22 Replies to ““We are investigating the facts around the incident and our legal options concerning the employee””

  2. What does the company mean by “terminate”? Does that mean the employee is dehired? Or is he or she terminated as in the films Terminator, Terminator 2?

    1. The phrase “expect to terminate” was an own goal. That’s a wrongful dismissal or actionable libel suit waiting to happen.

      Since people can’t think rationally when it comes to these issues: I haven’t seen the video, and if the employee is in fact a rabid J*w-hater then they deserve to be fired. But the company publicly saying “we expect to terminate” before they’ve completed the internal investigation is asking for trouble.

      1. Indeed. They are definitely burning their bridges here and do not intend to keep this person, no matter what. If they have any sense, they have planned and prepared to do it this way. If not, well, they might get some ugly shocks. It’s a viable course of action and may be the right one, but it’s not the kind of thing you can improvise.

  4. As offensive as her actions might be, I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to this.
    What a person does off-the-clock is THEIR business, not their employer’s.
    If my employer wants to start sticking their nose into my personal affairs, they’re going to have to start paying me A LOT MORE.

    1. If you engage in or support terrorism you are a sub-human and the civilized norms and rules no longer protect or apply.

      Not sure why you haven’t grasped that yet.

    2. Edward, your personal affairs ARE your employer’s concern if they are such as to bring the employer into disrepute. This is specifically true if they are done in a public space. You cannot conflate personal opinions and beliefs, which are indeed your own, with public actions.

      1. I’m pretty sure we don’t want to live in a world where our off-the-clock actions are scrutinized by our employers. That has the serious potential to bite us in a bad way.

        It was wrong for Mozilla to terminate Brendan Eich as well (though we got a much better browser out of it).

        Employment is a business arrangement where one exchanges time+skills for compensation. That is all. Nothing else was on the table during that negotiation. An employer deciding after the fact that they don’t like a person’s socio-political opinions is them altering the deal after the fact, which is unacceptable, even if those views are obnoxious. Allowing employers (or any other entity for that matter) to hold employment over an individuals expression of their personal opinions when they’re NOT at work is going to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and conscience. That needs to be protected.

        This is every bit as wrong as employers making Covid vaccination status a condition of continued employment.

        1. “Nothing else was on the table during that negotiation.”

          Wrong. A host of other things are on the table. These include appropriate dress and conduct as pertains to the public. It includes things like no use of public profanity when acting for the employer. It includes no public displays such as public defecation while identifiable as an employee. These things will embodied in an employee’s standard of conduct. They are standard for all workplaces.

        2. O.k., but if your employer starts doing things you don’t like, and people start thinking you must be an a-hole to keep working for them, you can’t quit. You have to keep working for them for as long as they want you to. And no slacking, do your work properly.

      2. “….ARE your employer’s concern if they are such as to bring the employer into disrepute.”

        Yup!

        We do not want Private sector employer’s to be forced to employ anyone they deem inappropriate, especially when their personal actions reflect badly on the company. That should be a corporate choice not the governments to make.

        1. “when their personal actions reflect badly on the company.”

          Exactly so. This is why companies have codes of conduct. It is the business of any corporate HR department to deal with any and all violations of such codes and make recommendations to management as to how to deal with it.

          This is vastly preferable to government deciding to impose its own universal standard. This is one of the problem with assorted human rights commissons. They are an attempt by government to intrude into an area where it has no proprietary concern. Companies only should be responsible. If customers don’t like it, they can refrain from purchasing a company’s product or services.

          As a one-time owner of a company, I had clear expectations of the conduct of my employees and contractors. As employees, they had clear expectations of me.

    3. The point of Kate’s commentary is that the Ctrl-Left destroyed that separation between personal and employment activity long ago. These are the new rules they created: you can get fired for things you do on your personal time. We’re just showing them, with copious object lessons, why the old rules existed.

      2. “you can get fired for things you do on your personal time”

        Very few Hollywierd celebrities fashionably coming out for Palestine, wonder why, heh.

      3. I would bet that many of them have Morals (or morality) clauses in their employment contracts. Now, it may be in question if the person knew what those clauses involved when they signed the contract, but that’s their problem now.

    4. Any employee who publicly engages in activity damaging to a company’s brand can be terminated. Howard Levitt, an employment lawyer who regularly write on such issues for the Financial Post had a column on this topic. Publicly indulging in anti-semitic hate certainly fits the bill.

      “Any employee in a public-facing or managerial position who participated in any of Canada’s Hamas-supporting “hate fests” should similarly be fired for cause. And if any of them sue, I will personally act for their employers, pro bono.”
      https://financialpost.com/fp-work/employer-sympathy-hamas

  5. Cancel Culture is wrong. But the Progressive Left loves to use it to punish and terrorize the normal people who oppose the Left. Nothing else we have done has stopped Cancel Culture.

    I hope that by canceling these sick, soulless, brainwashed Jew haters we can send a shock to the Left. “We can destroy your people too.”

    Maybe this will slow or stop cancel culture? Nothing else we tried before has slowed it down. Maybe it’s time to stop “appealing to their better nature” and just take them out instead.

    Maybe it will accelerate cancel culture? Cancel culture was speeding along no matter what we tried previously.

  7. “But wait…I stand with the YooCrane! Doesn’t that count?” —another mindless leftist retard

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation