Slashdot Mirror


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?"

34 of 631 comments (clear)

  1. no by dmitrygr · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    -------
    1. Enjoy your job
    2. Make lots of money
    3. Work within the law

    Choose any two.
    1. Re:no by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:no by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:no by icebrain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    4. Re:no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:no by deKernel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:no by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. Sounds unreasonable by Tukz · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    1. Re:Sounds unreasonable by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dana Kuchler, a 21-year veteran

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

    2. Re:Sounds unreasonable by linzeal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Sounds unreasonable by Capsaicin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    4. Re:Sounds unreasonable by oji-sama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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]

      --
      It is what it is.
    5. Re:Sounds unreasonable by Rysc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    6. Re:Sounds unreasonable by krou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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."

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    7. Re:Sounds unreasonable by Aqualung812 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    8. Re:Sounds unreasonable by Securityemo · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    9. Re:Sounds unreasonable by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Sounds unreasonable by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. Freedom of speech should be a law ;) by Rivalz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;) by mikael_j · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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"?

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Freedom of speech should be a law ;) by bickerdyke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      bickerdyke
  4. Sounds like the excuse.... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:Sounds like the excuse.... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  5. Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity? by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  6. Dangers of public by default by muckracer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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".

  7. Employers need to be slapped down by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  8. Re:A Question of Privacy, or Stupidity? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  9. Re:It all depends on what you mean ... by Dhalka226 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Is anything publicly visible just grounds? by CaptainNerdCave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  11. Re:Arbitration is Binding by snerdy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Arbitration in the US is binding.

    Unless it's non-binding arbitration. The TFA only says that the woman "appealed to an arbitrator."

  12. The Swedish? Defending freedom? by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    I don't think so

  13. Moot kangaroo court by EriDay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.