Saturday, April 19th9.9°C
21427

Not the brighest bulb in the package

Social issues in our ever-changing world.

Moderators: Jo, ferri, Merry, Triple 6

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby WhatThe » Nov 26th, 2012, 9:05 pm

Were they there escorting residents or were they on their own. I understand they were by themselves while visiting the area for a conference of some sort
Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation, and war, and cruelty. People are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem.
User avatar
WhatThe
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3946
Likes: 43 posts
Liked in: 74 posts
Joined: Feb 25th, 2009, 1:13 pm

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby Fancy » Nov 26th, 2012, 11:14 pm

WhatThe wrote:Were they there escorting residents or were they on their own. I understand they were by themselves while visiting the area for a conference of some sort

Doesn't matter - they were there on their employer's expense.
User avatar
Fancy
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 29134
Likes: 160 posts
Liked in: 509 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby WhatThe » Nov 27th, 2012, 3:32 am

Fancy wrote:Doesn't matter - they were there on their employer's expense.

It does matter. Just because a company sends you on an "excursion" at their expense doesn't mean they own your arse 24 hours a day. If they were sight seeing on their own time it's not on company time like your arguing.

It seems the truth is that these girls actually broke no laws, acted in a way the harmed the residents or failed in their duties caring for the residents. All that has happened is that self rightgeous people got all uptight about something that isnt their business and made a stink about it. If one is offended,That's one's problem, not the girls. I'm offended that there are people that made a point to get them fired. but I guess that's my problem, then again I'm not acting out in a malicious manner and calling for loss of livelihoods.... For a tasteless joke meant only to be shared among friends.
Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation, and war, and cruelty. People are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem.
User avatar
WhatThe
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3946
Likes: 43 posts
Liked in: 74 posts
Joined: Feb 25th, 2009, 1:13 pm

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby Fancy » Nov 27th, 2012, 5:32 am

If one is offended,That's one's problem, not the girls
Obviously it was the girls' problem for posting an offensive photograph. You are failing to address the fact that there was a code of conduct in place and these girls needed to set an example. The other probability is the girls were there with the residents - 40 of them and 8 staff. There are veterans serving on staff and on the board of trustees. Same opinion? If so, it's just not shared with the employer who states what they are all about on their webpage.
Last edited by Fancy on Nov 27th, 2012, 6:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Fancy
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 29134
Likes: 160 posts
Liked in: 509 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby oneh2obabe » Nov 27th, 2012, 5:51 am

WhatThe wrote:It seems the truth is that these girls actually broke no laws, acted in a way the harmed the residents or failed in their duties caring for the residents. All that has happened is that self rightgeous people got all uptight about something that isnt their business and made a stink about it. If one is offended,That's one's problem, not the girls. I'm offended that there are people that made a point to get them fired. but I guess that's my problem, then again I'm not acting out in a malicious manner and calling for loss of livelihoods.... For a tasteless joke meant only to be shared among friends.

Employees may claim that they have 1st Amendment “Freedom of Speech" rights under the U.S. Constitution. However those constitutional rights do not extend entirely to certain types of postings on an employee’s private Facebook page.

The practice of employees who have listed their place of employment on Facebook, and then engage in questionable behavior may through association harm their employer. Many U.S. courts as well as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have issued a variety of opinions which underscore that an employee’s right to post photos, words, or other unflattering portrayals do not offer them protection from being fired.

Therefore, as social media becomes more and more an integral and embedded part of American society employees like a Lindsey Stone cannot go out and do whatever immature and uncaring disrespectful act that fancies them. In fact, according to Career Builder, a website for job seekers, “New England Patriots cheerleader Caitlin Davis was dismissed from her position, “over controversial pictures that were posted on her Facebook page.”

Proofpoint, an internet security company, established in its 2009 study that approximately eight percent of firms with more than 1,000 employees discharged an employee for engaging in questionable social media postings. That number had doubled from the previous year.

The verdict is in. Lindsey Stone’s dismissal was not only legitimate; she and her coworker did not appear to have a U.S. Constitutional leg to stand on. It is indeed unfortunate, that you cannot legislate respect. But you sure can require it from your employees.

So this is a future warning for employees who feel the notion to engage in behavior that is “prankish” and disrespectful. Your next posting on your Facebook page may list your current occupation as unemployed.
Dance as if no one's watching, sing as if no one's listening, and live everyday as if it were your last.

Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass. It's about learning to dance in the rain.
User avatar
oneh2obabe
goruchaf meistres y bwrdd
 
Posts: 43092
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 409 posts
Joined: Nov 23rd, 2007, 9:19 am

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby Fancy » Nov 27th, 2012, 6:05 am

The First Amendment was never intended to guarantee consequence-free speech. When the amendment was ratified in 1791, the Founders understood, for example, that individuals would continue to be liable to defamation lawsuits if they engaged in slander. And that’s a good thing. Imagine if you had to stand idly by while others trashed your reputation. Or if employers were powerless to discipline or fire employees who disparage the company brand or divulge trade secrets.

The very essence of freedom is the obligation to accept responsibility for our choices. The Constitution does not shield us from that responsibility.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/ ... z2DQa3dr8J
User avatar
Fancy
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 29134
Likes: 160 posts
Liked in: 509 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby Fancy » Nov 27th, 2012, 6:22 am

LIFE issued its own statement:

"On Nov. 19 at approximately 6 p.m., we became aware that one of our employees had posted an offensive, inappropriate photograph on her personal Facebook page. The photo was taken at a national historic site in October by a fellow employee during a trip to Washington, D.C. attended by 40 residents and eight staff. The photo has since been removed from Facebook, and both employees have been placed on unpaid leave pending the results of an internal investigation.

"This photograph in no way reflects the opinions or values of the LIFE organization, which holds our nation's veterans in the highest regard. We are proud to have veterans serving on our staff and board of trustees, and we value their service. The men and women who have selflessly fought and sacrificed their lives to protect the rights and lives of Americans deserve our utmost respect and gratitude. We are acutely aware that this photo has done a disservice to veterans and we are deeply saddened that it was taken and shared in a public medium."

Just because a company sends you on an "excursion" at their expense doesn't mean they own your arse 24 hours a day
It does mean a company is entitled to expect their employees to have respect and to represent them in a manner befitting their position.
User avatar
Fancy
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 29134
Likes: 160 posts
Liked in: 509 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby coffeeFreak » Nov 27th, 2012, 7:58 am

The woman is stupid, and likely didn't think past the words "silence and respect" in her actions...but what these soldiers did, goes beyond anything close to her action, yet their punishment is basically a slap on the hand?

US-Marines-allegedly-urin-007.jpg
US-Marines-allegedly-urin-007.jpg (36.86 KiB) Viewed 212 times



The US military announced on Monday that no criminal charges would be brought against the US marines in Afghanistan who videotaped themselves urinating on the corpses of Taliban fighters. Nor, the military announced, would any criminal charges be filed against the US troops who "tried to burn about 500 copies of the Qur'an as part of a badly bungled security sweep at an Afghan prison in February, despite repeated warnings from Afghan soldiers that they were making a colossal mistake".

In doing so, the US military, as usual, brushed aside demands of Afghan officials for legal accountability for the destructive acts of foreign soldiers in their country. The US instead imposed "disciplinary measures" in both cases, ones that "could include letters of reprimand, a reduction in rank, forfeit of some pay, physical restriction to a military base, extra duties or some combination of those measures"...read more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/28/us-israel-justice-whitewash-state-crimes
User avatar
coffeeFreak
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4796
Likes: 201 posts
Liked in: 83 posts
Joined: Oct 22nd, 2009, 6:06 pm

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby cliffy1 » Nov 27th, 2012, 8:18 am

coffeeFreak wrote:
US-Marines-allegedly-urin-007.jpg



The US military announced on Monday that no criminal charges would be brought against the US marines in Afghanistan who videotaped themselves urinating on the corpses of Taliban fighters. Nor, the military announced, would any criminal charges be filed against the US troops who "tried to burn about 500 copies of the Qur'an as part of a badly bungled security sweep at an Afghan prison in February, despite repeated warnings from Afghan soldiers that they were making a colossal mistake".

In doing so, the US military, as usual, brushed aside demands of Afghan officials for legal accountability for the destructive acts of foreign soldiers in their country. The US instead imposed "disciplinary measures" in both cases, ones that "could include letters of reprimand, a reduction in rank, forfeit of some pay, physical restriction to a military base, extra duties or some combination of those measures"...read more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/28/us-israel-justice-whitewash-state-crimes

Yup. God bless America, nobody else will.
Trying to get spiritual nourishment from a two thousand year old book is like trying to suck milk from the breast of a woman who has been dead that long.
User avatar
cliffy1
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 834
Likes: 26 posts
Liked in: 35 posts
Joined: Mar 5th, 2011, 1:41 pm
Location: Nakusp

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby fluffy » Nov 27th, 2012, 8:46 am

WhatThe wrote:It seems the truth is that these girls actually broke no laws, acted in a way the harmed the residents or failed in their duties caring for the residents. All that has happened is that self rightgeous people got all uptight about something that isnt their business and made a stink about it. If one is offended,That's one's problem, not the girls. I'm offended that there are people that made a point to get them fired. but I guess that's my problem, then again I'm not acting out in a malicious manner and calling for loss of livelihoods.... For a tasteless joke meant only to be shared among friends.


That's the meat of it for me too. Were it not for the landslide of indignance created by by a ravenous pack of officious busybodies this would never have gone anywhere. It was just a bad joke.
quick - report this post to a mod
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 15205
Likes: 9 posts
Liked in: 591 posts
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby Fancy » Nov 27th, 2012, 9:36 am

Apparently the landslide started with their friends.
User avatar
Fancy
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 29134
Likes: 160 posts
Liked in: 509 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby fluffy » Nov 27th, 2012, 10:05 am

That's not surprising in the least. The very fact that she was short-sighted enough to think a tasteless joke like hers would go unnoticed tells me that thinking things through is not her long suit. It would follow to reason that the same short-sightedness would extend to her choice of friends.
quick - report this post to a mod
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 15205
Likes: 9 posts
Liked in: 591 posts
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby Fancy » Nov 27th, 2012, 10:27 am

It is disturbing to read people aren't satisfied that the girls lost their jobs.
User avatar
Fancy
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 29134
Likes: 160 posts
Liked in: 509 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby Lady tehMa » Nov 27th, 2012, 10:29 am

True - I think their stupidity causing their job loss was enough. That and the fact that they are now notorious may make finding another job difficult. Hubris causes the fall - let us hope they learn from this and come out as better people.
I haven't failed until I quit.
User avatar
Lady tehMa
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 11738
Likes: 1397 posts
Liked in: 183 posts
Joined: Aug 2nd, 2005, 3:51 pm

Re: Not the brighest bulb in the package

Postby fluffy » Nov 27th, 2012, 10:35 am

At the very least they have likely had their eyes opened as to the potential of "mob-think".
quick - report this post to a mod
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 15205
Likes: 9 posts
Liked in: 591 posts
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Social Concerns

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest