

By claiming her behaviour is stupid, and saying that you should watch what you say unless completely anonymous (what happens if anonymity on the internet is eroded?), you're really targeting the wrong person/party. Her behaviour is not stupid. Her behaviour is perfectly natural in a society that (supposedly) promotes and protects freedom of speech. The real target of your ire and denunciations of stupidity should be the corporate and (in this case) government desire to undermine these freedoms, and promote self-censorship. The real stupid thing here is the idea that she should not be free to say what she wants. As the parent said: Stop being an apologist for the implementation of a regime of "thought crime."

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[purpledinoz]

but mere friendships are usually tolerated

Are there any workplaces that don't tolerate friendships?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Aqualung812]

You can't be fired for things you said on your Facebook page if your page is set to private

You think setting your profile to "private" will make sure that only your friends see your status? That's cute.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

probably because said other person didn't make a simple grammatical or spelling mistake (like I or others commonly make). Instead they made a choice to make their comment almost nonsense by replacing a real word with another real word with completely different meaning. I read the comment twice and it took me a minute or two to figure out that the poster meant "probably" but wrote "pry" twice. I'm fine with things like LOL and LMAO and all that for folks who are lazy typists or posting from an iPhone or something, but shortening a word by replacing it with another word that actually already has meaning and just makes your comment hard to read is just plain stupid.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[noidentity]

21 year veteran with mandatory raises is pry a nice chunk of change. My friend's girlfriend worked in dispatch and with OT pulled in enough to get a loan for a 300k house and a 50k car with no cosigner. I don't know what she makes but it is pry ridiculous for the amount of skill involved.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Nyder]

Remember, her job is customer/public service, it wasn't just a joke to her boss, a family member, or a workmate, it was to the public at large.

That's not just stupid, that is personal negligence to your own career :)

next time learn to read.

she's a dispatcher for fire & police. Not 911, not customer/public service.

She would tell the police & fire dudes/dudesses where to go, answer their questions.

How you got public/customer service from that is really sad.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[N1AK]

The word pray doesn't make sense in either of the places that he put 'pry'. I'm pretty certain it was intended to mean 'probably'. Even if he did mean pray is his religion really relevant enough for your post not to be redundant?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Nyder]

I don't agree that her remarks, joke or not, merit termination, but I do agree that her behavior was stupid.

People need to learn this and learn it well: Whatever you post on the internet is forever and irrevocably attached to you and will be used against you in every way possible. This is not like other, earlier forms of communication because in other, earlier forms of communication remarks were not preserved and were mostly limited to a small set of known recipients.

This is why your internet handle should not be your name. This is why routine anonymity is a good thing for everyone. Yes, her employer acted badly and yes, whoever reported her is a humorless jerk. You cannot build a society on the assumption that there are no jerks and everyone has truth and justice as their primary motive!

Don't post anything on facebook, or any other site, unless you want it to be known by all future employers, the police, all future boy- and girl-friends, your mother, your current or future children, historians attempting to demonize you, etc., etc.. It is no exaggeration to say that what she did was stupid and that she, and everyone, ought to know better. A joke among friends is one thing, a joke to your boss's face is quite another; and (like it or not) when you post on facebook you are talking directly to your boss, and your mother, and the cops, and so forth and so on.

Since when is whats posted on the internet true? I must of slept thru class that day.

Sure, we use 'nyms and what not to distance our real selves from what we post online, and that by its self should clue peeps in on not believing everything they read.

It's sad when jobs/people will dig what they can on the internet to get people fired, but then from my experience in working different jobs, guess that's what people do.

It's sad that you can lose your job based on stuff you said, jokingly or not, on a social networking site. I don't think they can actually fire her for that, and if that's the reason she put down, maybe she has a chance of getting her job back.

The only bad image i have here though, is of the government of the crappy town, in that crappy state.

Not going there for my vacation evar!

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Securityemo]

Working your life around the assumption that society is, for all intents and purpouses, lawful evil will destroy you in the long run.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we apply this logic to all the cops running around with "white power" and neo-Confederate bullshit on their Facebook pages?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[shilly]

For someone with a sneering tone about someone else, you really have an astonishingly tiny brain. Dispatchers *are* the people who answer 911. They answer the 911 calls and then "dispatch" the firefighters or police officers to the scene. You can read all about it here:
http://www.911dispatch.com/jobs/JobDescriptions.html

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Is->are. There is always a bigger fish.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[icebrain]

If he really meant "probably", then he should have spelled it out like he did the rest of the post, instead of making himself look like an eight-year-old.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[MrHanky]

"We all"? Fuck off. If nobody protested, there sure were loads of nobodies at the time. Blame yourself, but don't say we didn't warn you. You just failed to take any criticism.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[deniable]

'Pretty' fits as well. Probably wasn't my first thought.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Culture20]

You can't be fired for things you said on your Facebook page if your page is set to private and nobody from work can read it.

Until Facebook pulls a Darth Vader and alters privacy settings like they've done multiple times already. I believe status updates and wall posts are next on the chopping block.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[SanityInAnarchy]

What? No, Facebook, like most of what we do on the Web, is personal, and not the business of our employers.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Culture20]

I realize it's not officially against (most employers') policy to be friends with a coworker (to *date* coworkers, of course, is almost universally frowned upon, but mere friendships are usually tolerated), but it's still not a good idea.

HR (well, actually the Legal dept) frowns on office dating, but management loves having subordinates getting married to each other. It's so much harder to leave a company if you have to leave your other half behind or have to leave in pairs.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Like it or not the freedom we have with the web brings its own form of tyranny. One thing creates its opposite.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Civil_Disobedient]

The GP isn't describing the perfect situation. The GP is describing the current situation. And that is, anything and everything you put on the internet becomes instantly indexable, instantly accessible knowledge for everyone--friend, foe, employer, future husband/wife, children, etc.

To deny that this is the case is to deny reality.

Funny, you just reminded of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and a few other places

Well, gee, maybe that's because those places aren't nearly so different from us as we'd like to pretend on television. Quit deluding yourself.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[crow_t_robot]

People need to learn this and learn it well: Whatever you post on the internet is forever and irrevocably attached to you and will be used against you in every way possible. This is not like other, earlier forms of communication because in other, earlier forms of communication remarks were not preserved and were mostly limited to a small set of known recipients.

THIS is the quote of the century. I try to hammer this into the brains of all of my friends and family daily. The internet has become "social network centric" that just with a name and a general location (city or state) I can pull up everything about a person in an instant....where they work, what they like, pictures of their dog, etc. I can't wait till in about 20 years when the generation that is currently using social networking sites the most starts running for major offices like senator seats and judges. Facebook/Myspace/Google/etc are going to come back and bite the shit out of them.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[lysdexia]

Yes. Yes, sir!

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are so stupid for *knowingly* advocating a Soviet culture where people have to watch what they say _in private_.

You are aware that Facebook has loopholes in their privacy settings. If you set everything to Private, you DO have a "reasonable expectation" that what you say is private. You may be on Facebook's servers but that doesn't mean Facebook can advertise something as private when it's not. This may be virtual, but that's I think is irrelivent to the meaning of the privacy settings.

I'm sure that if one were to troll through your comments here there would be something a future employer could frown on. You could gloat that that you are "better than most people" for having a sanitized profile that has no connection to your real world identity... until someday a Slashdot leaks your email address without your consent.

Facebook comments are only private to the *web front end* of Facebook. You can use the Facebook Search API and search and index all private content. This information has already been indexed by aspiring "background check" firms who offer their services to Human Resources or background checks.

I hope you enjoy your brave new world.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[krou]

Well, gee, maybe that's because those places aren't nearly so different from us as we'd like to pretend on television. Quit deluding yourself.

I'm deluding myself because I'm pointing out that they're not so different? Interesting.

To deny that this is the case is to deny reality.

I'm not denying that, and nowhere did I say this was not the case. What I'm refusing to accept is that this means we must change our behaviour and impose self censorship in order to accommodate a regime of thought crime. Claims that the woman in question or anyone else who speaks freely and openly are being stupid helps perpetuate and create this reality. Stop blaming the victims, and blame the perpetrators, and perhaps things will start to change.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[GameboyRMH]

Care to elaborate? That's exactly what I think.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

As the parent said: Stop being an apologist for the implementation of a regime of "thought crime."

Agreed. Should I be imprisoned merely for expressing the thought that the OP of this subthread should be shot in the head and made dead? Afterall, such an expression is not meant to imply intent to act but simply a means of conveying my feelings about the issue of thought crime.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Hatta]

As the parent said: Stop being an apologist for the implementation of a regime of "thought crime."

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this? She's upset that her right to free speech is not being respected. But she wants to go back to work for an institution that doesn't respect the right of people to manage their own biochemistry as they see fit, or to buy sex from a consenting adult. If she really cared about freedom, she would have stopped facilitating the arrest of non-violent people a long time ago. It's only when they violate HER freedom that she speaks out.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[BAKup]

You just opened up your mouth and made yourself look stupid and hateful. Not all police/fire dispatchers take 911 calls. Some of them handle just the radios, and only talk to other cops and firemen. Not the public at large.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[VickiM]

People are throwing "thought crime" around left and right as if it applied here. The woman wasn't thrown in pound-me-in-the-ass jail. She is allowed to get a new job (economy willing). She is allowed to vote. She doesn't need to register with local law enforcement when she moves. She was fired. Admittedly, in a free-market economy that doesn't mean she's exactly well-off. But it doesn't mean she's about to be caned.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[joebagodonuts]

Her facebook account isn't tied to her capacity as a dispatcher. It's a private (private as in "none of the city's business what I post on FB" ) matter, and the city overstepped it's bounds. If she fights I bet she can win.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[tophermeyer]

Keeping work and social spheres as separate as possible is great advice. But...

...from the article, this person was a 21 year employee of this Department. Working in one place for 21 years, you've got to expect that some of those people will become personal friends as well as work friends. This person probably could have done a better job of keeping her networks separate, but after that much time there is no way to keep the two completely segregated.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

I was about to look up pry...

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Smauler]

Those two examples are absolutely nothing to do with thought crime, though personally I agree they probably should not be illegal.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech has never, and shouldn't mean that the speaker is completely free of consequences for what they say. If you insult your girl friend on national television she may choose to leave you, and that is not infringing on your right to freedom of speech. This case is also not infringing on freedom of speech. I don't really agree with firing someone for making a comment in jest, but suggesting that you shouldn't be held accountable for what you say is silly and certainly not the purpose of freedom of speech.

That said, the permanence of the internet is disturbing from this perspective.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[mcgrew]

We all demanded 100% security

No we didn't; I didn't at least. At every opportunity I quoted "nothing to fear but fear itself," said that if we caved into fear than the terrorists had won, and pointed out that about the most dangerous thing you could do was get an an automobile. I called the misnamed PATRIOT act the "cowardly government is scared shitless act". And I wasn't alone.

Obviously, I think that people should use their brains

If brains were dynamite most people wouldn't have enough to blow their noses.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Grygus]

So... Try joking to a security officer at an airport that you had a love explosivion last night with your girlfriend. Merely mentioning half the word "explo..." will make you miss your flight. We all demanded security - so, we got it.

Interesting. Can you explain to me how this is security that we got? Unless you've watched David Finch's Dune too many times I don't see how you can think that keeping people from uttering the word explosion is any security from actual explosions. We didn't get security. We got abuse of power. Nobody asked for that.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[JWSmythe]

    Some people live happily in their own delusional world. To them, things are simple.

    I lived close to a hospital once, and when their dispatcher would get on the radio, it would overwhelm broadcast TV stations. While I didn't really want to hear the dispatches while trying to watch TV, I did hear an awful lot of them. You are absolutely correct though. The ones I was listening to weren't at the emergency operations center (which was about 40 miles away).

    I guess it would all depend on where you are. I suppose in very small towns, the dispatcher may also answer the 911 calls, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

In the midwest, and very likely elsewhere, you will hear 'pry' as short for 'probably'. One of my first memories of childhood is asking my mom what 'pry' meant? :)

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[JWSmythe]

    Well, just because you post something online that may or may not be true doesn't mean there won't be consequences for that action. I won't argue that this case was fair, but...

    Say you maintained a convincing profile online of a drug dealer. You may find the local police drug squad or DEA knocking on your door. Well, more like knocking down your door with a no-knock warrant. When they don't find anything, and it becomes obvious that you were joking, it would normally be dropped. I don't know why her case is any different. The only thing I can think of is that she had a boss that wanted rid of her anyways. Once you sufficiently annoy the powers over you, they'll find any excuse to show you the door. Financially, she had been there for 21 years. She would likely be replaceable by someone for a fraction of her pay, assuming they give raises. Finding excuses to get rid of high pay staff, to replace them with cheaper counterparts isn't at all unusual.

 

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[mcgrew]

I have to agree with him. "Pry" is how you get two things apart that are stuck together. It's stupid and lazy. If he doesn't have the time or energy to spell "probably" (or even "prolly") he should just lurk rather than waste my time trying to figure out what he actually said. Bad grammar? Sure, go for it. Typos? Everybody makes them. WTF or IANAL? Of course, everyone knows what those acronyms are. "Pry" for "probably"? That's just retarded.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

"what happens if anonymity on the internet is eroded?"

WTF, haven't you been paying attention the last 10 years, Anonymity on the internet went away as soon as average users could USE the internet. The internet is the biggest information "swingers club" that is publicly available...

I use facebook. I post carefully, you should too.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Surt]

That's relatively rare, and limited to only the small number of dispatchers working in very large departments. It was not unreasonable for the other poster to assume the other direction based on the preponderance of dispatchers he may have met or talked to.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[JWSmythe]

    "We all" is a pretty broad statement. ... and I've found out what happens when you say "gun" at a TSA checkpoint. I don't really suggest it. :) At least mine was for legitimate reasons. My whole statement was "I was at the shooting range earlier today, so I may test positive for residue. I do not have a gun or any ammunition. You may search my bags to be sure." Just the word "gun" got every TSA agent looking directly at me. Oddly enough, even though my hands still smelled of gunpowder, I didn't set off their sniffer tool. They had a look in my bags anyways.

    It's all in what you say and how you say it. I've asked TSA checkpoint agents about finding guns and explosives. Oddly enough, none have ever answered positively that they did. One told me that he didn't know of it ever happening at this airport, but he had heard rumor of explosives once being found at an airport 100 miles away. He did let me look in the contraband bin, but I wasn't to reach in to touch anything. :) It was the largest collection of cigarette lighters that I've ever seen. Polite questions get you a long way. :)

 

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing West Allis, that wouldn't surprise me. They're in a financial crunch like just about every government in the country, but West Allis is also one of the cities that's tried begging non-profits for donations. They're desperate and stupid enough to do something like this for the money.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Surt]

No it won't. Because their generation will accept these things. Just like our generation will elect a divorcee, but the one before our thought that would be impossible.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[JWSmythe]

    Dating can be detrimental at work. As long as they're both happy, nothing bad will come of it. As soon as they have a fight, it could be opening the door for sexual harassment suits. Ya, management hopes they get married and live happily. Most workplaces don't want or need the interpersonal problems that come with dating to influence the workplace.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[WillDraven]

I'm taking this way off topic but I've got karma to burn and I feel like bitching about this somewhere..

One of my girlfriends is in the habit of speaking in acronyms. Not just in text messages but vocally. By far the most annoying one is when she wants to say "By the way" she says "Bee Tee Dubs" which not only saves no syllables but also bastardizes the word for copying an audio recording into an alternative vocalization of the letter W.

I have repeatedly assured her that no sane person speaks in such a manner, and yet she insists "everybody does."

I fear for the future. :(

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Securityemo]

Because your hell-tinted-glasses will drive you towards being either paranoid and/or amoral. Paranoia will wreck your nerves. The psychological consequences of amorality I cannot elaborate upon, because I am not amoral - but the otherwhise non-sociopathic people I have seen that have gone down that path are not the happiest or most stable lot.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Will.Woodhull]

What needs to be pointed out here is that

Your right to free speech does not mean that you are protected from the consequences of what you say.

There is no question that Dana The (Ex-)Dispatcher had the right to publish her jokes on Face Book. That does not absolve her of the consequences of demonstrating that she is too stupid with respect to professional off duty behavior to continue to work for that police department.

Maybe she can get a job with another police department that has lower standards.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[JWSmythe]

    You'd cry worse when it's an underskilled, undereducated, disinterested dispatcher who decides it's not worth sending an ambulance even though you've just said "medical emergency, need paramedics" with your specific location, from a E911 capable cell phone.

    In that case, I gave up waiting after about 10 minutes. He was stable enough to put into the car, so we were speeding towards the hospital until we reached a traffic jam and were lucky that a deputy had someone pulled over. Once we were sure things were stable and the paramedics were preparing to transport him, I talked to the deputy. He was actually doing a DUI stop. Dumb drunk almost hit him. He said the DUI could wait, we were more important. Well more like "He has time to wait, he's going to jail for quite a while." He checked with dispatch, and no one had been dispatched to our original location.

    We were luckier that the second time they needed to be called (about 6 months later), we got a good dispatcher. Fire rescue and paramedics were dispatched and arrived in about 3 minutes. It was too late to save him, but if we had sat around waiting for them, we'd still be questioning if he could have been saved. It's one of those rare moments that hearing sirens followed by strangers running in the front door is a good sound to hear.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

If she listed her employer on her profile or anywhere on her profile then WHAT did she expect? It's a small world. These police departments are the same ones that would be laughing stocks if something terrible were to happen and then her profile was linked up as the type of people that work there. A joke is a joke. Dumb is dumb. This was a dumb joke.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Nematode]

I can't wait till in about 20 years when the generation that is currently using social networking sites the most starts running for major offices like senator seats and judges. Facebook/Myspace/Google/etc are going to come back and bite the shit out of them.

The silver lining on that cloud may be that once everyone has their skeletons fully on display rather than in closets, our society might finally become more rational about what should or should not be a skeleton in the first place. Maybe we'll start taking a harder look at whether youthful, um, exuberances, actually have any bearing on later job performance, rather than just assumptions and moral judgments.

Although we'll probably just end up with the same system, and disqualify 98% of potentially qualified office- or job-holders, instead of the 90% that we do now....

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[MobyDisk]

If they had reasons, they didn't need excuses.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Hatta]

Biochemical and sexual self-determination are rights as fundamental as free speech.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. How is there not a facebook group to protest this blatant violation of freedom of speech?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[dwye]

> Just like our generation will elect a divorcee,

You mean like Ronald Reagan?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

If this had happened anywhere other than the US, I'd buy your argument.

Sadly though, America has gone stupid and you, like so many others in this country, think the delicate sensibilities of political correctness must be maintained at every moment, applied to every person, and in every situation.

The long-short of it is, she was fired for posting her free speech on the Internet, in a context, a joke mind you, contrary to that of her local Government employment. If her subsequent termination does not scream totalitarian and fascist by those metrics, then you sir have missed the bus, and are part of the problem.

I hope you at least see the irony here. A government employee fired for free speech.... in the USA..... ? Nevermind. Go back to your facebook, and farmville. They have you right where they want you.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Mostly Harmless]

The real stupid thing here is the idea that she should not be free to say what she wants.

I think this is a case of "it depends." I think, for one, we need to come to a consensus on what sort of privacy you should be able to expect on a social networking site. Should you consider it private communication or public? And even if it is private, there are certain situations where it doesn't matter. If you work for the public and say or do something - in private or not - which puts into question your integrity or ability to perform your job, you should have no expectation of privacy unless that privacy is protected by law (e.g., attorney-client privilege). This counts doubly if you intentionally friend your boss or another employee and still post such comments.

On the other hand, for example, if your boss was trawling the Web and finds your comments because Facebook has poor privacy practices, you communication should be protected.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[camg188]

I think you are right. There is something more to the story.
I seriously doubt that the West Allis PD is monitoring their employees' facebook pages. Someone must have complained about it, someone that was out to get her.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[ImprovOmega]

Is your o, a, b and l keys broken?

Subject verb agreement issues in grammar nazi posts make me all stabby.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, assuming that society is lawful good will destroy you in fairly short order.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Hognoxious]

What's really retarded is using an abbo that's already a word in its own right.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Surt]

Exactly. Imagine a divorcee trying to get elected in the 40's instead.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[nacturation]

The word pray doesn't make sense in either of the places that he put 'pry'. I'm pretty certain it was intended to mean 'probably'. Even if he did mean pray is his religion really relevant enough for your post not to be redundant?

I was mocking his shortening of the word "probably" into "pry" by misinterpreting it as "pray". Note how many times I use the word (or variant of) "probably" in my reply?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Au contraire, it is blind trust in the goodness of others that destroys lives. Power hungry politicians, abusive police, and greedy scam artists are just a few of the people who all too willingly exploit that trust.

Your trust is a valuable thing... give it sparingly, and only to those people (and organizations) who have earned it. There's nothing wrong with insisting on being able to verify that you are not being deceived, since in the end you are the person most responsible for looking out for your interests.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what? That's life, that's human nature, that's reality. Deal with it.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[BrokenHalo]

The GP isn't describing the perfect situation. The GP is describing the current situation.

I wasn't expecting my miserable little one-line post to set off this much discussion, but you are correct. I didn't say anything about thought crimes, and I didn't say the woman's employer wasn't an asswipe.

To make it completely clear: Facebook and other social networks are free tools for any stalker or pointy-haired HR manager looking to avoid paying out entitlements to use. Making offhand or ill-considered posts in these forums is simply handing them ammunition that they WILL use.

I'm not saying there's anything good about any aspect of this situation: the world has become an ugly place. We have two choices: take appropriate precautions to allow you to live in this world we have created for ourselves, or stop living.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[merockstar]

Maybe they had other reasons, but needed an excuse to lay her off?

That completely justifies it.

We should allow people to be fired for the words coming out of their mouth/fingers on their own time because it gives employers more leniency to fire the employees they want to without just cause.

Where would the world be if employers couldn't just let anybody go they want for absolutely no reason.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[aaandre]

I don't like it either but "thought crime" has been around for a long time and is here to stay. I think that situations like this make the issue visible, rather than indicate that it's just happening for the first time. On the contrary, our communicating in the open, and others' reactions to our beliefs and (gasp!) speech, are a litmus test of the state of our culture and society.

As long as someone gets punished for something they said (apart from investigating, not punishing, direct life threats etc.) we have to own that there is no freedom of (public) speech.

Thoughtcrime has been around from before the years of the Holy Inquisition (by the way the real face of the church :)

We are just starting to notice it and hopefully the next step will be acknowledging that entities trying to enforce it as reality are out of line.

Or, we stay quiet and acknowledge that what they're doing is alright with us.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[aaandre]

As you see, people have to watch what they say here, too. This is not a hypothetical situation, it is reality.

Powerful people make choices changing others' lives based on ignorance, judgement, hearsay, fear, hate.

Remember two things: 1. The laws (here, and almost everywhere) are changing towards more power for large entities and less power for individuals. It is only natural as it is large entities that use politicians to write laws they like. 2. What we share online is archived, indexed and easily accessible and traceable to us, forever.

Unless something unexpected happens, it is only a matter of time that things that are perfectly legal today will be made illegal very soon, continuously. And, as nobody can really keep track of all the laws, many, many of us are/will be on the wrong side of some law.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Civil_Disobedient]

I'm deluding myself because I'm pointing out that they're not so different? Interesting.

No, you're deluding yourself because you think it's somehow "amusing" as if it was unexpected. To wit:

Funny, you just reminded of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and a few other places

Not funny. Also, not interesting, amusing, surprising or in any way, shape or form different from the perfectly standard and normal.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[bkr1_2k]

I'm just baffled that anyone who's old enough to work for 21 years actually uses facebook and would post something so childish. The fact that someone was a douchebag after the joke isn't particularly surprising at all, unfortunately. People are petty little assholes and from what I can tell based on friends who are with fire/rescue the environment in those fields is even worse than the "normal" corporate world for that kind of shit.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

If you set your profile to private (friends only)....how can someone view it? Please explain.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Union, Facebook jokes you.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't post anything on facebook, or any other site, unless you want it to be known by all future employers, the police, all future boy- and girl-friends, your mother, your current or future children, historians attempting to demonize you, etc., etc.. It is no exaggeration to say that what she did was stupid and that she, and everyone, ought to know better. A joke among friends is one thing, a joke to your boss's face is quite another; and (like it or not) when you post on facebook you are talking directly to your boss, and your mother, and the cops, and so forth and so on.

That's the most cowardly, grey-suit-wearing dwarf response I've ever heard. She wasn't stupid - she was expressing herself without fear of recrimination, as we are all meant to do. If you're going to advocate the "only say stuff that grey-suit dwarfs want you to say" version of reality, I'm going to advocate the "take a baseball bat to their heads" perspective.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[TheLink]

> But she wants to go back to work for an institution that doesn't respect the right of people to manage their own biochemistry as they see fit, or to buy sex from a consenting adult.

If you're talking about the cops:
0) The laws that "don't respect" the rights you claim weren't written by them.
1) They're not in charge of writing the laws, they're in charge of enforcing them.
2) While they do have a lot of say in which laws to enforce, in general the People at the Top set the "big picture" priorities - e.g. "War on Drugs". It's not like the antiadultery laws are top of their list (you can be breaking those laws even if you are having sex with a consenting adult).

And who votes for the People at the Top? The voters. The voters based on their own priorities decide who to vote for. What you find so important is probably not important to them, or perhaps they actually like the way things are. Or the candidate looks good on TV...

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[owlstead]

I think we do all degree, so slow down guys. Firing her was terrible, posting something like this is online is in the current climate a dangerous thing to do. It's absolutely something you are allowed to do, but when posting, remember that you will be in the front fighting for your rights. You'll have all our moral support, but that might not buy you any bread. It's only a bit stupid if you don't realize posting online could land you in trouble; the act itself is not stupid if it was well thought out.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Achromatic1978]

she's a dispatcher for fire & police. Not 911, not customer/public service. She would tell the police & fire dudes/dudesses where to go, answer their questions.

Actually, in most places, she's probably both. In most counties employing Criteria-Based Dispatch, dispatchers work in twos. One takes the 911 call and starts keying information, while the other is toning response units, and relaying that information to them. It's not uncommon for them to switch every so often.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[SleazyRidr]

That's my beef too. I can understand prolly, but pry is just too far.

In other news, why is everyone making such a big deal about it? Usually there's one bitchy message and maybe one reply, this has become a whole sub-thread.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[K. S. Kyosuke]

English is my native language and I have no idea WTF he means by "pry".

English is not my native language and in my native language "pry" means "reportedly", so I don't understand what you don't understand, it makes perfect sense to me.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[BobMcD]

Obama wrote that he was addicted to marijuana in his autobiography and wrote "ha" after it?

Yes, but it was in the chapter describing where he was really born, and is hard to find these days...

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[xtracto]

This shit of "getting bitten by what you say on facebook" is really getting out of conrol.

In theory Facebook is a site where you communicate with a circle of friends for non-job related issues. Whatever I say on my facebook should not in any circumstance affect my job... shit, I could say I am a pedophile and it should NOT influence my job status.

The fact that such a comment could rise red flags so that the governmetn starts an investigation is another thing. But the type of communication happening in Facebook should be taken similar to conversation that happens when you find your random friend in the street and tease/joke/talk with him.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[xtracto]

No we didn't; I didn't at least. At every opportunity I quoted "nothing to fear but fear itself," said that if we caved into f

For all practical matters, yes you did. I guess you were one of those people that came to slashdot to argue why the security theater was a stupid thing.

Meanwhile all the people that were in favor of the security theater contacted their representatives or made other SIGNIFICANT actions that reassured the government's plan.

Yah, that is the problem with winning in random Interwebs forums... it usually does not have any effect =o(

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[BobMcD]

I doubt it.
I expect instead that HR had to justify the time they spend idly surfing the net and playing with Facebook.

It is of course entirely inappropriate for them to do this but it's an expected outcome when you put things on the net under your real name for any nitpicking bastard to see. These are the sort of people that would try to get you fired for wearing a T-shirt with a joke on it so nobody should be really suprised by this.
Enough of that, everyone else went home an hour ago so time for me to stop idily looking at slashdot - something I can justify by not keeping 9-5 hours.

Actually, assuming she really was a dispatcher, and assuming the call volume ever go low enough, often enough, it would not be at all inappropriate for her to have used the internet from work. Not every job is a production task. Dispatching is an on-demand task, just like the ambulance, fire and police positions that they support. When there are no incoming calls, it isn't as if they get to go home. Likewise, it isn't as if city management can shut down the lines during certain hours to ensure an even flow of work.

Therefore, if HR needs to justify employee internet use while on duty, I'd suggest they say:

"They are not allowed to leave their desks, in case a call comes in. It would be inhumane to ask them to stare at the wall, and so we allow mild distractions that do not interfere with their normal job duties. Employees are, for example, allowed to browse the internet with the sound turned off, watch closed-captioned television, and/or bring in a book from home."

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Simpleton.

Do what I do: Make your facebook page a paragon of corporate virtue. Make the whole thing an advertisement about what an amazing go-getter you are. What a man! How deserving of promotion! With wisdom that outshines all!

use facebook to make yourself look like a total hotshot, in other words. use it to make you look SHARP.

Then feign surprise when your bosses discover it. Be conspicuously humble, while looking professional to a fault.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Hatta]

Any employee of the police is making a choice to work for that institution. They do that knowing that they will be expected to enforce laws infringing on these fundamental rights. Therefore, that they did not write the law is no excuse. They chose to be in the position of enforcing them. They are willingly violating fundamental rights of american citizens. Anyone complaining about their rights being violated while willingly violating the rights of others is a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

pry=probably

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[GameboyRMH]

One of my girlfriends

You either just lied or just lost your geek card (a level 11 infraction should cause it to self-destruct).

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[yuhong]

Yes, thank you. It is the PR 2.0 age now. I try to almost always post non-anonymously using my real name partly because problems like this needs to be FIXED properly, and that as a 16 years old in high school who don't use Facebook and Twitter much (and that simply because I spend most of my free time doing research). In fact, I have been writing on Reddit that "HR needs to get in the habit of directly responding to postings employees make in public instead of firing (whether positive or negative)"

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[MrPippers]

Perhaps if one of your friends comments on that status and they are friends with your non-friend coworkers, your coworkers can then view your status. I haven't verified this, but developments in Facebook's privacy policy make it seem plausible at least.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[mcgrew]

One of my girlfriends

Wait, what?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, for the most part, it is... Well, either that or lawful stupid, I suppose.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[mcgrew]

I wrote my elected representatives, too, for all the good it did. But then, I voted against Bush 4 times, too -- twice in the primaries and twice in the general elections. That guy was the pied piper of sheep, that's for sure.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[yuhong]

Or find another company that don't have such a stalker HR manager. The long-term solution is to fix HR. For example, HR could have asked him directly whether it was a joke or not.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[yuhong]

In fact, this is a good example. Why didn't HR ask directly whether it was a joke or not?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[AK Marc]

AMC Movie Theaters forbids management from having any non-work contact with staff. I've seen similar rules elsewhere. Doesn't (or didn't) the Army have similar rules for officers and enlisted?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Pichu0102]

And in the long run, if you don't assume everyone is out to get you, that will also destroy you, as you are guaranteed to have at least one or more persons attempt to destroy you. Those who assume it will happen may wind up making it out alive. Those who don't end up homeless, broken, and very quickly, dead.
Your move.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Securityemo]

It's fallacious to make the only alternative to paranoia total trust. The only way that would be is if you where completely unable to judge signs of (un)trustworthiness. It's very rare for people to just attempt to destroy you out of the woodwork, and I can't even imagine a case that would be non-obvious. Even manipulative psychopaths are easy to spot, if you know what to look for.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Pichu0102]

And yet, by the time most people notice someone working to destroy them, it's too late. Not being in a permanent state of caution will cause you to miss just one thing.
And all it takes is one thing that you missed because you were lax in keeping your guard up to destroy you.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Rysc]

If you don't like these facts, and think one should be able to say anything with one's name attached without any chance of things like this happening, then good! So do I. Your average non-geek doesn't think twice about topics like this which is why there is not likely to be any change this generation. More people are going to keep getting burned by this. The best advice I can give is to educate people: Writing on the internet isn't like a letter to grandma, or like talking in a bar with your friends. It's different. I can't change society but I can (maybe) educate someone enough to save himself from the kind of wrongheaded notion about what the internet is that leads to unfortunate situations like this.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Rysc]

I disagree with your conclusion. Hell-tinted classes, as you say, will not necessarily result in these two outcomes. Should these outcomes be the only ones I don't agree that these two outcomes are bad.

First, amorality is not necessarily psychologically damaging. To those who are suited to it, it is likely to be less damaging than other options. Some anecdotal evidence that some people cannot handle it is not significant.

Paranoia, even more so, is something that depends on your personality. A little paranoia is healthy and it only becomes damaging when taken to extremes. If possible I choose my seat in a restaurant so that I have my back to the wall and a view of the door. Is this paranoia? Technically yes, but it is harmless at worst since I am not greatly bothered if I cannot do it. Maintaining a level of paranoia above your comfortable norm is what will wreck your nerves and such is hardly necessary most of the time.

In my experience society is mostly lawful neutral, tending toward lawful evil. I don't feel that this view has caused me the slightest trouble in life or in psyche.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Rysc]

Sadly though, America has gone stupid and you, like so many others in this country, think the delicate sensibilities of political correctness must be maintained at every moment, applied to every person, and in every situation.

I said nothing of the kind and I think nothing of the kind. I am all in favor of anyone saying anything at any time to any one for any reason, and to hell with what you, I, or anyone thinks! If you want to call your boss a motherfucker I support your right to do so. If you want to go to court and prove that free speech means that you can say that and he can't fire you for it, good! I support your right to do that, too.

I doubt the lady in the article intended to engage in such a suit. If you post something on the internet with the assumption that it's private or temporary and find later that it's public and permanent you may have inadvertently put yourself in a position of being required to defend your rights against unreasonable attack. People seem to be blind about this; I was merely attempting to inform people of what they are really doing when they are posting on the internet.

A good workaround for not altering your behavior and not becoming a target is to simply post under one or more aliases. In fact, last I knew this was still recommended by every privacy group who has a policy about this sort of thing.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Rysc]

People curb their right to free expression constantly. I avoid swearing at work whenever possible, for example, and could be reprimanded or even terminated if I didn't and someone complained. What one says on the Internet is said at work, at home, and to everyone who has read access. You can choose to accept the risk that certainly exists and say anything you like. In fact if you do this I applaud you for it. What I want to do is make people aware that there is a risk that is being run. If you don't mind... good. They might. She likely did.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[WillDraven]

I've talked about this on slashdot before but I can't seem to find the posts now. Me and my fiancee are both bisexual and will often have relationships with other people (mostly girls so far).

We've talked about maybe in a few years moving to a country where polygamy is legal, unfortunately most such countries are that way for all the wrong reasons.

We believe that human sexuality is a natural beautiful thing and see no reason not to responsibly enjoy sex with other people. We think that love isn't only a binary emotion that you can only have switched on for one person at a time.

As I wrote that post earlier today we had a girlfriend staying with us that we had hooked up with a few days ago. As it turns out the three of our personalities didn't end up working too well together so we've decided she should move on. It's worked out well however as she's now dating my guitarist.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

>> You can't be fired for things you said on your Facebook page if your page is set to private

> You think setting your profile to "private" will make sure that only your friends see your status? That's cute.

Case in point, happened 3-4 days ago:
A bunch of screen shots, from Facebook 'status updates' were posted online.
The updates are from Police officers (men+women) talking about an ongoing, 33-day strike at the University of Puerto Rico.

Many of the 'avatars' on the Facebook pages show the officers in uniform.
Most of the comments are... incriminating, to say the least.

The one that most wind has caught (debated as to whether the account was hacked or not), is an officer boasting about cracking some skulls soon. (headed to the strike??)

Are the Police officers liable?
Will they be punished? Should they?
Have they received additional friends requests?
All questions the world wants to know...

Facebook link to the profile pics (has some tracking numbers in it, yet I don't know a way to remove them while still directing to the Facebook photo album hosting them).
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=12701845&id=504165187#!/album.php?aid=438888&id=504165187
And Warning#2: "Facebook Login You must log in to see this page."

Link about strike at UPR (University of Puerto Rico)
http://www.primerahora.com/huelgaenlauprdia33:lentaslasconversaciones-389469.html

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

because trusting everyone and all companies will make your life easier.
People are routinely taken advantage of by those in power. its just the way the world works. understanding this and applying it to how you conduct your own personal business will do the opposite of destroy you.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[TheLink]

1) Whether she's a hypocrite or not depends on the situation. She's not a hypocrite if she's protesting from a law POV and the laws don't prohibit her from doing what she did and keep her job, just because she works for an institution that enforces the laws. She may not regard "rights" not protected/enshrined by the laws as highly as you do.

2) Are those really fundamental rights? e.g. buying sex from a consenting adult? Even if that's allowed you'd still need laws and courts to determine what is "buying sex from a consenting adult". After all the laws determine what is an adult, consent and sex. These differ from country to country. And maybe even from courtroom to courtroom.

The last I checked adultery is still a crime in Michigan and a few other states. One may think it shouldn't be considered a crime at all, but it would be hard to claim that the wronged parties lose/suffer nothing. From an evolutionary/"selfish gene" POV, adultery is indeed a serious act.

Many societies consider adultery as damaging to society. So just because you and the other adult consent doesn't mean that society must view it as legal. There are very few cultures and societies that are still thriving that think that adultery is AOK.

FWIW I'm single and I don't think I'm the very jealous sort, but from what I've seen, there are very many who would consider being robbed at gunpoint to not be as painful as having their spouse cheat on them. So to consider the former a serious crime and the latter not is actually rather strange if those people turn out to be the majority.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[memnock]

not necessarily arguing with you, but in general here. COPS are supposed to be presenting a just, ethical and responsible persona while on the job. yet they do all sorts of crazy shit on the job that they should be arrested for and but a lot of time don't face any type of punishment. this lady, on her free time, makes a JOKE. i don't see what kind of price she should have to pay at all. sure, like everyone points out, it's there on the web forever. so what? she didn't do it a) seriously or b) on the clock. there is no comparison to some of the actions come cops have taken, yet she is treated far more harshly.
easily read/available or not, what makes her bosses think that her personal (i'm not saying "private", that seems like another argument) activities in this case are anywhere near the level of improper that they justify termination. she did not commit a crime. humor (worthwhile or not) is everywhere. since when it is cause for loss of a job?

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[krou]

So now you've changed tact and are claiming I'm delusional because I found what was said amusing, and not because I'm deluding myself that "those places aren't nearly so different from us as we'd like to pretend". Flip flop much? But, since you mention it, I did find it funny that someone can call the woman stupid. It was amusing to me, and it was unexpected, because I would've thought we would be blaming the perpetrators. Maybe I've got a warped sense of humour.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[i]

Then there is free speech everywhere in the world. You can say everything - and receive the consequences.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Oh, the mods have no sense of humor today. Wait, I'm on Slashdot after all. :)

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[jimnorcal]

Maybe they had other reasons, but needed an excuse to lay her off?

That was similar to the thought I had. I'm thinking someone higher up didn't like her (a new manager perhaps) or she pissed off someone in upper management so they looked for a reason, any reason, to get rid of her. That's typically the "behind the scenes" true story that takes place that you never hear about.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[jimnorcal]

Care to elaborate? That's exactly what I think.

I also have to concur. I used to think much more innocently of people and the world we live in. However, since I became an adult and joined the real world (workforce) and have been in such world for 20 plus years now, I am now leaning more towards the 'lawful evil' belief, sadly enough. I think that to do so is smarter in that it makes you much more careful what you say and whom you say it to. I've been burned too many times already for trusting people whom I thought were good, honest, morally decent people. Even more sad is the fact that most of whom I've been burned by or seen burn others are those who work in law enforcement or other positions of authority and/or power. They tend to be the worst and most abundant of the 'lawful evil' world around us. It truly is a horrible state of affairs that things have become that way ... but they have!

I hate to think that I can trust a criminal more so than I can a badge but that is how our world (yes, here in the US, home of the free (my ass)) has turned out to be.

Re:Sounds unreasonable

[Smauler]

Perhaps in your and my opinion - however free speech is more closely intertwined with thought crime than crime that is based on actions, rather than words. Your examples are about physical things happening - that was my point.

To answer the final question...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say no. It is kind of disappointing that our off hour lives are subject to such scrutiny. The employees sense of humor or lack thereof shouldn't get them canned. They already demonstrated they were not in fact using drugs (though, even if they were, unless it interfered with their ability to perform their duty at work, who cares?). Seems like a simple misunderstanding and they should be allowed to return to work and get on with their life.

Re:To answer the final question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, posting anonymously, since current or potential employers may disagree with my opinion. I wouldn't want to end up like the subject in TFA now would I?

Re:To answer the final question...

[delinear]

Doubtless it was an overreaction to fire her, I'm sure there were many less severe methods to handle this, but who decides where the line is drawn? What if the joke was about stealing drugs from work, or smothering patients so she can go home on time? What if she'd took out an ad in the NYT telling people she took drugs as a "joke"? If you spread information that calls your own reputation (and by extention, the reputation of your employer) into disrepute, even as an attempt at humour, you can't be entirely surprised when it comes back to bite you. Maybe the average person won't take any notice, but what if a patient who didn't realise it was a joke refuses treatment on the basis of her comments and suffers injurious consequences? My other half is a nurse so I know first hand that they are subject to incredibly strict rules around their conduct in public, so why should posting to the internet be any different?

Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Rivalz]

Seriously I understand from a business point the reason. But that doesn't make it right.
Kinda along the lines of no bathroom breaks, mandatory overtime without compensation, and your everyday harassment from bosses.
It always seems like when a company goes too far to try to limit negative publicity all they get is a mountain of bad press.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[antirelic]

The 1st Amendment protects peoples freedom of speech from the Federal government, not from the consequences of private entities in society. You should be able to say whatever you want without the government penalizing you (without causing unjust harm), but that doesnt mean everyone should be forced by the government to have to listen to your stupidity, or be impartial towards you.

Businesses should fire people who are too stupid to understand the impact of their actions on their company. If you work in a business... lets say something in the First Responder, or Public Safety industry... perception and image is extremely important. Public confidence goes a long way in making First Responders life easier, and safer. This can be clearly seen in areas where police are viewed as brutal (no one snitches on crime), where first responders never show up (Flavor Flav's, "9/11 is a joke in your town").

The constitution applies largely to restricting the Federal Government, not private citizens.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[mikael_j]

So I assume she was getting paid for those 16 hours of every weekday (and 48 hours of weekends every week) where she was required to abide by some company "behaviour code"?

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is stopping you, but that's freedom of thought, which is different.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

Businesses should fire people who are too stupid to understand the impact of their actions on their company.

Ah yes, the good, old "you're just a slave after all" argument.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Third Position]

True enough. Just because you're free to say anything you want, doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to spout off without discretion.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[P0ltergeist333]

You are right about the constitutional right part, but dead wrong about the whole 'perception and image' bullshit. People take themselves and one week of 'bad pr' way too seriously. A company should have the integrity to stand behind a 21 year veteran. Period.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[bickerdyke]

Basically, yes.

My company pays me from 9 to 5 and that does NOT give them the right to invade my live the rest of the time. In return, I will not meddle with their buissness outside office times. What happens at the office, stays at the office, and what happens outside, happens outside. Thats a matter of basic decency.

Of course there is a good measure of flexibility to this rule, but that works both ways. If my boss doesn't mind leaving me an hour early from time to time, the less I mind the occasional overtime.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Trepidity]

In this case, the City of West Allis is a "government", not a "business", and its emergency dispatchers are government employees, not private employees in some sort of dispatching industry. The First Amendment has been held to apply to state and local governments since 1925, and applies to some extent even when the government is acting as employer.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[White Flame]

Then their job contract should specify public-image requirements for their behavior outside of their on-the-clock hours. Let's see how well that goes over.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Ah yes, the good old "set up a strawman then burn it down" argument.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Thanshin]

Ah yes, the good old "set up a strawman then burn it down" argument.

Dear God! You were supposed to give him a brain!

I fear to ask what you did with the lion and the tin man.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[mcvos]

The 1st Amendment protects peoples freedom of speech from the Federal government, not from the consequences of private entities in society. You should be able to say whatever you want without the government penalizing you (without causing unjust harm), but that doesnt mean everyone should be forced by the government to have to listen to your stupidity, or be impartial towards you.

That last part is completely irrelevant to this case. Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to her. If you're annoyed by what she writes on Facebook, you could always unfriend her. In fact, with a humorless employer like that, it's probably wise to unfriend all your coworkers.

But the fact remains that she is being punished for something she said in her own time and in a completely unrelated venue. That's about as unfair as it gets.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

So I assume she was getting paid for those 16 hours of every weekday (and 48 hours of weekends every week) where she was required to abide by some company "behaviour code"?

Unfortunately the idiot employer may think so. May depend on whether the position is covered by a union contract (sounds like not) or is exempt.

I worked for a company for near 30 years where union workers got OT. Exempt employees -- including me, as a programmer -- recorded and took comp time for extra hours worked.

After being outsourced to a subsidiary of IBM (but still working at the same desks, in the same building, with the same people -- just a different company name on the paycheck), we were informed IBM policy was that our (unchanged) salary was to be considered as compensation for 24/7 availability -- no comp time to be assumed.

However, it was to be taken for granted that "If you do extensive, off-normal-hours work, 'your manager will notice' and give you 'management-directed time off'."

Pricks.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

He gave them yours. ;-)

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand.

You're supposed to be loyal to your employer because your employer will always be loyal and stand behind .... oh wait that's why I work for myself.

Anything less than being self employed and they will treat you as a slave, disguard you when you are broken, eliminate you if you are not as cheap as the next guy or if cutting you and your pension will save them some cash.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Richard_at_work]

Would you also consider someone who spent 8 hours a day working at McDonalds but spent the other 16 hours of the day updating a 'Why McDonalds are scum' website someone that the company should willfully keep employed?

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[mikael_j]

Probably not since that person is clearly either seriously ill or on some serious stimulants since he/she is able to forgo sleep in favor of deliberately trying to make his/her employer look bad. OTOH, it's McDonald's and considering their record as an employer it's probably expected of at least a few of their employees to publicly rant about their horrible employer (those of my friends in high school who worked at McDonald's restaurants always had lots of good reason to avoid eating at or working for McDonald's).

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[antirelic]

How is this "insightful"? Companies have so many different criteria for hiring and retaining employees why is external personal conduct so seemingly extreme? Because a business or government entity has a code of conduct that extends beyond the work place, doesnt make you a "slave" to that company or government entity. Being captured at gun point, put in shackles, and forced to perform some sort of service against your will (the consequences being corporal punishment or death) is slavery. Dont like the job requirements, dont work there.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[delinear]

Yes, they should. And a 21 year veteran should have more common sense than to joke about a subject which, working in the medical field, might be seen as poor judgement. I think there's blame on both sides here (definitely more blame for the massive overreaction, but certainly people in responsible positions such as this need to think about the image they're conveying to the public who rely on them in their most vulnerable moments).

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, no one should be fired for making a joke. Her employers should back her up. She tested negative to drug tests and qualified her comment with a "ha" in a way that, at the very least implies she is joking so that anyone reading it gets the intended context. Also, who was forced to listen to her!? Any interpretation needed and the benefit of the doubt should go to the employee.

Businesses should back up their employees when they make harmless jokes in situations where stupid people willfully take offence.

Perception and image is extremely important. I'd be horrified if I thought my emergency departments were being run by numbskulls firing long term employees for making a joke.
It frightens me that free people are so subjugated they believe they should always be thinking about "the impact of their actions on the company."

Thanks for the freaky Office Space moment; I think the banner at the office party almost had that written on it verbatim!
You sir, are a tool.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[delinear]

Oops, one of those common language misunderstandings, I think from reading the other comments below this that she worked for the police rather than in medicine? The comment still probably stands (given the police are largely not well predisposed to drug users).

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[jonadab]

Wait, do you mean *on the job* freedom of speech, or only when you go home?

If the former, that would certainly change the nature of *my* job in fundamental ways.

I work at a public library. At work (and in the presence of the public), I'm not supposed to express an opinion on basically *anything* (well, anything of substance; I can talk about the weather). Religion, politics, history, education, science, you name it. This goes to extremes in my line of work. When a patron asks me for books on how the fall of Rome resulted in the creation of angels (yes, this is a real example), I'm supposed to try to help them find books on that, without comment. In practice this means books on angels and books on the history of Rome. I know very well that the books on the history of Rome won't say anything about the creation of angels and the books on angels won't say anything about the fall of Rome, but I cannot *tell* the patron this. I have to keep a straight face while I help them find the books.

So my job would be pretty radically different if on-the-job free speech were legally mandatory.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Jesus_666]

Companies can be fairly quick to kick out such veterans. In Germany, we recently saw the latest act of a fiasco where a woman was fired for pocketing a few leftover Maultaschen (a kind of food) which were explicitly going to be thrown away. The employer maintained that the fact that she caused zero to negative economic damage (ever so slightly lowering the amount of trash) doesn't change the fact that stealing is wrong - after all, after she stole what amounted to trash, how could they trust her to not steal more valuable things or embezzle funds?

Some people have a very simple definition of badness - either something is bad or it isn't; there are no nuances.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[ZeroExistenZ]

My company pays me from 9 to 5 and that does NOT give them the right to invade my live the rest of the time.

I wholeheartedly agree.

It seems the concept "working" has become a bit warped in our society. If you formulate it differently things look entirely different:
"My employer pays me for my skill and service which I'm willing to deliver for the price I'm being paid. We both have a contract and agreement where we stipulate which service he wants me to provide to him and for which compensation I will dedicate my time to this person. If the agreement isn't met, the agreement is voided and I will put my skills and time to use for someone else who needs my expertise with whom I negotiate the terms for my service to him or her."

These days it seems like a job is something you have to bend over for and you're at mercy of someone who is "kind enough to give you a buck to mope the floor and make coffee."

Other then your "service" with your mutual agreed terms (you've signed a contract, you can scratch clausules and modify others if you don't agree, you're negotiating terms that moment...) your employer has no say in your private life.

While I might agree you should sortof keep the both seperated, it's a personal choice and it's up to you. Knowing much more about one's personal life does affect professionalism (after getting closer to some colleagues I often lost respect but you remain professional), but your employer has no authority over what you do in your passed time.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies have so many different criteria for hiring and retaining employees why is external personal conduct so seemingly extreme?

Because people get fired for the most minute things. Workers get stalked in their free time by their employers, which forces you question everything you do.

Especially in cases like this, where a joke leads to a long term employee getting fired. Which makes you wonder whether the employer was just looking for an excuse to fire somebody to replace him/her with somebody cheaper.

When it comes to this, employees have to question every single thought and action and ask themselves "Can my employer use this against me in any way?".

An environment of fear like this can ruin you psychologically. So yes, it is extreme when companies scrutinise the private lifes of their employees when inanities can get you fired.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[PsychoSlashDot]

You're right. As much as I hate what's happened to her, this can't be a black & white situation.

What if an employee at an abortion clinic spends her evenings and weekends attending anti-abortion rallies? What if she spends her time organizing those sorts of rallies?
What if a secret service agent assigned to keeping the President alive spends his personal time popping off about how much he hates the President?

Two examples. Extremes, yes. But they show that there are circumstances where private actions are so radically inappropriate for an employee that continued employment is... inadvisable. I'm not saying her case is one of those, but as much as it rubs me the wrong way, I can see the shape of the argument behind her dismissal.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

This is way problematic as if the government authorizes the law that says dismissal is okay in these circumstances, the government is by default arbitrating speech.

This to me is no different than the government allowing certain segments to things the government isn't authorized to do (Blackwater most currently).

If the employeer wants to play this game, fine, but they are not going to have the blessing of law without sever questions of government overstepping its bounds.

And that isn't even considering due compensation for maintaining a company's image during off hours.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

>"9/11 is a joke in your town"

I think you mean 911. That song came out long before the '9/11.'

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Atraxen]

Playing the Devil's Advocate for a moment, I do hope that people will ask themselves how they would respond to this parallel case:

A senior clerk in a court office (e.g. parking permits and citations - feel free to pick what one for yourself) has acceptable performance in the office. On the 3rd page of the newspaper, a photograph of this person at a racist rally (e.g. KKK) appears, and they are holding a sign backing these racist beliefs. Should the local government feel that their public behavior off-the-clock may impact their official civil function? The next-tier officials are concerned that patrons (remember, not all court patrons are citizens/taxpayers/etc - hence, patrons) may justifiably feel that this government-provided service may unfairly or ineptly handle their issues based on their public, non-job-related performance.
- Is this grounds for disciplinary actions?
- Should this same standard be applied re: teacher/strippers?

And for those who like to assume the question = the answer, notice that I didn't take a stand on any side, I'm just pointing out that we should either be consistent in our reasoning between these cases, or have a well thought-out reason that they should all be treated differently. Food for thought.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[ckaminski]

Professionals should be expected to act like professionals. If they are, their personal thoughts and feelings on the matter shouldn't apply. Anti-abortion does not necessarily mean bombings, and spouting off vitriol about the President, last I checked, wasn't illegal, unless you of course threatened to kill him, where it is illegal for pretty much anybody (but which the Secret Service takes an especial disliking to).

Criminal records can be held against you, but even in the holy Democratic Union of Massachusetts, that's only true for seven years. Murder your family, a schoolbus full of children and a puppy, and 7 years after your parole ends you too can be bank manager or something similar.

Powertripping employer/manager is more like it.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[RobVB]

Should this same standard be applied re: teacher/strippers?

That depends on what they're teaching.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Xtifr]

I do hope that people will ask themselves how they would respond to this parallel case:

I fail to see the parallels. The case you describe doesn't offer any obvious evidence that the person was joking, nor do you suggest that the person regularly passes tests for non-bigotry (to the best of my knowledge, no such tests exist with even a fraction of the accuracy of drug tests). So, in the completely different case you describe, I would, indeed, respond differently.

I think your case is so far from being parallel that it's nearly perpendicular. :)

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[tophermeyer]

If she agreed to that code on those terms when she signed her employment contract, then no. I've had to do that for previous jobs. No surprise to me that a PD might require that.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anon-Admin]

Businesses should fire people who are too stupid to understand the impact of their actions on their company.

Wait a sec, that would fire all the C level executives and upper management. How can we as a company survive without upper management?

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter. You're still an employee, not a slave. And, as a government worker, until the government wants to pay me for 168 hours a week, I'm only going to follow their rules the 35 hours a week I'm there. And, according to my contract, that's all that is expected. As has been said: What happens at the office, stays at the office; what happens outside, stays outside. Unless I'm here and wearing my ID, I'm not an acting agent of my organization. I'm just another average every day normal guy. It's funny to see how many people treat government workers as some second-rate citizens or people with no rights just because their employer happens to be the government instead of a business.

Think of it like this: Government employees are private individuals being contracted into their positions with the Government. Each one is their own mini-company. Sure we're bound by collective bargaining agreements and usually get stuck in worse-than-usual contracts as a result, but the point still remains. We're not the military.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Surt]

I hate to break it to you, but their contract almost certainly does. Mine did, the last time I worked for a police department.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Rivalz]

Everyone managed to make some good points but here is where I draw the line. Maybe she posts a comment saying I just love Mickey Mouse. And they fire her for that. It is the same thing, maybe she likes the color blue and posts it on facebook and the company owner is a blue hater. Is that grounds for being fired in this day and age? Should I be fired for using slashdot? Wheres the line in the sand on what is safe and what is not. Basically businesses get a free pass on what they can fire you on. That is fine for them but we should then demand early termination clauses in all of our contracts. Not that will ever happen because for every smart ethical hard working person theres 100 others willing to do the job just as good.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Itninja]

If you have a contract, you are not an employee.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[HeckRuler]

See Wage Slave
Thankfully it's not nearly quite as bad as the typical example of wage slaves. But the world is not binary. It's about 6 billion shades of gray.

As for working somewhere else, the ol' resume is still being polished on monster...

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[bickerdyke]

I can get out of this rather easily as there are rules in my jurisdiction (but IANAL) to handle that. (to a certain extent)

1. racist beliefs aren't covered by freedom of speech. In fact, it may be illegal itself. (considering that we already found out what happens when it's legal, I don't have a problem with that.)

2. many positions in public offices are not filled by regular employees but rather by civil servants. They get special perks (like immunity against lay-offs) but also have certain restrictions. They're not only bound by contract but by oath to be loyal to country, state and public. (Yes, this stuff dates way back to the times of monarchy.) So membership in or supporting an extremest, but otherwise legal organization may be a reason for an unhonourable discharge.

(I fully understand that sounds fascist to you guys in the US, but it's part of our checks and balances against fascism)

In any other job dealing with customers I doubt that racist beliefs wouldn't interfere with job performance.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Kirijini]

Regardless of whether or not its a good idea to say one thing or another, the government better have a pretty damn good reason to punish you for what you say.* If it's not a "good idea" to say something, then societal norms will do the punishment just fine. i.e., saying racist things causes you to get shunned pretty damn fast, no government action required.

This person was punished by the government, which frankly doesn't have any right to control our speech, and especially not private speech. By private, I mean, this person wasn't speaking on government time or property, but (presumably) on her own time, and on a third party website.

* good reasons might be: putting someone in fear that their life or that of someone they love might be threaten (true threats); active incitement to violent action against public order (real sedition); blatant lies that hurt someone, either socially or economically (defamation), etc.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[smellsofbikes]

My sis-in-law is a law clerk at a federal court. She doesn't have on-the-job freedom of speech, in much the same way you don't, but she also explicitly does not have off-the-job freedom of speech in many ways: as a federal employee she is not allowed to put up political signs in her yard, for instance. (As a result, neither is my brother.) People have been fired from where she works for wearing shirts with political statements when they weren't at work. This is a result of the Hatch Act of 1939 although it's not clear to me that it extends as far as her employers say it does.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation Needed]

On a more serious note: Technically, yes you are. All employment (both in private and public sectors) is just a contract between employee and employer. But again - doesn't make any lick of a difference in the other anon-coward's post. He/she makes a strong point. Unless the government is paying the person for all 168 hours in each week, the government has no right dictating what the employee does when it's not paying said person for his/her time. On-the-clock actions and off-the-clock actions are two completely different things.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Itninja]

I've never had to sign an employment contract as an employee. I live is a state considered an 'implied contract state'. But an implied contract is much different that a real one.

I think your my-life-is-my-business idea is tricky though. I can think of any number of situations where things a person does in the personal life will get them canned. Like a UPS driver joking about intentionally causing an freeway accident. Or a TSA screening making a joke on their FB page about 'towelheads'. Maybe a kindergarten making a remark in a forum that 'the mexican kids are always the dumbest ones'. The list goes on....

When a persons' actions bring ostracism or severe criticism upon their organization, said organization is under no obligation to keep them on.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies can be fairly quick to kick out such veterans. In Germany, we recently saw the latest act of a fiasco where a woman was fired for pocketing a few leftover Maultaschen (a kind of food) which were explicitly going to be thrown away. The employer maintained that the fact that she caused zero to negative economic damage (ever so slightly lowering the amount of trash) doesn't change the fact that stealing is wrong - after all, after she stole what amounted to trash, how could they trust her to not steal more valuable things or embezzle funds?

In Germany, is trash still considered a specific person's property? In the USA, by throwing something out a person surrenders all rights to exclude access and usage to others. Trash basically becomes the physical property analogue of public domain, anyone can take it and make use of it if they want to. It's been like that for a long time and probably has roots in Common Law concepts like "abandoned property".

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

If, in his off time, a police officer were to participate in a Klan march - no violence, just freedom of speech and expression of his views - what should his department do? Every time he arrests a non-white person, there will be the presumption that it was because of the officer's racist views, which taints the prosecution's case. At that point, he's useless for the department to continue to employ because no jury will convict anyone he arrests. Every defense will bring up the officer's views to discredit him, and thus his testimony, on the stand.

Should we, the taxpayers, continue to employ him if he's no longer capable of doing his job because of the taint of his expression and speech outside of work? Do we give him a desk job, where his views will still be seen as tainting his department and/or subordinates? What about all the wrongful arrest/imprisonment lawsuits, the lawsuits of other employees that claim they didn't get promoted because of the racist cop's views, etc? At that point, said cop is nothing BUT a liability and the best thing to do is terminate him.

So yeah, there are occasions where merely speaking your views, even off duty and not in uniform, SHOULD cost you your job as a public servant, even if those views are only presumed to have harmed someone. See also Mark Fuhrman, who became a felon for committing perjury on the basis of using the n word in regard to a screenplay he was involved in.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[LanMan04]

as a federal employee she is not allowed to put up political signs in her yard, for instance

Once upon a time I was a Fed, and that's not true, UNLESS you work for one of the super-secret agencies, but they have all kinds of looney-toons rules that don't apply to the other agencies.

The Hatch Act DOES apply in some specific circumstances outside the job, but putting up a partisan sign in your yard is not one of them. That's OK (again, for "regular" Feds, not NSA/CIA/Secret Service folks).

had to link due to stupid lameness filter

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

I own a small business my self.

I do not force people apply for a job at my place. And I pay these people with my own money for their time.

If their action, while employeed by me, caused me money then yes they will be gone.

My employees have free will do whatever they want and so do I.

They are not my slaves.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[pclminion]

My company pays me from 9 to 5 and that does NOT give them the right to invade my live the rest of the time. In return, I will not meddle with their buissness outside office times. What happens at the office, stays at the office, and what happens outside, happens outside. Thats a matter of basic decency.

It's also a matter of basic intelligence. If you post something on the public Internet, it's not "invading your life" when somebody you didn't plan on happens to look at it. You're simply being a moron and a blabbermouth.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Bobb Sledd]

I'm curious. Where does this "I can't really say anything" ideal come from? Is it just fear of a litigious society, that suddenly we can't use common sense when speaking to the public?

I assert that you may certainly tell the patron whatever you want; but as usual use reason and tact, and there is a right way and a wrong way. One might get you sued, the other not.

Wrong way: "Ahahahah! WHAT?! I don't think the fall of Rome resulted in angel creation! Hehehe!!! ... that's a pretty good one. I'll have to tell Larry about that-- Hey Larry! Get a load of THIS!"

Right way: (give a thoughtful, considering look) "That's an interesting relationship between the two that I've not personally heard of. I'm not 100% certain, but I think you'll have a very difficult time finding literature here that connects those two together; but you might start here... and here... and here...."

I worked at a software firm that sold legal software. I heard time and time again "well, I can't give legal advice, so I can't help you find the form you're looking for." That's just ridiculous. Help the customer. But word your thoughts carefully: "I'm no legal professional, but it sounds like you might find this form of interest, maybe possibly this one, and I'm sure there are others that are relevant that I am unaware of."

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see why you wouldn't want to employ those people in those jobs for your examples, but I still don't think their personal actions should affect their employment status. In the case of the secret agent, they should be reassigned to different duties. However in the case of the abortion clinic employee, so long as they didn't let their personal views affect their work, I don't see the issue, but I would question their motives for wanting to work there.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Criminal records can be held against you, but even in the holy Democratic Union of Massachusetts, that's only true for seven years. Murder your family, a schoolbus full of children and a puppy, and 7 years after your parole ends you too can be bank manager or something similar.

After what bank managers did to the economy and the resulted near permanent unemployment of millions of people, it would seem many bank managers are almost as evil.

Considering it is likely that many more died from the effects of unemployment than due to murderers.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[FailedTheTuringTest]

"well, I can't give legal advice, so I can't help you find the form you're looking for." That's just ridiculous. Help the customer.

Unfortunately, at some point in the distant past, some customer got helped, received the wrong form, and suffered some delay or inconvenience because of that. Because that customer was a litigious, spiteful, vindictive asshole who likes blaming others, he found a hungry lawyer willing to take the case on contingency, sued the person who gave him the form, and won on the grounds that the form-hander-outer was not qualified to provide legal advice. And for that reason, form-hander-outers cannot comment on the appropriateness of the forms they hand out. Presumably the same thinking is behind the law in the UK that threatens to make criminals out of people who suggest to their friends that putting money into an ISA (like a 401(k) in the USA) is a good idea.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[McDozer]

Dont like the job requirements, dont work there.

If it were only that simple.......some people I swear. So when all corporations have crazy external personal conduct rules that no one in there right mind would agree to do you just starve? I'm wondering how this works in the current economic situation is it really that easy to find another job that pays enough to maintain your current financial obligations? Last time I checked a lot of people were happy just having a job. Most Americans currently do not have the luxury of being so sought after they can just up and quit there job and have another one the next day. That comment reeks of 'still living in mom's basement'.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Pichu0102]

Freedom of speech is an illusion anyways. If someone thinks they can save a buck, or extract more money, they can shut you up, even the government, because they have the power. The chances of someone coming to defend you are beyond slim to none. The chances of becoming a rotting corpse in prison because someone didn't like what you said outside and they stuck you with a murderer with a lust for blood is far higher, and that gets them more money.
And it's all legal, after all, common citizens don't have power.
In this world, might makes right.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Pichu0102]

My company pays me from 9 to 5 and that does NOT give them the right to invade my live the rest of the time. In return, I will not meddle with their buissness outside office times. What happens at the office, stays at the office, and what happens outside, happens outside. Thats a matter of basic decency.

Do you have money? Do you have political power? If the answer to these is no, or less than your employer, than the employer could do whatever they want to you. The only thing stopping them from doing so is cost, in lawyers or in search teams. If they want you to stop eating anything hard enough, and have the money to force it, they can do it.
It's not about rights. It's about power. And you don't have it, you never will, because power only transfers between those who already have it. This is our world, you must learn to adapt or your chances of survival are slim.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[smellsofbikes]

In her case, she falls under the category of Administrative Law Judge, so gets placed in "agencies and employees prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity" which means she can not "campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections" from the wikipedia article we both linked, so: not so super-secret.

But, again, it doesn't appear to me that this gives the people running the place the right to fire someone for wearing a political shirt while not at work, but I guess that sufficiently qualifies as engaging in partisan political activity that they felt they could get away with it.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[rdnetto]

So what? As long as they're performing the jobs well, why should their personal views matter?

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[PsychoSlashDot]

You seriously need to ask? Because their personal views being (in my examples) strongly against the purpose of the job you simply can't trust them to be doing their jobs well. You can't trust the secret service agent to take a bullet for a President he hates. Not the way you'd trust an agent who was devoted to said President. One employee is ideal, one is contrary to ideal. No matter what psychological tests she/he passes, his team-mates will always doubt her/him. The President would always be a little more nervous when that person is on duty. Not good.

As for the other example, someone - even not in sales - who actively discourages people to use your services? They should be fired.

Here's the point in a nutshell:

It's one thing to be neutral. It's no big deal to have contrary opinions even. It does become a big deal, and important to your employer when you become evangelical. When you're announcing your views.

Hate the President if you like. Disagree with abortion if you like. Be vegetarian and work at a slaughterhouse if you like. Just don't go spouting off about it.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

According to that logic, all active police officers that are members of LEAP (law enforcement against prohibition) need to be fired.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all nice and well but lets not forget the scope we are dealing with here.

How does making a JOKE about drugs in your free time make you unsuitable for the job of emergency dispatcher? Other than fake moral outrage to get rid of a long-term employee, that is.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[umghhh]

the company should have integrity to keep their hands off private life of 21 year veteran.

Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;)

[Bobb Sledd]

And anyone who works in the legal field knows that this is an abnormal thing that happened. I also suggest that there is more to that story, too. So just because the possibility exists that you could get sued for something because it happened to someone somewhere once upon a time, let's throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Remember when that lady sued McDonald's because the coffee was too hot and it burned her? Everyone over-reacted by serving cold coffee. Well guess what. They were making a decision based misinformation.

That particular McDonald's really did have their coffee too hot (it was in fact scalding 185F instead of 140F), and they had been warned about it many times before. Then, they did not secure their lids well enough to the coffee cups. So, when the lid came off, the entire contents of the cup -- scalding hot coffee -- spilled giving her 3rd degree burns all over her lap and genitals (over 6% of her body) that required skin graft and therapy in a hospital stay that lasted 8 days.

The lady offered to settle the claim for $20,000 and McDonald's refused.

So you have a case for unsafe conditions, neglect (they were fore-warned several times and did nothing), and you have severe personal harm as a result, and an uncooperative company. Well who wouldn't sue? I certainly would.

But the bottom line is that a lot of people made decisions on an event that was 1)rare and 2)had many more facts to it

My Uncle is an Ex-West Allis cop

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be off topic but these cops are corrupt as hell. I'd explain more, but yeah, not gonna go there. I guarantee there is more to this story.

Sounds like the excuse....

[Fallen Kell]

Sounds like the excuse to fire someone whom they could replace with someone a lot cheaper/less benefits due to years of service....

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[njhunter]

In this day and age, you need to work your butt off to keep those gold plated benefits!

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[Dryesias]

Seems likely. Why else would they be checking (stalking?) her Facebook profile anyway?

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[dontbgay]

So they fire an old lady on the cusp of retirement for making an off-colored joke on the FaceBooks? Next thing you know, the sherriff will be sporting a top hat and cape with a handlebar moustache tying damsels in distress to railroad tracks.

Come on guys, that has to be a fat load to actually fire someone that late in their life for something as innocuous as a joke on Facebook. Seriously. It's almost.. Dastardly.

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[Jedi Alec]

I doubt that's what happened. A far more likely event would be that a co-worker who is also a "friend" saw it, blabbed to Janet in accounting who couldn't help but mention it at the watercooler after which it passed through the janitorial staffmember to the HR guy during a smoke break...and there you go.

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[ConfusedVorlon]

she had already been taken through 4 of the mandatory 5 steps to dismissal

"Kuchler was already on thin ice with the city, having gone through four of the five disciplinary steps required by the collective bargaining agreement with the local clerical union: a verbal warning, written warning, one-day-suspension, and three-day-suspension."
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/05/police_dispatcher_fired_for_st.php

so it seems that for whatever reason, her bosses didn't think much of her...

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[houghi]

Unfortunately for them that does not mean they can skip the 5th step.

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[kramerd]

The 5th step is dismissal. The other 4 steps have to be taken first.

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading that, it doesn't say if those other steps were previous actions related to this incident, it refers to an attachment that isn't present.

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[Kjella]

Which makes this whole story sensationalist. It's not like "make a drug joke, get fired", it's "be on the verge of being fired and pile on the straw that broke the camel's back". Nobody really wants to have people in that position for long, either you want the employee to really straighten themselves out or you want them out, no in betweens. There's no goodwill at that point.

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[Nyder]

Which makes this whole story sensationalist. It's not like "make a drug joke, get fired", it's "be on the verge of being fired and pile on the straw that broke the camel's back". Nobody really wants to have people in that position for long, either you want the employee to really straighten themselves out or you want them out, no in betweens. There's no goodwill at that point.

The only problem is, we don't know what the previous write ups were about. They can all be stupid crap that don't merit it, ie. missed work because of being sick, car broke down, made you late to work, etc...

Plus, we don't know either when she posted that facebook message. it could of been posted before this stuff happen, ie, be in her profile or something, not something she wrote recently.

But who knows, all in all, and we probably won't.

But ya, the whole title and crap does make it seem like it's just about the drugs comment.

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[DMiax]

If you don't want to pay people so long and so much you don't sign a contract that says you will do so. Is it difficult?

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[hansamurai]

I'm curious if she built up those four steps over the course of her 21 year career?

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this right - because some details were lost in the translation to summary, it's completely okay that they fired her for this? I don't care what she did BEFORE this, she has constitutional right to free speech. Prior offences ought NEVER justify an abridgement of that.

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Which makes this whole story sensationalist.

Just like every news story. Anyone who thinks they are getting an accurate full story from any news report is a fool. I treat the news more like a comedy show now. Unfortunately, it's the most un-funny comedy show I've ever seen... except for maybe the American version of Coupling...

Re:Sounds like the excuse....

[aaandre]

Except that it's not a straw on the back of the camel. It has nothing to do with the camel. The camel lied about a straw. There is no straw.

If the government lies in order to fire an employee, that is an important story. Whoever made that decision and the ones supporting them have no integrity and are not worthy of trust.

w0w typo in summary

[Anonymous Coward]

L2 edit

No amount is too much to pay for your LIFE!!1

[Anonymous Coward]

These people work harder than anyone you keep you safe from danger! How can you put a price tag on that? Hurr Durr, FDNY, etc.

Re:No amount is too much to pay for your LIFE!!1

[Montezumaa]

Safe from danger? We are talking about emergency services, not your personal nanny. These agencies are a reactive service, not a proactive service. Sure, some violent acts might be discovered in-progress or just prior, but that does not occur very often.

Each person is responsible for their own safety.

Re:No amount is too much to pay for your LIFE!!1

[icebraining]

Violence is not the only thing they protect from - a fast arrival may mean the fire in the house next to yours won't spread.

A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[pinkushun]

- This can be considered invasion of privacy, as social networking sites are apart of your private life.
- Think before you post online, whichever site or mailing list. Too many people post without thinking.

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[Jeian]

"social networking sites"

"private"

Yeah?

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[muckracer]

> Think before you post online, whichever site or mailing list. Too many people post without thinking.

When it comes to FB, it should be:

Think before you add "friends".

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[mikael_j]

Yes, private in the same sense as if you were to decide to go to a bar and have a few drinks with your friends while not working it would still be a "private" event in the sense that her employer would have little grounds for firing you even using the "but anyone could see him/her in the bar and we don't condone binge drinking here! We have to protect our corporate image!" argument. Once you're off the clock it is your private time to do with as you please (unless you're getting paid to be on call).

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[hellop2]

The US constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy.

As opposed to the Alaska constitution section 22, which does.

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[Architect_sasyr]

Or you happen to be wearing a uniform. Or, if you're here and follow Australian Rules Football, if you're famous. We don't question the footy clubs suspending players because they went for a binge session, but if - god forbid - it happens to a "regular" person the entire world is up in arms about it. I've seen CTO's fired for cracking in their off hours, Managers for telling it like it is to their superiors when they happen to run into each other at the pub, but as soon as it's the average jo(sephine)...

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[GigaplexNZ]

If you want your "private attendance" of a bar to remain private, don't paste all about it on a public website (if the employers were able to view the data, I'm assuming the privacy settings weren't locked down).

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[bickerdyke]

Not private as in "secret" or "not public", but "private" as in "none of your bosses buissness"

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy.

Bullshit -- Roe v. Wade is entirely based on SCOTUS recognizing a right to privacy.

BTW, read, research and understand the Ninth Amendment before you mouth off about "The Constitution doesn't recognize any right to ...." You'll come off as less of an unstudied fool.

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't question the footy clubs suspending players because they went for a binge session, but if - god forbid - it happens to a "regular" person the entire world is up in arms about it.

One can reasonably argue that a football player (and a CXO) is paid enough money to abide by their employer's rules even during their non-working hours. With that in mind, I hope you can understand why it makes a difference when the same is suddenly expected from the "average Joe" -- without equal compensation, of course.

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Think before you post online, whichever site or mailing list. Too many people post without thinking.

Seriously, should I have to do this ? And when I make a joke in public to one of my friends should I first glance over my shoulder to see if there's some HR loon or middle manager stalking me who could use a joke as an excuse to fire me ? That's not the kind of society I want to live in. (It's also in fact NOT the society I live in because luckily I happen to live in a country with decent social protections and unions.) This is the sort of thing we used reproach the USSR for : peoples lives being destroyed because they get reported for saying the "wrong things" without recourse.

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[Trepidity]

What if you don't post about it on a website, but the boss sees you entering the bar while he's driving home? Can he still fire you?

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[GigaplexNZ]

I would say no even if they did find out through Facebook. That doesn't change the fact that if you want certain information private, it's not the best idea to publish it.

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[Ash-Fox]

What if you don't post about it on a website, but the boss sees you entering the bar while he's driving home? Can he still fire you?

I don't see why he couldn't?

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in most civilized countries that would result in the (former) employee and/or the union he/she was a member of suing the employer for wrongful termination since it generally isn't legal to just randomly fire employees for what they do in their own time.

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

If you publicly do something socially frowned upon in your private life, you may find that it impacts on other aspects of your life. You may cause tension at work, you may lose some friends/lovers, and doors may close to you. Life isn't segregated into compartments; almost everything you do effects the reactions of those around you. This is the other side of freedom: responsibility. The license to do whatever legal activity you like is a right, but the esteem in which others hold you is not.

That said, this seems a pretty harsh for a drug joke. I think employers should be required to outline in broad terms, from the event of hiring, the circumstances that a person can be fired. If they need to get rid of a person for a reason not on the list that's within the person's control, they should be required to first give the person a warning, at which point it becomes a fire-able offence for the next time.

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[pinkushun]

Some people do need to think because they say stupid things, others because creepy HR loons hover around ;)

TFA case in point: If she vocalized, while on the job, that she was addicted to "Vicodin, Adderall, quality marijuana, MD 20/20 Grape and (absinthe)", would that be different than posting it online? Can anyone take that as a joke in the workplace, if they don't know you personally?

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[hellop2]

Fuck you. There's a big difference between the vague text of the 9th amendment the text of Alaska's Constitution:

22. Right of Privacy The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed.

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I once told my boss to fuck off in a bar (and I meant it) and I didn't get fired*.

FB behaviour needs to be seen as the same as bar-room behaviour.

* as you might expect, I did quit shortly afterwards though ;)

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that what happens in a bar is only viewable by people who are also in the bar, while intarweb sites are viewable by anyone. So your analogy is flawed.

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[hellop2]

Troll? Well, at least I'm not an anonymous coward, bitch.

The guy insulted me for no reason. Am I a troll for disagreeing or for saying the F-word?

I'm making a point that the right to privacy is less explicit in the US constitution than it is in the Alaska constitution. The right to privacy of the Alaska constitution allows people to smoke pot legally in their own home because as interpreted by the courts privacy is based on the sanctity of the bond between man and women in the privacy of their own bedroom.

That's WAY DIFFERENT than the protections the US constitution affords us.

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[hellop2]

How many hours have you spent in an Alaskan Law library reading cases about the constitutional right to privacy just for fun? Yeah, I spent a lot.

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[KarlIsNotMyName]

Think before you post online, whichever site or mailing list. Too many people post without thinking.

Seriously, should I have to do this ? And when I make a joke in public to one of my friends should I first glance over my shoulder to see if there's some HR loon or middle manager stalking me who could use a joke as an excuse to fire me ? That's not the kind of society I want to live in. (It's also in fact NOT the society I live in because luckily I happen to live in a country with decent social protections and unions.) This is the sort of thing we used reproach the USSR for : peoples lives being destroyed because they get reported for saying the "wrong things" without recourse.

But it apparently *is* the society you live in, or at least almost everyone else does. So we either change society this instant, or better watch what we post online, because on the Internet everything is public. Even with artificial limits to prevent it from being accessible to all, those who you specifially give access to can still make it public. Including those who control those artificial limits (like the owners of Facebook).

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[tophermeyer]

That all depends on your employment contract. If you agreed to a standard of behavior when you accepted your job, then yes you need to be careful what you say. You have a constitutional right to have your speech be protected from the government, not from the decisions made by persons or private entities. You wouldn't claim privacy violations if a person decided not to be your friend based on the things that you say.

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[mikael_j]

What if I took a picture of you in the bar and uploaded it to the internet without your knowledge, your boss saw it and fired you?

What if your boss walked by the bar and peeked in through a window and saw you?

What if you did absolutely nothing illegal and you also did this perfectly legal thing in your own time? Why should your boss have any right to fire you over what you do in your own time?

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[farble1670]

Once you're off the clock it is your private time to do with as you please

sure, if they specifically tried to fire you were drinking in your off time, but it doesn't happen like that usually.

in the US most employment is at will. that means barring discrimination, your employer can let you go whenever they want, and they don't need a reason. so feel free to let your employer know you are a binge drinker, but if they don't approve they are perfectly in their rights to kick you out the door.

they don't have to fire your for drinking, they just lay you off without reason.

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[Smauler]

As much as I am wary to disrupt this nice discussion you seem to be having with yourself, can I just ask : Who are you talking to?

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[Mal-2]

I was once at an after-hours party (really a small rave), and was already rolling when a group formed in a corner to pass around a couple joints. I was in this group of maybe 12 to 15 people, when MY BOSS WALKED IN THE FRONT DOOR. I completely forgot that (1) he lived less than a mile away, and (2) he had commented on this fact when he saw the flyer I had been given by another employee. Apparently he remembered!

Anyhow, he studiously pretended not to notice me until the circle broke up. Then he introduced me to his wife and bought me a drink (last call too).

Could he have gotten me canned? Probably. His successor eventually did, over something fairly trivial -- but I understood, the MAIN boss's son wanted the job. At least they offered me another position (a crappy one) which I declined. But at no point did they use that party as the reason (though I doubt it ever came up).

Mal-2

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[Ash-Fox]

Well, in most civilized countries that would result in the (former) employee and/or the union he/she was a member of suing the employer for wrongful termination since it generally isn't legal to just randomly fire employees for what they do in their own time.

Now, I may have not lived in "most civilized countries", since there is quite a lot of them, but I have lived in quite a lot of them in Europe (UK, Germany, Denmark, Sweden etc..), in every country I've been in, an employer could easily fire someone for something they did on their own time that badly represents the company. My anecdotal personal experience seems to conflict with this claim and as such, I need something more than a random comment on the internet without sources showing this does not happen in "most civilized" because it "would result in the (former) employee and/or the union he/she was a member of suing the employer for wrongful termination".

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[hellop2]

I'm talking to this guy, Anonymous Coward. He's like the biggest spammer on /. and I'm tired of his BS!

Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity?

[Anonymous Coward]

"social networking sites"

"private"

Yeah?

Facebook doesn't think so; why should anyone else?

Happens

[token0]

Oh what a shocking story to make us worry about facebook privacy. Obviously she should have her own encrypted personal site for friends and never share it with colleagues. Wait, she either got a stupid employer or other reasons to get fired.

writing 'ha' in it is not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

She should have written 'roflcopter'.

Re:writing 'ha' in it is not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

idiot, everyone knows it's a lolcopter, a roflcoaster, and a lmaotank.

Cause

[Zaphod The 42nd]

You know, we wouldn't even have this problem if we didn't try to prohibit Americans from so many things...

Re:Cause

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Not quite. The cause is conservative Americans. There wouldn't be a problem and we wouldn't try to prohibit Americans from doing so many things if Americans weren't conservative.

Re:Cause

[icebrain]

"Conservative Americans" are the problem behind many things wrong in this country (though not all of them), and the "war on drugs" in many cases is one of those things. But there's a very big difference between telling Sally Paper Pusher not to use certain substances because "God says it's wrong", and telling Nancy EMS Dispatcher that she can't use certain substances because they could impair her performance in her public safety job and get others killed.

Working in public safety (or in other jobs like airline pilot, air traffic controller, medicine, etc.) comes with the extra responsibility to not do things that can impair your performance on the job. Taking drugs is one of those things you don't do. Don't like it? Choose another job.

Re:Cause

[tophermeyer]

I wish I hadn't already posted so I could mod you up. Though I have to bite my tongue to not get into a political debate, you are absolutely 100% spot on with your point on people working in public safety. That is the issue here, the PD can no longer trust that this person's performance is hindered by drug or alcohol use.

Re:Cause

[icebrain]

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I can give you a list of many problems that "liberal Americans" are responsible for causing, too ;) I just bagged on so-called "conservatives" this time around because that was the subject at hand and one of the moralist/religious ones pissed me off earlier today.

Re:Cause

[fishexe]

But there's a very big difference between telling Sally Paper Pusher not to use certain substances because "God says it's wrong", and telling Nancy EMS Dispatcher that she can't use certain substances because they could impair her performance in her public safety job and get others killed.

Yeah, and telling jokes about using substances could kill someone's sense of humor, too.

Image degradation

[enriquevagu]

Making comments IN PUBLIC about taking drugs might be a reason to be fired off. Making jokes IN PUBLIC about the same issue might be a reason to be fired off. Both of them can negatively condition your image.

Facebook, on the other side, is mostly public, so the loss of image might also apply.

Re:Image degradation

[Ponyegg]

Arguably the action of the bosses have brought this to a much wider audience. Far more people are now aware of the company's actions and (looking at the posts here) the majority of people seem to think it was them overstepping their authority. They have therefore brought themselves into disrepute, can we expect the bosses to be sacking themselves anytime soon? Nah, I didn't think so either. I just hope the person was in a union.

Re:Image degradation

[icebrain]

Y'all are missing the point. The woman in question wasn't some paper-pusher at a private company. She was a police dispatcher. Impaired performance from a paper-pusher causes a little lost productivity and money; impaired performance in public safety jobs (police, fire, EMS, and their dispatchers; even military in a sense) gets people killed. That's one of those tradeoffs you make for working such jobs. It's one thing to make jokes among close friends or your coworkers (you pretty much have to in these fields to stay sane), but posting a comment on facebook like she did, essentially holding up a sign saying "I work in public safety, helping protect and save your life in an emergency, and I use mind-altering substances! Haha I'm j/k honest" doesn't just make the company look bad and cause lost money. It casts doubt on the competence of the entire department and the city, and tells the entire population that "we don't take your tax dollars or your lives seriously".

Give Facebook the Boot

[davidbrucehughes]

No, but my take on it is that it's time to give Facebook the boot. I deleted my account over a year ago.

Re:Give Facebook the Boot

[jamesh]

I deleted my account over a year ago.

And it's been better ever since.

Seriously, if you don't know how to use facebook properly you're better off without it. It's a useful toy but it's not the answer to all the worlds problems - i'm tired of hearing from people who thought it was and then get all upset when they find it isn't.

Dangers of public by default

[muckracer]

With Facebook's constant and behind-the-back changes to make more and more things public by default, it'll be a question of time until somebody gets fired because they posted something for their friends (not including anybody from work), yet people (incl. employment-related) they had never intended to see the message did see it and used it against the poster.

Personally I hate the fact, that I have to keep screening my privacy settings just in case they fucked around with something again and changed it to "Everybody".

Re:Dangers of public by default

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook does a deal to provide Demographic information about signed Users, the current privacy setting prevent a Complete Sample (100% users), so lets just change the TOS and move everybody to the new default settings, no breach of contract by Facebook, And complete Dataset for the client, what could go wrong Its all perfectly Legal.

Re:Dangers of public by default

[infinite9]

I have a simple solution for this. I don't have a facebook account. Maybe I'm old or something (39), but I just don't feel he need to use something like this to communicate with anyone. I have a myspace account I created to communicate with a certain hard-to-find person who used only that. I think I've checked 3 "emails" on that site. I have no profile to speak of and haven't logged on in months. I do have a linked-in account that I don't use also.

I don't think any of this has hurt me one bit. I heard on a (christian!) radio show the other day that you have to get on to the social network bandwagon if you want to be competitive in today's job market. How? Why does it matter? Who's going to see my facebook page and give me a job? To me it just seems like a complete waste of time at best, and something that can come back to haunt me at worst.

Lately, I've been calling it "bookface" mainly to irritate my teenage kids, but also to show my disdain for these things. Maybe I'll start calling it "facepalm".

Re:Dangers of public by default

[david_thornley]

I just changed most of my privacy settings to "Everybody" myself, which I suppose saves Facebook a little time and work. The advantage to me is that I don't have a false sense of security or privacy.

Picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue...

[Dahamma]

Oh crap. Now I am probably screwed for life for making a drug joke....

Seemed to have ended Lloyd Bridge's career as well. Then again, I actually *liked* [Jane Austen's] Mafia!

Re:Picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue...

[lordharsha]

Speaking of mafia, are the brave men and women of the Police and Fire Department prohibited from playing Mafia Wars since, in their own words, it "is blatantly inconsistent with the mission of the Police Department that employs her."

And another thing, do they need to report which of their friends do play the game to the City Overlords too? Hell, are they fired for cultivating personal friendships with possible mafia members?

Re:Picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue...

[couchslug]

"Seemed to have ended Lloyd Bridge's career as well."

No. His career was long and even survived HUAC blacklisting.
The "Airplane" casting took advantage of his straight roles which made the jokes funnier by contrast. It also made him famous to another generation.

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

Re:Picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue...

[Dahamma]

1) duh. He was awesome. My point was that after Airplane! (and partly due to it) he mostly only got roles that parodied himself. None were nearly as funny as Airplane! but they still had their moments, often due to him...

2) it was a JOKE. Lighten up, Francis.

Opportunity!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an opportunity for her to change to an employer that does not read her facebook page.

Employers need to be slapped down

[hyades1]

As long as your physical performance on the job isn't affected, your employer should have no right to use what you do outside of work hours against you, unless they're paying you to be on-call (and even then, there should be limits).

End of story.

Re:Employers need to be slapped down

[Anonymous Coward]

If every employee or contractor in all industries was drug tested and fired if positive tomorrow there would be an economic collapse that would make the GFC look like a minor hiccough.

Re:Employers need to be slapped down

[Anonymous Coward]

Public employees don't get that luxury, sorry... Policemen, firemen, even college profs/teachers at public schools (and I have a lot of friends in this position) have to watch what they say on Facebook.

 

Re:Employers need to be slapped down

[Anonymous Coward]

I spent three long years as a teacher, before I realized that I could get higher pay and a competent boss elsewhere.

Teachers were watched off the clock like hawks. A principal once got calls demanding their children be removed from a class because the teacher was photographed in the newspaper protesting animal abuse when the circus came to town.

Twice, I was almost fired--by two different principals--for trying to get another job. One of these was even an interview at another school in the same school district.

Once, I was at the movies watching "Team America", and one of my high-school students saw me there. If I lived somewhere dominated by right-wing fundies, I could see the principal berating me for going to see an 'R'-rated movie.

While it's still a TV show, I still got a kick out of a _Desperate Housewives_ where a teacher's assistant at a $22,000/yr private school got fired because a student's dad recognized her as a former dancer at a strip club. The sad part is, there's a local private school here where I could see that happening.

Re:Employers need to be slapped down

[icebrain]

As long as your physical performance on the job isn't affected

But that's exactly what she indicated. She indicated that she uses illegal substances that most definitely affect her job performance, and discussed defeating the tests performed to see if she's not using them. And when your job isn't just pushing paper around, but working situations where peoples' lives are at stake (law enforcement, fire/EMS, airline pilot, air traffic control, medicine, etc), making comments like this basically indicates that you don't take seriously the lives of those you are responsible for, even if you add a "lol j/k" to the end.

Agreements not to do stupid stuff like this are standard when working at said safety-critial places. I signed one both for my employer (aircraft manufacturer) and for the fire department (even though I'm just a volunteer there), because in both cases my behavior outside those places reflects not just on me but their commitments to customers'/the public's lives. If you don't want to be held to this kind of standard, pick another career field.

Re:Employers need to be slapped down

[hyades1]

Excellent idea. People who don't believe as you do should just choose another career field and abandon these areas of public service to obsequious, self-righteous prigs and their authoritarian god-bosses. Great recipe for a police state, but not for a free country. There's not a shred of objective proof her performance on the job was affected in any way. In a free society, that should be the end of the story.

If you want to live and work in an environment Chairman Mao would have given the thumbs up to, that's entirely your business. When you claim it's OK for others to be forced into that appalling lifestyle, you're going where you have no right to go.

Re:Employers need to be slapped down

[Pichu0102]

Who's going to slap them down? The government, which takes it's money from the employers? Even worse, what if your employer is the government? You have no recourse. Which is why you keep your head down and mouth shut at all times.

Re:Employers need to be slapped down

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I agree, especially with government employees.

I'm actually reading a book right now about Aldrich Ames, a CIA higher-up who became the most notorious turncoat during the entire cold war. From the time he sold himself out to arrest *10 years* had elapsed (despite his high position, and the high-profile information the was divulging to the Russians). The authors repeated delve into the fact that he exhibited all the classic warning signs of some one who would be susceptible to bribery (workplace disenfranchisement, alcoholism, massive debt) but at the time...suprisingly... this type of behavior was essentially ignored.

Of course this present situation is much different, but one could argue that employers have a duty to pay attention to the world around them, especially in high risk job situations. Imagine if this individual had botched a 911 call due to being high, and it came out in the investigation that various co-workers were aware of drug references made by the dispatcher on facebook.

It all depends on what you mean ...

[golodh]

Speaking with a former President: it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

If you take the question as: "Is posting snarky content on Facebook about evading drugs testing sufficient grounds to disqualify you from your job, and hence set you up for justifiable dismissal?", the answer is obviously: "No.".

If you take the question as: "Is posting snarky content on Facebook about evading drugs testing on part of an emergency dispatcher sufficient ground to disqualify said dispatcher from her job", the answer would shift to: "Probably not".

However, if you were to take the question as: "Suppose you are a manager in charge of emergency services. Suppose you catch one of your employees, in a fairly critical position too, writing snarky stuff on Facebook about evading drugs testing. Is that a risk to you? Would it make YOU look bad if she did anything wrong in her job (however unrelated to actual substance abuse)?", then the answer is a definite: "Yes". For that reason said manager will face the choice of (a) actually looking into the matter, forming a personal judgement, and exposing himself and his career tot potential damage just to be fair to an employee or (b) simply firing her and getting a replacement. Which option do you think would make more sense from a CYA perspective and would also make said manager look good, competent, ruthless, and dedicated?

There are no bonus points for coming up with answer (b). So that particular dispatcher is hereby dispatched. Such is the power of new electronic media, classical all-American CYA considerations, and age-old guilt-by-association thinking.

Re:It all depends on what you mean ...

[Dhalka226]

Well, on the plus side, there's no need to feel bad for her. She's likely to file--and win--a substantial lawsuit against the city for wrongful termination which will not only net her her job back (if she wants it) but also her pension and a decent chunk of change for her troubles.

Such is the power of firing people for no reason and ignoring an arbiter who told you that you did so.

Re:It all depends on what you mean ...

[dbIII]

The real answer is to pry the HR drones away from Facebook and make them get back to work, thus making this entirely a non-issue.
That's not likely to happen, so kids it's time to learn the lesson the net taught everyone else long before there was a world wide web - don't use your real name if you want to write anything that may offend the most easily offended person you can think of.

Re:It all depends on what you mean ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The real answer is to pry the HR drones away from Facebook and make them get back to work, thus making this entirely a non-issue.

This is their work.

Re:It all depends on what you mean ...

[cgenman]

Considering that she passed her drug test, the city already faced a arbitration judgement about it, is seeing a lawsuit, and this will probably get thrown back in their face next union contract negotiation, I'd say (a) was probably the cheaper call. She's not being fired over recreational drug use: she's being fired from a government agency over a 1-sentence joke about drug use in her spare time. Even if union rules did allow for that, the entire thing better be 100% squeaky or any competent lawyer is going to have a field day.

Also, how many emergency responders *aren't* on drugs? Seriously, how many responders out there do you know that don't drink, don't take stress meds, don't indulge in excessive behaviors, and otherwise are all-around well adjusted people? The people I've met all seemed to find unhealthy ways of dealing with the constant stress.

Re:It all depends on what you mean ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't you just give her the benefit of the doubt that she was kidding. Treat her as if she had no facebook account.
Apply the usual workplace practices of drug testing (arse sufficiently covered).
Nothing simple about option b. You've just recklessly fired somebody based on something they posted on line that was at least ambiguously a joke.
It's no surprise they reinstated her.
Imagine if this situation was slightly different and she wasn't already on 4 out of 5 strikes.
People are weighing the earlier disciplinary steps against her.
If her record was clean to start with she wouldn't have even got one strike for this. They are using it to finish her off.

Re:It all depends on what you mean ...

[L4t3r4lu5]

Surely there's the response of "We read your joke on Facebook... Har har. Now you get to take a drug test at twice the frequency of everyone else for three months, with a doctor monitoring the process. I don't have a choice; We treat every report as genuine, and you know that. Next time, don't joke about bypassing a requirement for your continued employment."

Re:It all depends on what you mean ...

[VickiM]

Awesome, someone using the word "pry" correctly!

Re:It all depends on what you mean ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who made you the employment law expert? If she was an at will employee she wouldn't win a dime.

Re:It all depends on what you mean ...

[Luke has no name]

If she was a good employee but they wanted to cover their ass, they should have screened her randomly. Even that is arguably crossing the line into taking a joke too seriously, but still, it is morally less shitty than firing someone who has worked for you for 21 years.

It is really amazing how few companies have any sense of loyalty or pride in their workers.

Re:It all depends on what you mean ...

[jimnorcal]

In 1985 my sixth grade teacher stood in front of the class and said "There's two very important things I've learned in life and which I'm going to share with all of you today. 1) Don't ever say what you don't want heard and 2) Don't ever write what you don't want read."

Those words echo in my head now more than ever. He was a very wise man, that elementary school teacher.

No, but. . .

[MagusSlurpy]

. . . she should be fired for being dumb enough to add her boss and/or coworkers as friends. Seriously, how have people not learned this yet?!

Re:No, but. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe she didn't.
Maybe she shares a mutual friend with them and her updates show up on that friend's profile.
Facebook has more than enough privacy holes for people to look through, after all.

Activate Slashdot Affect on City of West Allis

[hellop2]

Link to webform email City Attorney Scott Post Phone #: (414) 302-8450

Link to webform email Mayor Dan Devine Phone #: (414) 302-8290

Link to webform email Human Resources director Audrey Key Phone #: (414) 302-8292

I'm emailing the Mayor a picture of Kim Jong-il.

Re:Activate Slashdot Affect on City of West Allis

[Ogive17]

Ahh yes, because now we're all experts on the case and are 100% sure the dispatcher did nothing wrong and the city is completely to blame for this wrongful termination. Let us harness our nerd rage and harass the city officials because we think we know what's best for the world.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/05/police_dispatcher_fired_for_st.php
(swiped from a post above)

Sounds to me that even if all of her comments are jokes, she is stupid for pushing the line repeatedly. Not going to agree or disagree with her dismisal, but she doesn't seem to have much common sense.

Re:Activate Slashdot Affect on City of West Allis

[hellop2]

Yeah but she's been there for 21 years and is probably counting on a pension and retirement. Does the punishment really fit the crime? She tested clean. It was obviously a joke. Do we as a society think it's fair that gov't employees are not allowed to make off-color jokes in their spare time? You're more than welcome to send an email commending their HR policies.

Re:Activate Slashdot Affect on City of West Allis

[Ogive17]

I don't think the link I posted was clear what her prior "offenses" were, they could have been more serious than a simple facebook message. I completely agree that getting fired for a facebook comment is too much but considering she seems to have a history of being punished, I can't come out and say the city is right or wrong to fire her.

Re:Activate Slashdot Affect on City of West Allis

[Attila Dimedici]

I checked the link above yours which quoted the comment from her Facebook page that got her in trouble. That reads to me like hyperbole, not like a joke (although some context is missing, so there may be more that makes it a joke). As I read the statement from her Facebook page, if she was a model employee (or even one who kept her nose clean) this would be a clear case of over reaction. However, in light of the fact that she had been through the whole discipline process, I take it as "the straw that broke the camel's back". She has repeatedly pushed the limit of behavior on the job. The fact that she tested clean means that she had not used those substances within the time frame that the test would detect, not that she doesn't use them.
Basically, I do not know enough to tell if this firing was justified, but there is sufficient evidence to say that this shouldn't be a national story. This is definitely a local story and if you live in that area, you should follow this to see if she has gotten in trouble before because of a boss throwing their weight around or if she really is a bad apple.

Re:Activate Slashdot Affect on City of West Allis

[Dragooner]

Don't do it! Some low level drone like me will have to respond to all those requests!

Re:Activate Slashdot Affect on City of West Allis

[soppsa]

Hooray, the 4chan invasion hive mind mentality meets the slashdot nerd rage (hive mind) mentality. Get off my internet kids.

Facebook is not private

[mseeger]

While i seriously doubt the adequacy of the punishment, the baseline is the same as in dozens of cases before: "Someone did something terribly stupid in public and now it has consequences for him/her". Facebook, Twitter, /.-posts are not in private space. Accept that and act accordingly.

Re:Facebook is not private

[belmolis]

Since when is making a joke about taking drugs something terribly embarrassing that would have an impact on her job as a dispatcher? People make jokes all the time about things they would never do - it doesn't even hint that she actually has a drug problem. This didn't warrant any action against her at all. The real problem that it illustrates is that West Allis has fools in its administration.

Re:Facebook is not private

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally jokes/chatter made off the cuff in public live and die in a few minutes, with only minimal risk of having it permanately recorded and accessed by people who may not be happy to hear these jokes.

Jokes/chatter made online on facebook (and other places) live a great deal longer, so you have to be careful what you say if it can be easily traced back to you. People also assume that the longer the medium lasts for ... the more meaning it has.

Posting/talking online is kind of the middle ground between publishing a book and talking in public ... with some mediums closer to publishing a book (facebook, forums, slashdot.org) and others closer to talking. (MSN, IRC)

Re:Facebook is not private

[mseeger]

If i make the joke among friends at my home, that's OK. But making such jokes in public is stupid. It is nearly as stupid as asking "Do you see the bomb?" when passing through the airport security. You don't go on the streets and shout "I am taking drugs". But that comes close to what she has done.

This doesn't disprove that her superiors are fools, nor does it prove it. Usually such events have a backlog that is too complicated to fit in a short post and is therefor omitted. All i can say is: She did something stupid. What amount of punishment is adequate is subject to discussion. It may be unjust, because a lot of people do a lot of stupid things a lot of times and walk away without consequences. But doing stupid things unpunished isn't a right. And that the stupity involved the internet doesn't make the story newsworthy.

CU, Martin

Re:Facebook is not private

[dougisfunny]

I killed a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

I hope my employer and future employers don't have a problem with that.

Re:Facebook is not private

[cgenman]

People joke on the street about taking drugs all the time. I couldn't imagine batting an eye if I heard that walking by a group of strangers.

Some people see the internet as a big newspaper, with all of the authority, authenticity, and formality that entails. Something showing up on the internet is documented in a library permanently. Anyone looking up anything related to that person will inevitably come across that thing, tie that thing back to their employer. The West Allis police department would forever be associated with hiring a drug-using loony online.

Of course, that's not the case at all (at least, not until they made it newsworthy). The internet is dirtier, louder, and with a lot more noise. Nobody outside of that particular Emergency Dispatcher's family and friends were ever likely to see that post. The sheer volume of noise around the department, and even that particular dispatcher, made that possibility basically zero. And anyone digging that deeply would find far more controversial revelations about the city. This is, after all, the city that gave us both Liberace and Jeffery Dahmer.

It's like when photographs of schoolteachers drinking at weddings appear on the internet. Or when someone follows a twitter feed of a controversial gay rights advocate. People have to have lives outside of their jobs. They have to make controversial art, put up silly christmas displays, and protest government policies they disagree with. This all will get photographed or filmed by someone, and somehow it will go up on Flickr or YouTube. Some people in our society are still calibrated on the older scale, and can't deal with the idea that things which are OK to do in private frequently finds its way online.

This is especially significant when there are real problems out there. A one-sentence obvious joke about drug use is a major public relations nightmare? The high school students in my area sneak into bathrooms to shoot up, and one of their teachers was laid off for sleeping with them. We have a mugger prowling the area, along with a ton of dealers. And this is in a relatively safe city. Making a joke about doing drugs on Facebook isn't even a blip. Have they heard anything that is said in the fire department's locker rooms?

A simple "that's not cool, please take that down" would have resulted in the content being gone from the internet forever, and an employee a bit better educated about what the city is comfortable with. Also, it would have sidestepped this lawsuit. Destroying a career for it, though, is extreme. The only other alternative is to strive as hard as you can to keep any personally identifiable information or photographs off of the internet (how long before ip reverse lookup tables are trivial?), and down that road lies madness.

Re:Facebook is not private

[mseeger]

A simple "that's not cool, please take that down" would have resulted in the content being gone from the internet forever, and an employee a bit better educated about what the city is comfortable with. Also, it would have sidestepped this lawsuit. Destroying a career for it, though, is extreme. The only other alternative is to strive as hard as you can to keep any personally identifiable information or photographs off of the internet (how long before ip reverse lookup tables are trivial?), and down that road lies madness.

It seems there has been a list of incidents prior to this incident. If it was justified, i cannot judge, but at least the operator has been suspended twice before. I agree with you, that if nothing else has happened before, a verbal reprimand would be the solution i would approach (and have approached in the past).

Nonwithstanding that, i only argued that it was stupid to make such a joke in such a way on the internet. I still stand by that argument. This happens about 100 times a day. This isn't a newsworthy story.

CU, Martin

Re:Facebook is not private

[fishexe]

A simple "that's not cool, please take that down" would have resulted in the content being gone from the internet forever...

While I agree completely with the rest of your post, I have to point out that nothing is ever gone from the internet forever.

Re:Facebook is not private

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook, Twitter, /.-posts are not in private space. Accept that and act accordingly.

Oh, certainly -- when in doubt, knuckle under to the fucking, fascist, animal bastards.

That way we'll all feel a lot better about ourselves.

When will people learn?

[Montezumaa]

People do need to learn that there are employers that monitor Facebook and will terminate people for statements and/or pictures that they deem "offending". Regardless, this firing is beyond ridiculous. This is similar to me telling an off-hand joke, in my private time, that my employer doing continual investigations until they find something to hang termination on.

The time I spend in my private life is off-limits to any employer I work for, as well as anyone else that I do not wish to read my posts or listen to my discussions. Yes, it is dumb to open your Facebook page(or any other social networking page) for everyone to see and it is even dumber to post dumb shit on your page, for the world to see. Still, people should not feel like they are constantly under surveillance.

Privacy

[Joebert]

Considering recent Facebook snafus with privacy, I would think arguing that this was done on her own time in the privacy of her own home could be difficult.

its not the real reason

[circletimessquare]

i've been privy to plenty of firing situations where incompetence/ a horrible attitude problem was the real issue, and the official reason was whatever they could trump up

Re:its not the real reason

[falzer]

Why can't incompetence/horrible attitude be the official reason for canning someone?

Re:its not the real reason

[demonlapin]

Harder to prove.

Re:its not the real reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't incompetence/horrible attitude be the official reason for canning someone?

Mainly because after TWENTY-ONE YEARS, most employees don't just suddenly become incompetent. Most people are bright enough to see this as a way for the council to avoid the expense involved in retirement benefits.

Even if, as someone else posted, she had gone through four out of five steps leading to dismissal, was this part of her problem or just anything at all that could be tossed in to make a fifth and final step?

Or, ignoring Occam's razor, maybe it had just been too long since the weenies on the town council had been outed as a bunch of morons and this was their solution?

Arbitration is Binding

[phantomcircuit]

Arbitration in the US is binding. They can huff and puff and try to blow the decision down, but they are going to lose.

Either she gets her job back or they end up paying her not to do her job.

Re:Arbitration is Binding

[snerdy]

Arbitration in the US is binding.

Unless it's non-binding arbitration. The TFA only says that the woman "appealed to an arbitrator."

Re:Arbitration is Binding

[snerdy]

Arbitrator also says my link sucks. Here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binding_arbitration

Re:Arbitration is Binding

[Xenographic]

Try putting http in front of your URLs next time.

The protocol section of a URL is not optional, your browser just makes assumptions for you.

Re:Arbitration is Binding

[Anonymous Coward]

Arbitration in the US is binding.

Arbitration in the US is usually imposed and controlled by the party with the greater power -- i.e., it's a crock . Why else would it be in essentially every financial transaction you engage in?

The arbitrators know which side has the power and know damned well that they will not get many cases thrown their way (you know -- mutually acceptable to BOTH sides) if they don't generally come down on the side of the party who can routinely withhold MUTUAL agreement.

Same as the part played by the appraisers in the housing bubble. It didn't take long for the appraiser of average intelligence to catch on that they wouldn't be getting many calls if they failed to produce the inflated appraisals "favored" by the banks and title companies.

Hah! -- captcha = osmosis -- same way the appraisers and arbitrators are expected to "learn"

Re:Arbitration is Binding

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> They can huff and puff

Yeah, but don't ever post about that stuff on FaceBook, man. You'll lose your job.

Re:Arbitration is Binding

[truedfx]

Technically, yes, the protocol of a URL is required, but that's because a URL is a form of an absolute URI, and absolute URIs are those that include the protocol. Relative URIs are perfectly valid. The protocol is required in an absolute URI. If it is omitted, it's a relative URI. This is not the browser making assumptions, this is how URIs are defined.

Re:Arbitration is Binding

[Anonymous Coward]

Binding arbitration is binding. You made an assumption.

actually it doesnt matter .....

[thephydes]

whether it is justifiable or not. Anyone who uses facebook and thinks that they are anonymous or safe (from someone dobbing them in) is an idiot.

Re:actually it doesnt matter .....

[wannabgeek]

What makes you think she is anonymous or assumed that it will not be read by her employer? Her defense is that it is an obvious joke, and that she is not really a drug addict. We don't know the rest of the conversation, may be what she said was funny in the context it was said too.

Like others pointed out, this is probably just an excuse to fire her. The real reason could be something else.

Re:actually it doesnt matter .....

[thephydes]

My post was not intended to be funny, although it clearly is to someone. Privacy is a serious concern. In my world (education) we are constantly having to tell students - and staff for that matter - that their postings are not private. I don't know what the person was actually fired for, and frankly I don't care - the point is that there is a presumption that social network sites are private. They are not and this has been obvious for some time. Hence my "idiot" comment.

Re:actually it doesnt matter .....

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is not about anonymity or "safety" it's about what you are "allowed" to say to your friends in your free time.

I don't see the fired woman complaining about anonymity. You're treading out a position on FB privacy issues (which I agree with) at an irrelevant time.

Re:actually it doesnt matter .....

[lordandmaker]

*a* point is that they are often presumed to be private, but that's not really a relevant point here; the defence is that the posting was a joke, not that it was intended to be private.

Not sure if this can be considered a joke...

[xmunportelli]

A Maltese 24 year-old author wrote what was considered to be a comment inciting hatred on a Facebook page against Pope Benedict XVI visiting Malta and was handed a €500 fine and suspended jail sentence. The debate right now in Malta is whether online media such as blogs and Facebook can be considered publications and as such, should posters be held accountable for what they write regardless of their intended audience.

I say we go all the way to the top

[Anonymous Coward]

In firing Kuchler, the West Allis Police Chief wrote that Kuchler's Facebook posting "destroyed the city's trust and confidence in (her) ability and integrity" as a dispatcher and was "an embarrassment to the city."

If being an embarrassment to the city by cracking jokes can get you fired, we should give politicians the death sentence for embarrassing the nation!

I think it depends on things not mentioned

[Kitkoan]

The article is pretty vague, just mentions she claimed to be addicted to a few prescription meds amoungst other things. Problem is, is that all she did? Or did she make a comment like that while attached to a photo of her in her city employee work uniform while holding some prescription bottles? If it's just the joke a didn't really show what her job was then I don't see why she was fired. If she made that joke while making it obvious that she works for the city then its a whole other can of worms. Like any job, when your in your uniform you are considered a reflection of your company and must always act it, and if she was in uniform (in a picture) with this joke then she is a very poor reflection of her job and discipline actions should very well be expected. Just like in other job.

Why is it so difficult?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use the goddamned Facebook.
What's so hard about it?

Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[CaptainNerdCave]

Does that mean a Coca-Cola employee could be fired because they always buy lunch at Taco Bell and joke about hating the taste of Diet Coke? Does that mean I could be fired from the hotel where I work because I stayed at a Hilton and it was reported that I said Hiltons are much nicer? What if I posted these on a Myspace page? A twitter page? In a privately-visible Facebook entry? Where is the line drawn? Are my first-amendment rights applicable?

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[Tim C]

Are my first-amendment rights applicable?

No, as they protect you from the government, not from private entities.

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are my first-amendment rights applicable?

No, as they protect you from the government, not from private entities.

Gob bless America, Inc.

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[Aladrin]

Is hating Diet Coke illegal? Because it makes a big difference.

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[Shoe Puppet]

That's just because your constitution is broken. Other constitutions are better at protecting your rights, with formulations like "Every person shall have the right to...", "Freedom ...shall be inviolable." (Germany) or "The Republic recognises the right..." (Italy)

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[zippthorne]

More to the point, they protect you from harassment by the government. Not from being terminated from at-will employment regardless of the employer.

Now, if the real reason is, as other posters have suggested, that they are looking to avoid her pension (which seems odd, a dispatcher's pension is a pittance compared to some of the pensions of say.. judges.., hardly worth going after one-at-a-time.), then it's quite a different matter.

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be speaking about laws outside the U.S.

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[shilly]

Re your examples: Taking cash from Company A while cheering Company B is a little ... distasteful. If you're going to do it, you'd better do it in private. If you're going to use the interwebs, you'd better acquaint yourself with the fact that it's quite difficult to be truly private when you post on it.

Your First Amendment rights are not affected. The government will not throw you in jail for speaking your mind in this way.

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[archangel9]

Does that mean a Coca-Cola employee could be fired because they always buy lunch at Taco Bell and joke about hating the taste of Diet Coke?

Is that the same as "going on a Coke Diet"?

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not entirely true. The more you open up your private property to the public, the more your rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of the public. See Marsh v. Alabama. Some state constitutions provide more protection than the US constitution, see Pruneyard v. Robins.

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to all but the last question is yes. Note that while you have a right to free speech, you do not have a right to employment at a specific company; furthermore your employer has the right not to employ you.

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[KillaBeave]

As I've said to a few people in the past (cribbed from a country song).

"The First Amendment protect you from the govt, not from me."

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[dlgeek]

Actually, in this case, her first amendment rights have more applicability than in your cases, since as a city employee, her firing was a government action rather than a private one.

Given that she's a government employee, they're most likely going to get hit and hit hard with an improper termination suit.

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[PPH]

The City of West Allis is a government entity.

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guarantee that Coke or Pepsi will fire you if you work for them and ever promote the competitor's product while on the clock and probably publicly at all. Distributors caught drinking the other brand are fired on the spot. I don't know if they can fire you for what you serve at your home BBQs but you'd better not bring in anything even marked with the competitor's logo (even if it's a paper cup filled with your company's product that has the wrong logo).

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

"The Republic recognises the right..." (Italy)

Italy? They sentenced Google execs to prison because someone posted a video to YouTube where some other person beat up yet another person.

Re:Is anything publicly visible just grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies can fire people for all sorts of stupid reasons. Refuse to shave your neatly-trimmed mustache? They can fire you for it. Don't like the way you talk? They can fire you for it. I'm sure they could fire you for enjoying a competitor's services as well, but doing that is not profitable for them, so they don't.

Before the modern era in the U.S., employers could fire employees for visiting pool halls and other places of "ill repute." This was before the era of unions and collective bargaining for workers. Now unions aren't cool anymore, and people think they're just a big hassle. That is, until they get bit by the company and its management. Sure, union bosses can be fat cats, but at least he's the fat cat on your side. A modern corporation would keep slaves as long as it was lawful and its image was not hurt by it. These are the only things keeping people protected, so now they are only wage slaves.

Sue the city

[Anonymous Coward]

I think if I were her my next move would be to sue the city of West Allis for an obsene number of millions of dollars due to wrongful discharge and punitive damages. Why not, she's already won the case.

If their termination process allows one to appeal the decision, in this case she appealed to an arbitrator, then the city would be legally bound by the arbitrator's decision. Apparently in this case the arbitrator handed down a decision and the city said to hell with it. That's like defying a judges order, and any judgement you get against the city in court and I think the judge would break it off in the city's a**. Because judges love it when their orders are blatently ignored.

So the arbiter ruled - end of problem

[flyingfsck]

This is a non issue. The arbiter ruled. The person has to go back to work after 30 days.

Sanity prevailed.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:So the arbiter ruled - end of problem

[celtic_hackr]

Well it would be the end of it, except the city has taken the binding arbitration ruling to court to have it thrown out. What it boils down to in the end is one of two things:

1) Does the city feel it's worthhile to fire her and either:
a) pay out a settlement from the resulting wrongful discharge, et al lawsuit,
b) are convinced she won't find some hired gun foaming at the mouth to make mega-bucks suing a retarded local government;
OR
2) Does the city deluded think they can win a wrongful discharge suit, even after ignoring (in an act of civil contempt) and failing to obey the legally binding arbitration which specifically said they can't fire her for this stupid joke to her friends or the public ( I don't know what her setting was on this FB stupidity)?

In any event for Dana we have
3) Profit!!!!

Why settle for a measly pension when you can squeeze the blood out of the city and take everyone's pension!?

Just in from planet markla...

[Niobe]

Hey Earthlings, I've just arrived from a distant planet, and happened across this thread. Wow your planet is lame! Mxaskgplt

Feel safer?

[Lemming Mark]

On the one hand, they tried to remove an employee in a critical job who had been linked - via a Facebook comment - to drugs. On the other hand, they tried to remove an experienced employee working in a critical job who had submitted to and passed their drug tests. Who would they replace her with? A less experienced dispatcher who talks about drug addiction in bars and at home but not on Facebook?

Re:Feel safer?

[fishexe]

On the one hand, they tried to remove an employee in a critical job who had been linked - via a Facebook comment - to drugs.

That "link" reminds me of the link between pot and hard drugs.

Re:Activate Slashdot Effect on City of West Allis

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFY

STOP!

[Rogerborg]

Context time!

Kuchler was already on thin ice with the city, having gone through four of the five disciplinary steps required by the collective bargaining agreement with the local clerical union: a verbal warning, written warning, one-day-suspension, and three-day-suspension. When Kuchler then posted that she was an addict on her Facebook page, the city resorted to step number five: dismissal.

Look, if you don't want your job, just quit and go do something you like. Don't troll your employer into firing you, then drag lawyers into it. The only winners there are the lawyers, and that makes Baby Jesus strangle a kitten.

Re:STOP!

[jmv]

Read the link quickly and just the tone of it tells you it's *far* from impartial. You'd think it was written by the boss or a close relative. I don't know what the true story is, but this almost certainly isn't.

Re:STOP!

[Enigma23]

...and that makes Baby Jesus strangle a kitten.

Cool! Is that on Facebook too? WIll God fire Jesus over it?

Re:STOP!

[Rogerborg]

News is never impartial, and anyone who tells you that it is is trying to sell you their take on it. But even partial news can still be factual. Are you arguing with the facts? On what basis?

Re:STOP!

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, if Baby Jesus strangled a kitten, he wouldn't be the Messiah. The Bible clearly teaches against cruelty to animals. Not that your average /.er would ever get that far into fables and nonsense without invoking the name of the FSM, Pink Unicorns, or even Cthulhu, who probably could strangle a kitten and not think twice about it.

Re:STOP!

[dwye]

> or even Cthulhu, who probably could strangle a kitten and not think twice about it.

If Great Cthulhu *DIDN'T* strangle a kitten when it could, THAT would be worth thinking about. :-)

Re:STOP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you arguing with the facts? On what basis?

They said in the first sentence that they didn't like the tone. You know what "tone" is, don't you?

Re:STOP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats not context, since those 4 things could all have been slammed out in the same week in a rush to fire her anyways.

Most times, those kinds of "required steps" are geared just so that people like you will think exactly what you posted.

Re:STOP!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is most likely they weren't happy with her, or she wasn't good at her job, and they were trying to find any reason they could to fire her.

Re:STOP!

[AK Marc]

Are you arguing with the facts?

One can often accept all the facts as presented and come to the opposite conclusion. When facts are selectively omitted and those left in colored, the truth and the facts are unrelated.

Re:STOP!

[jmv]

Although news are never fully impartial, some are closer than others. When you refer to the person on one side as "the pot- and booze-lover" you've proven that you're as far as possible from impartial. I have no clue who's right and who's wrong in this story. All I'm saying is that the post I was commenting about is definitely not something I would use to form an opinion.

Re:STOP!

[vaporland]

more like, if they don't want you in your job, fuck you. i am going through something like this now. i've been with the same company for four years. 1st two years, exemplary reviews, good raises, placement on fast track to management.

while waiting for assignment, an offer to move to another state to run a project. sounds good, another raise, good reviews, etc, then the mid-level manager leaves that office and is replaced by a total fucking idiot.

she winds up the GM, making trivial things look catastrophic. she alienates clients and blows up a multi-million dollar project, blowing a big hole in the division budget. now they need to reduce costs and staff, so they start to find things "wrong" with my performance, because I am one of the better paid staff. they could have just come to me and said "we're having budget problems, how about moving to another state". instead its a 90 day warning right before (ONE HOUR BEFORE) i am going on my first vacation in almost two years.

I lived outside the US for 19 years before moving back. I read Dilbert and laughed because things like that don't happen in real life, right? WRONG - there are really dangerously psychotic people who would have been bullies in high school, now they are bullies in the office.

Even our most important client HATES this woman - exact quote from their division manager "if she treats her employees the way she treats us, we feel sorry for you..."

I have found another job, and at least half of the staff are looking. all hell's gonna break loose, but my work is done here. it is sad, because I was told over and over again that I had a bright future with the company, and it is a good company to work for, but not for this person.

I dont know what the moral is, or what could be done to protect people from this kind of nonsense.

Re:STOP!

[Rogerborg]

How peculiar. I form opinions based on the available facts, and then reform those opinions as my knowledge changes. You have clearly pre-judged her to be innocent, and are sticking resolutely to that opinion despite the available facts. Say - are you an economist by any chance?

Re:STOP!

[jmv]

How peculiar. I form opinions based on the available facts, and then reform those opinions as my knowledge changes.

I'll tell you this: "Mr XYZ is a bloody idiot". Now, what is your opinion on Mr XYZ?

You have clearly pre-judged her to be innocent, and are sticking resolutely to that opinion despite the available facts.

Nope. I still have no clue whether who's right or wrong (if any) in this story. I just hate when people quote someone else saying "Mrs XYZ is a drug addict" in a way that's so obviously biased that the amount of information conveyed is 0 bit. Maybe that's correct -- but for me the odds haven't changed since reading that piece.

Say - are you an economist by any chance?

Not even close. But if you had bothered looking at my sig, you would have had a more reliable clue.

Whoosh! Sarcasm.

[joebob2000]

Hint, government pay is based on non-market forces and is justified by whatever B.S. will bully complaining taxpayers in to S-ing T F U.

Why people use their real names:

[tlambert]

Why oh why do people use their real names on this Net we call Inter? It just isn't worth the potential aggravation.

Why people use their real names:

Section 4.1 of Facebook terms and conditions:

Registration and Account Security

Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:
You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

-- Terry

Re:Why people use their real names:

[somersault]

Someone has actually read the terms and conditions on Facebook? I am at the same time impressed, horrified and disgusted.

Re:Why people use their real names:

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone has actually read the terms and conditions on Facebook? I am at the same time impressed, horrified and disgusted.

Today's terms and conditions, at least. By all accounts they are subject to not-infrequent changes... It does raise an interesting question if someone's Facebook profile is private and contains this kind of joke and then a change in the ToS opens their profile up to a wider audience which gets them fired for innappropriate conduct, would Facebook have any kind of liability (perhaps in negligence if it could be argued they could reasonably have foreseen such an event)?

Re:Why people use their real names:

[Rysc]

Ridiculous. When I finally got around to signing up for Facebook I used a fake name. It's not false information, it's just not my legal name. Everyone is free to do the same thing. If this does not add value to Facebook because Facebook cannot use this to track down my associates... I weep very little for Facebook.

Re:Why people use their real names:

[Enigma23]

If I ever created a FB account, I wouldn't use my real name or details at all. I wouldn't provide false details either - just not the ones I'd use in this thing called "real life"... :)

Re:Why people use their real names:

[Karl Cocknozzle]

That's what Facebook's TOS read today... But since they change weekly (usually in the direction of exposing more and more of your "private" information to the search engines and public) you'd have to re-read them on almost daily basis to know if they'd slipped anything new in there.

Re:Why people use their real names:

[Taibhsear]

You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

It's cool, my imaginary friend gave me permission.

Re:Why people use their real names:

[dwye]

> When I finally got around to signing up for Facebook I used a fake
> name. It's not false information, it's just not my legal name.

Marion Michael Morrison never legally changed his name to John Wayne, either.

OTOH, assuming that you do not have this same situation, why did you set up a Facebook account in the first place? I can understand setting one up to connect with absent friends (frex, high school classmates, as my sister did), but it seems that the whole idea is lost if you use a non-universally known pseudonym.

Re:Why people use their real names:

[Haxzaw]

Oops, I never read that. I created a fake person on FB and sent a bunch of friend requests to see what would happen. Got about a dozen friends within 24 hours. Some were in on my little joke, but others friended the fake dude just because they friend everybody.

Re:Why people use their real names:

[AK Marc]

He just wanted it for the farmville.

overly litigious society

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been said before, but America is an overly litigious society. You're too easily shocked. Yes, doctors do take drugs. For fun. Lots of people do and just get on with their lives. So what.

In a culture of tolerance, surely we are allowed to joke?

We brought this on ourselves

[FreeUser]

You know, we wouldn't even have this problem if we didn't try to prohibit Americans from so many things...

We brought this on ourselves with our own rhetoric (not just right-wing religious crap that results in things like the war on drugs, legalized discrimination against gays, and a steady erosion in women's rights, but right-wing libertarian rhetoric about the supremacy of the market for solving all the world's ills and making businesses more powerful than democratically elected governments, and left-wing political correctness that had people fired for speaking controversially about certain topics).

Indeed, we wouldn't have this particular problem if people weren't propagating moronic notions of "property rights" trumping every other constitutional right, including that of free speech (and freedom of association). If freedom of speech applied, as it was intended, everywhere, for everyone, then you couldn't be fired for saying something stupid, be it to your colleagues, your flatmate, your co-workers (outside of business hours), or whoever, in whatever medium.

But we've lost track of that--now people, especially in the United States, promote the notion that "speech has consequences", which is true, but not the way they mean, and not like this. Getting fired for bad jokes is not a "natural consequence" of telling bad jokes any more than landing in prison for saying something the government (or a powerful business leader with friends in government) doesn't like. Both are an artifice to suppress speech and, in this particular case, an excuse to replace one person with seniority with someone else who is no doubt cheaper and more compliant. Scare people into compliance AND replace an experienced worker with a newbie who will work for peanuts: two birds, one stone.

Thanks to libertarian group-think, we are no longer citizens with constitutional freedoms and rights, we are merely peasants, living and eating at the sufferance of our corporate masters. And you know what? Most of us are too busy arguing vehemently for the rights of our masters to do whatever they want in the name of "it's their property, so no 'government' (read: constitutional) constraint should ever apply. Ridiculous, but the country is lousy with people who think exactly that, consequences be damned.

"Love is hate", "no is yes", "war is peace", and we live in a free society. Just so long as you don't actually try to exercize those freedoms against the wishes of your corporate master.

Re:We brought this on ourselves

[maxume]

I'm curious, when did women's rights peak?

Re:We brought this on ourselves

[moosesocks]

Indeed, we wouldn't have this particular problem if people weren't propagating moronic notions of "property rights" trumping every other constitutional right, including that of free speech (and freedom of association).

You're absolutely correct that property rights play a huge role in American culture and thought. I wouldn't have thought very much of this until somebody pointed out to me that there are no trespassing laws in Scotland. None at all. ...and honestly, they get by just fine without them, as unfathomable as it was for my American mind to ponder.

Re:We brought this on ourselves

[FreeUser]

You're absolutely correct that property rights play a huge role in American culture and thought. I wouldn't have thought very much of this until somebody pointed out to me that there are no trespassing laws in Scotland. None at all. ...and honestly, they get by just fine without them, as unfathomable as it was for my American mind to ponder.

It's similar in England (where I've lived for the past 3.5 years). You have the right of public access to farm fields, beaches, hills, you name it. So much so that farmers build and maintain gates and steps over fences to facilitate hikers crossing their fields. And you no what? It makes a much nicer, more enjoyable place to live than locales with big barbed wire fences and signs saying "No Tresspassing" or, even worse "Tresspassers will be Shot".

Re:We brought this on ourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to libertarian group-think we are no longer citizens with constitutional freedoms and rights, we are merely peasants, living and eating at the sufferance of our corporate masters.

Typical misrepresentation of Libertarian ideas. This is the fault of Corporatism. Guess who dictates how much an employer has to pay an employee? Who just dictated how much financial responsibility BP has to the gulf oil crisis? Who controls the thousands of other regulations limiting voluntary contracts?

It's unfortunate that people who don't realize their powers as individuals have to cry foul on Free Markets and "Libertarian" group-think. Learn to swim.

Re:We brought this on ourselves

[mcgrew]

and a steady erosion in women's rights

WHOA THAR! Women's rights have never in American history eroded. Women had never once lost a single right in this country and in fact have gained rights throughout our history. At one time women didn't even have a vote. At the nation's founding, women were indeed second class citizens, but they have gained and even surpassed parity. Men no longer have any rights that women lack, and in many cases (e.g., reproductive rights) women's rights far surpass men's rights.

Over the top simply incorrect rhetoric such is this does not make your post stronger. It only makes you look like a fool.

right-wing libertarian rhetoric about the supremacy of the market

Capitalize "Libertarian" (as in the political party) and you wold look far less foolish, especially coupled with your "right-wing religious crap that results in things like the war on drugs". Libertarians (big L and small L alike) are AGAINST the war on drugs and for their legalization. Note that I personally find the Libertarian Party's stance on the "free" market abominable, but you're throwing a bunch of different fruit in one basket and calling it "apples".

You harm your own cause with your rhetoric, and since I happen to agree about the erosion of ALL our rights to our corporate masters, it galls me. Please have a cup of coffee (or some Prozac) before posting again.

Re:We brought this on ourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't actually have all that much power as an individual. Yes, some people have the ability to negotiate working conditions, or the resources to strike out on their own, by virtue of privilege and luck (and, yes, I'd include being raised in a family and culture which values learning and teaches an internal locus of control among "privilege and luck"). Most don't. For them, having power and money concentrated in the hands of corporations is not an improvement over having power and money concentrated in the hands of government. Probably worse, as it's often easier to effect change on government.

Now, if you want to fess up to being basically antisocial, and not caring about people who are forced to "learn to swim" while wearing a weight belt, that's fine. I'll accept that as an intellectually defensible (if reprehensible) position. But it's not objectively correct. Personally I'd much rather live in a society I consider to be less antisocial and fairer to the average individual, and I'll gladly pay for it with my money and time.

Re:We brought this on ourselves

[AK Marc]

Much of the US was founded on shooting your neighbors (wars between farmers and ranchers and such). As such, there was a great need to define rules of when you were and weren't allowed to shoot your neighbor. In places with the worst problems, the rules of when you get to shoot people are the most lax (like TX, where you can shoot someone in the back for letting the air out of your tires as a joke, assuming you shoot them at night, and you can shoot someone in the back that stole from you, off your property when your life isn't in danger at the time and they are running away, so long as you don't personally know them and they might get away or harm you if you tried to chase them down unarmed).

Trespassing laws brought "civilization" to the uncivilized colonies.

Re:We brought this on ourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no libertarianism anymore. While I like the some of the theory behind it (instead of making government ever-more bloated and increasing laws meant to restrict us), the fact of the matter is that libertarianism does NOT mean no government, minimal government or anybody gets to do whatever they darn well like without restriction. Libertarianism means government crowdsourced. If you want the extent of your personal governance to be showing up to vote, Libertarianism won't work for you. Specifically, if you find Wal-Mart did something you don't like, get others furious and get them to quit going. Local factory dumping mercury in your river? Organize a boycott of them. Picket. Denounce them when they show in public. Call their business partners and see if you can get them squeezed a bit. Unfortunately, we don't have close-knit communities that work together that can pull something like that off.

Libertarianism only works with a country of activists. Whichever mob is louder and more determined wins. When you see libertarianism pushed these days, it is pushed by those who would be horrified to see it practiced, who advocate it because they know the citizenry is for the most part too lazy to do its part. If we're quiet, those who need to be held in check aren't. While the free market is theoretically the best way to handle things, that's only if everyone is willing to do their part. If this happens, watch politicians back-pedal FAST about how great it is.

Re:We brought this on ourselves

[jimnorcal]

I'm not overly super knowledgeable about politics but I thought it was right-wing conservatives (a-hem .. G.W. Bush, Renquist, Nixon, to name a very, very, very small few) that practiced taking away all of our liberties (as many as they possibly could). Isn't a libertarian named so for granting and defending liberty and freedoms instead of aggressively trying to take them away from all of us?

because then you give them reason to sue

[circletimessquare]

yes, most people would take the hint they aren't wanted/ needed/ liked, and walk away

but we're in a situation where we are usually dealing with characters with truly awful personalities

miserable vindictiveness might be the only reason they wake up in the morning. being honest with them, telling them the real reason they're being fired: "you have a horrible social disease, your attitude and personality are truly frightening" might just coalesce their entire purpose in life to punishing you for speaking the truth to them

honesty is not always the best policy. especially when dealing with certain people where an honest appraisal of their personalities just makes them go postal on you. some people walk around with a massive chip on their shoulder, just waiting for it to be knocked off

The Swedish? Defending freedom?

[mangu]

You think the police's job is to protect people's freedoms? You must be Swedish

I don't think so

Re:The Swedish? Defending freedom?

[BikeHelmet]

Things are a bit diluted when it comes to anything copyright related.

They do have a better history of protecting freedoms, up until this farce of a trial.

She was working for the govt

[DABANSHEE]

not a private entity

Muphry's Law

[Anonymous Coward]

why make that basic mistake while nit-picking someone else's comment?

There's a scientific explanation for that.

Moot kangaroo court

[EriDay]

"The arbitrator said she should be entitled to go back to work after a 30-day suspension, but the City of West Allis complained that was not appropriate."

So the city sets up a kangaroo court, is displeased with the results and declares it moot? Generally those contracts where you agree to settle things by arbitration are set up so the big can crush the little with a minimum of effort.

What was the purpose of arbitration if "the city" can simply say it is displeased with the result. I like how the TFA makes it sound like this is a talking city.

Re:Moot kangaroo court

[aaandre]

In fact, it's someone speaking "for the city."

In the same way child-raping priests speak "for god."

Now, that's a way to frame it... media, where are you?

Don't Use It

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't use FaceBook. Potential problems solved.

not jutified

[Anonymous Coward]

absolutely not justified. Fuck ALL employers who have this kind of attitude.

Re:Section 4.1

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck it?

was she on the job when she did it?

[bl8n8r]

Seems to me she should be able to say whatever the hell she wants as long as she's not punched in. I don't get to cuss at work because it would be unprofessional if overheard by customers.

Re:was she on the job when she did it?

[farble1670]

in the US anyway, most employment is at will. that means your employer can let you go at any time, for any* reason. even if they don't like your off-the-clock behavior.

* there are exceptions for gender, race, etc.

Re:was she on the job when she did it?

[PPH]

there are exceptions for gender, race, etc.

And age. With 21 years of service, she was probably* (although not certainly) over 40. Which puts her into the protected category.

* Now this would be interesting if she was 39 (started working for the city at 18). It would smell an awful lot like a case of canning someone before they reached protected status.

It is not justifiable... but

[luis_a_espinal]

Is posting bad jokes on Facebook a justifiable reason to give someone the boot?"

All things being equal, the answer is no.

Once you consider the context, it depends. If my jokes involve insulting the company I work for, my managers or co-workers, then yes. Obviously, that was not the case with this person, but it's important to answer this question, given slashdotters' penchant for asking what-would-jeebuz-do open ended questions without context.

In this particular case, look at it like this: One has to be a real idiot to post jokes like that when on that of job... specially after having multiple warnings and write-offs at work. The dispatch department shouldn't have the power to fire her off like that, but it can,and this woman put herself in that situation... after multiple warnings and write-offs, unrelated nonetheless, but she should have known the department was looking for a way to get rid of her.

It's as if I were to work for the Secret Service or the NSA, with multiple warnings and write-offs all the while making jokes or half-assed statements about flying a plane on a building. We don't need to be computer/privacy-savy to exercise rudimentary common sense.

Companies and orgs should not have the power to fire people for stupid jokes plastered on their facebooks... but it happens. If you are that stupid to fall for that, shame on the company for abusing its power, and shame on you for being a moron without an ounce of common sense. I know, I know, freedom of speech and all that, but do you really want to exercise your right to be a clueless moron on a job like that, after multiple warnings and write-offs, without giving it any thought, just because?

Common sense and prudence. They can be useful.

YES

[Anonymous Coward]

Drugs are crimethink.
Crimethink is death.

Just trying to protect itself

[Anonymous Coward]

The city was probably just trying to protect itself from lawsuits. Think about it, Say the dispatcher screws up one day and sends police / fire to the wrong address, or is slow to respond. Then the city gets sued for having a druggie for a dispatcher with her facebook post as evidence. I hate it but that is the kind of society we live in now days.

Freedom of speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation.

She can say whatever the hell she wants under the constitution...

She'd win a lawsuit... But as others said before, she would be bankrupt before it was sorted out.

Problem in the courts

[VickiM]

I recall a recent story about a lab worker in California admitting to stealing and using drugs, and how all the cases that person worked on are now in danger of being brought up on appeal, and the probable criminals being released from jail because the lab technician could not be trusted. Isn't it possible that the dispatcher unit would need a zero-tolerance policy as well? If there is any hint of misconduct, a defendant will cling to that in court. It's the sort of liability a city can't afford to keep. That, and what would happen if this dispatcher unit had some unfortunate misses. Calls they thought were pranks or police units sent to the wrong place. The investigation the state performs after a complaint will likely find posts like this and wonder why the unit kept this woman on despite this.

taco bell is a pepsi place so just being there can

[Joe The Dragon]

taco bell is a pepsi place so just being there can get you fired!

Pry

[Anonymous Coward]

Pry, short for prolly.

Which itself is short for probably.

At least that is my best guess.

Re:Pry

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. A retarded abbreviation for a retarded abbreviation.

That just makes me cry.

Norath?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're a 6-foot, 95-pound elf sorceress from Norath?

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple rule is to never post anything online that you wouldn't mind your worst enemy getting their hands on and using against you.

Is it?

[phorm]

I can see at least two major possibilities:

a) This is an employee who consistently pushes the line, and had reached a critical point

b) This is an employee who is being singled out, and they're nailing her wherever and for whatever the can in hopes of building enough case to have her terminated

The case in (b) is not entirely unlikely, especially given the question "why is her employer taking the time to look at her facebook, at all?"

At Will Employment

[peterofoz]

In a lot of places, an employer does not need a reason to let someone go. So any reason would do if they want to take it as such. I bet there's more to the story here.

Holy fascism...

[Anonymous Coward]

Big government doing their typical stifling of the natural rights of man, such as freedom of speech. If this was while on the job, perhaps some action could be appropriate. This just boils down to another trampling of the people's rights.

Captcha: Demote - how appropriate

Facebook group for support

[Cruithne]

So, I'm thinking if we make enough noise, perhaps she'll get her job back. I created a Facebook group with that goal in mind... Perhaps if we set a precedent, companies will think twice about canning someone because of a private joke. http://bit.ly/9Rhcjy

"never a single act of violence": Gandhi disagrees

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy did you drink the kool-aid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857 - over 100,000 Indian soldiers fought British colonialism with guns.

This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Day bit of Indian violent protest of British colonialism resulted in between 4000-7000 dead and as many as 100,000 injured.

Gandhi's hunger strikes were not always protesting the violent behavior on the British side.

Privacy Question: New World Order

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people who have a problem with a joke posted on Facebook are hold-outs from the previous generation that have not yet recognized that the world is changing and old rules about privacy no longer work. In the New World Order employers have to learn that they have no more business looking at an employees facebook content than an employee has any business in using an employers name in a post.
There is NOTHING you can say in Facebook, MySpace, Livejournal, Blogger, etc... that should have any bearing on your employment. I mean... it's up to the blogger to keep their employer's name out of the content but the flip side of that is that employers have to keep their noses out of employees personal stuff. Period.

On the off chance you weren't aware....

[g0bshiTe]

This is the exact reason any Social Networking web site you belong to should not be readily identifiable to you. If things posted on your time (TFA didn't say it wasn't, so it's assumed) will get you canned. What right does the City have to monitor her private life like that? Was this a case of the City being "Big Brother" or did she show someone at work, and word spread? I'd like to know.

hey dummy ...

[farble1670]

would you yell jokes about drugs on a street corner? at a family dinner? in the break room at work? if not, don't do it on facebook.

almost all employers (in the US) are at-will. that means they can get rid of you at any time, for any reason. it doesn't matter that it was just a joke. if your employer doesn't like the joke, goodbye.

Puns

[SnarfQuest]

Is posting bad jokes on Facebook a justifiable reason to give someone the boot?

If they are bad puns, then they should be hung. Nothing is worse than a bad pun.

Wise up Folks

[olddotter]

Don't post to FB or Twitter anything you don't want your boss, mother, or next interviewer to read.

Speak for Yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not an American, which is obvious based on your comments being complete dribble of fantastic rues. (1)The constitution is protection from the Government, NOT private entitities. (2)Women have never lost rights. (3)It is legally impossible for property rights to trump constitutional rights. (4)Group-think has no control over the current market, as it was allowed to form FREELY. (5)If you don't like a job that intrudes in your personal life, don't take a job that requires "public image" outside work hours, which basically only limits to to not taking government/state run jobs.
 
To you, I say grow up, but if you were American you would probably have realised all this by now.

Re:Speak for Yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just state jobs that require you to have a "public image" outside work hours. Private employers have used off-hour behavior as a means of control since Henry Ford, at least, probably a lot longer. They still do. I doubt many managers and business owners *actually* care if you joke about drugs on Facebook, but it's a great tool for getting rid of someone in a non at-will state.

Also, I find it ironic that you say "grow up" to someone who is basically advocating a less antisocial position. I am an American, and the libertarian/objectivist position has always struck me as eerily similar to the surly adolescent who doesn't think they owe the world anything.

People make mistakes.

[GarryFre]

Where I live losing your job is as bad as a death sentence. Stuff happens. The world is bad enough with this economy (Economy is an oxymoron now btw.) without firing someone for trivial things like this. Who of us has not done something stupid in their life time? Let them "Cast the first stone". She did her job well enough to be on that for 21 years she deserves a second chance. Mercy is also appropriate and its good PR to be firm but merciful.

The action taken identifies the questions asked

[http]

"Simply firing her" clearly suggests having looked into the matter and forming a personal judgment, and thus still exposes self and career to potential damage.

I stand corrected.

[GarryFre]

I went and read her actual comment and I find she claimed to be taking illegal drugs and being addicted as a joke. That IS pretty stupid and the argument that this showed extreme poor judgement cannot be denied. its about as stupid as a fool who runs into a crowd with a road flare claiming to have a bomb. I have to admit, that was too stupid to overlook.

This is the last time I'll say this...

[Locke2005]

Never use your real name!

wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook is meant to be a personal affair, the fact that she put that joke up is her own business and nobody elses. Therefore this whole situation is stupid and highly illegal. Think about it, if you go home and tell someone a dirty joke and then go back to work the next day and found out you were fired for telling it, wouldn't you be pissed? I think so...

agree/disagree

[BitterAndDrunk]

I agree that evidence of impairment should be immediate grounds for dismissal.

But she passed a urinalysis AND a hair test? She's clean, just has poor judgment and is not very funny.

Which shouldn't preclude her from government work; she's almost overqualified!

OFFS

[Karem Lore]

What I do in my own time, whether fantasy or otherwise, should bear no impact on my work as long as said past time activities do not interfere with my professional conduct at work.

A joke on a website is a joke, made in jest. One could argue that the consumer of such joke that read and complained should also consider that her actions of viewing said website would lead to information that would not be factually correct and thus should not have been able to make the complaint in the first place.

That person should be fired for abuse of powers! I have one thing to say to the "holier than thou" brigade: STFU and piss in your own yard!

Having said all that, if the context of here being a problematic employee posted above is true, then the company would find any reason to enter the dismissal stage.

Re:nou c

[Anonymous Coward]

It costs money to deal with the diseases smoking causes (asthma, emphysema, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease) leading to higher premiums for everyone. So what you save in taxes you could be paying out in premiums.

sure, why not.

[jsepeta]

employers can make up whatever standard / rule / excuse for firing somebody. it's usually all political anyway. if she's stupid enough to post about using drugs, she probably needed to learn this little lesson.

REalllly?!

[BlackBloq]

Again please will somebody tell me WHO THE FUCK posts stupid shit on facebook with their bosses or some shit as friends. COME ON... if your co-workers are on your facebook DON'T FUCKING TALK ABOUT SMOKING A JOINT or any shit like that! Morons! Fire em al! We need less goddam stupid people in the workforce, epically emergency services! They should be smart! I don't have bosses as friends but some co-workers. One stupid friend of mine asked for cooking recipes for weed... I'm like whats that? Oh you can cook with it ... strange!

bullshit

[jsepeta]

and yet the US ignores international laws on torture and the rights of detainees. soldiers can do whatever the fuck they want, including stripping men naked and threatening them with attack dogs, and suffer no consequence until the photographs get the generals in enough trouble to scapegoat an enlisted man (or woman)

i dont trust soldiers or lawyers or judges or cops or politicians. they're mostly a bunch of cruel, self-righteous liars.

Pacifism

[FiloEleven]

Why would you genuinely have a problem with people who do not want to hurt other people?

That's not necessarily a complete definition of pacifism. Some take it as far as NEVER hurting other people, and that position I disagree with. It's fine if you don't want to defend yourself, but in situations where there is a third party being targeted who is not in a position to defend himself (yes, think of the children) and you are able but not willing to prevent the attack, you have failed morally.

I get not wanting to hurt other people; I'm mostly that way myself, but many who choose to label themselves pacifists claim that they will always refrain from causing harm. I find this position morally questionable as well as logically impossible, as there are many situations where a failure to harm one person results in harming another.

Lots of people seem to have a problem with pacifists benefiting from their militaries' defense--this is indeed silly, because it implies that only those aligned exactly with the country's leadership deserve the benefits of it, when in reality it's very healthy to foster a variety of opinion.

Lawful Evil

[jsepeta]

Working your life around the assumption that society is, for all intents and purpouses, lawful evil will destroy you in the long run.

D&D ftw

Re:taco bell is a pepsi place so just being there

[AK Marc]

Was, not "is" (if you mean being owned by Pepsi, but if you mean just serving Pepsi then you are still correct).

You got a score 5??

[fishexe]

Are my first-amendment rights applicable?

No, as they protect you from the government, not from private entities.

For claiming that a government agency is a private entity, and not the government? Good job!

Nasty prying bastards slacking off

[dbIII]

It is not really their work, it's just an excuse to muck about on facebook all day because there is going to be zero information relevent to the business on there. They can rave all they like about watered down pop psychology, but finding out trivia on their employees to try to build up some sort of behavioural model is going to produce a flawed model based on noise that is going to be irrelevent to how the employee behaves at work.
They can dress it up all they like, but unless they are really deluded they are all doing it for purely personal reason and are using the situation that the subjects of their voyeurism are co-workers as an excuse.

Freedom of speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that under some circumstances that inappropriate comments can be an issue but what happened to freedom of speech? Or in this case when did a private comment on facebook have any relation to a person's job? Did that person actually relate their comment back to their position or their department and thereby violate a code of conduct?
I can see how this works with politicians, this is because they are publicly known and therefore everything they say is by default linked to them and therefore their position. An individual has a right to an opinion so long as it doesn't interfere with them doing their job or damage the job that they are doing.
In tbnis case I would assume that the employee has a code of conduct that specifically addresses conduct outside work and covers such a situation. In which case, you signed up for that level of invasion of privacy. Wear it or work elsewhere.

Using one's freedom is so Stupid

[mathmathrevolution]

Exactly. You're not saying that what she did merited being raped. You're just saying that it was stupid for her to be walking around in those tight sexy clothes, showing off her big ol' titties.

People need to learn that there are risks to exercising their freedoms, and that is why its smarter to never do or say anything remotely controversial ever, even in a venue explicitly designated for the conduct of one's personal life.

Re:Using one's freedom is so Stupid

[Rysc]

Should someone be able to say whatever she likes? Yes. Should there be no negative consequences? Yes. In the real world is this the case? No. Was she aware of the risk she was running? Probably not. Should she be aware? Yes. Should the risk exist? No. Does the risk exist? Yes.

Do you see what I am getting at here? I am describing reality, not telling anyone not to exercise their freedoms. Go ahead! Be controversial. I approve. be aware that not everyone likes it, though, and that you are running a risk. If you don't like that risk then being anonymous is a good way to avoid it. If you aren't sure if you want to take such risks then perhaps you should be anonymous by default and not anonymous only when you're sure you want it to be on permanent record. Posting remarks you wouldn't want everyone to know about you forever is stupid; you should have not associated those remarks with yourself if you didn't want everyone to know about them forever,or you should have said nothing. I'm not saying not to post, I am saying you should know what you're doing and what you're agreeing to when you do so.

Re:Using one's freedom is so Stupid

[mathmathrevolution]

Right. You're not saying that you explicitly support institutional surveillance and intrusion into every aspect of one's personal life (ie: totalitarianism); you're just saying that people should accept that such totalitarianism exists and the prudent thing to do is to accommodate it.

I would point out to you that when you advance these opinions you are not merely "describing reality". You are also creating reality. You are normalizing and thereby legitimizing these intrusive acts by saying they are just part of our daily panorama that we must accept. Well, no, we don't have to accept this. We can choose to make our society however we want.

In point of fact, we have a moral duty to reject these intrusions and to insist that we are governed by some standards of decency that allows for basic freedoms exercised. Among those freedoms is the freedom to legally express one's own personality on one's own time without having one's livelihood threatened.

We have an obligation to defend these freedoms. We have an obligation to confront the institutions who threaten us. We have an obligation to defend the victims of these intrusions, not to abandon our fellow citizens, or condemn them as "stupid" because they chose to make a joke during their own private time.

the mechanisms by which freedom is eroded

[mathmathrevolution]

I think that your logic is true on one level, but it's also very naive and dangerous because it ignores the real mechanisms by which freedom are eroded. You may think that when you alert people to the risks of expressing one's thought, that you are simply describing the objective landscape of America. In fact you are doing something far worse: You are reinforcing the underlying authoritarian message: people should be afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient.

The more we internalize these fears, the more leeway the myriad opponents of freedom have to control and suppress. If one can't make a joke about drugs without risking one's livelihood, then what will protect another's right to make a joke about sex or religion? Soon the expression of all meaningful human experience is compromised. Our real freedom is forfeited by the simple calculation that the invasive and controlling behavior of our employers is "just the way things are".

The only moral course of action for proponents of freedom is to confront and condemn the actions of her employers, and not make petty excuses and blame the victims for being so "stupid". We need to have some solidarity and insist upon our freedom.

Re:the mechanisms by which freedom is eroded

[owlstead]

No, it's naive and dangerous if you do something and you don't understand the possible consequences, no matter how unfair those consequences are. You are right in the fact that if you continuously make people aware that doing the right thing is dangerous is in itself a dangerous thing to do. There is no discussion there.

Personally I would like to try and make the world a *conscious* place. We should not ignore the way the world works - that leads to things like Soviet communism. I do also think that being conscious means that you are able to rationalize threats and the fear that comes with threats.

Just letting people ignore threats is not an option. They must learn to understand them and deal with them. Only then can they fight the fight that needs to be fought. The lady in the story is not winning anything by ignoring the possible consequences of her deed.

Re:the mechanisms by which freedom is eroded

[mathmathrevolution]

Look, there are only two options here. As a society ...

1. We can accommodate and adapt to the surveillance and intrusions of our employers into our private lives,
2. We can choose to confront and reject these intrusions

You and me both know where the first road takes us. And that's why we're both obligated to take the second. So, no, our free citizens do not need to learn how to adapt to "threats." Rather we need to learn solidarity and how to defend each other.