You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 09:17:16 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The FHRITP heckler issue  (Read 1607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BeorningTopic starter

The FHRITP heckler issue
« on: May 13, 2015, 02:05:48 PM »
The discussion about that guy who got fired for FHRITPing the reporter is turning into something quite long, so I decided to make it into a separate topic. For all interested, the discussion started here:

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=214010.msg11246117#msg11246117

Now, going to where we stopped...

That varies from state to state in the U.S., but in my state it's entirely possible to fire someone for no reason other than "this person didn't work out in this job".  Mind you, if that's the only reason given the employee would be very likely to be able to force the employer to pay unemployment compensation, but that doesn't prevent the company from doing the firing in the first place.

Ah. But, IMHO, it means that the law there recognizes such a thing as being fired for no good reason. If it's possible to get compensation for that...

Quote
Competence at work is rarely the only issue.  Each employee generally also has to be able to get along with other employees, for example.  Knowing what this person did during his "free time" would certainly make me (and very probably a large percentage of other women) prefer to avoid him, which could have an adverse affect on the business if we were required to work together.

Really? I'm not sure I want to play the guy's advocate here, but we really don't know anything about him, do we? At work, he might the most personable and well-mannered person ever. Are we sure that his female co-workers wouldn't want to work with him after that one thing he did?

If that happened, if it turned out that this FHRITP situation makes it impossible for him to work at this job anymore, then I can see him getting fired... but that's not what happened here. He was fired *immediately*, which really seems excessive to me.

Quote
This was not a "stupid prank"; this was a sexually-charged threat, made in public, that broke the law.

I'm really not sure if what he did really counts as a threat - it's not like he really wanted that reporter to get raped. But I agree that it was lewd, inappropriate and could be considered a case of verbal abuse. I support him being punished - I just don't think that it's his employer's business to do so.

For the record, using," We don't want to be associated with someone who says such things on public television," Is a valid excuse for employment termination around here.

Really? It really feels like a case of overreaction on the company's side in that case. I mean, would really anyone "associate" that company with this one guy? Would it really hurt their business, or something like that?

This is why I put forth the possibility that a conversation with HR was in order.  Is this a one-time thing?  Does the employee take responsibility for what was done?  Does the employee have a way to prevent future occurrences?

But if, say, this case of being drunk happened outside of the job, then why should the HR even be allowed to talk with this employee about this? If something happened outside of the job, then it's the employee's private matter. The employer shouldn't be sticking their nose into it...

Quote
It may, however, have a bearing on how trustworthy or dependable the person is.  Taking our drunk office assistant as an example:  Said office assistant is responsible for filing clients' records.  Both being intoxicated and being hung over can impact someone's thought processes.  An important document misfiled could lead to severe consequences.

Sure, but there's such a thing like giving someone the benefit of the doubt. It'd really be a long stretch to say "This person got drunk on a Friday night outing with friends, so they probably will get drunk while on the job, too". Using that logic, you can fire anyone for any reason - you can cast this sort of suspicion on everyone... No-one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes.

Quote
Did they work with the public?  Did they have to interact with women - either inside or outside of the company - on a daily basis?  If you were a woman, would you feel comfortable interacting with a guy you had seen on the news, shouting what he did, and for the reasons that he did?  Would you want your mother, sister, or daughter to have to interact with him?

I honestly don't know. As I said to Valerian, this guy could be the most well-mannered person ever on an ordinary day. Should a person really be judged because of one-time case of being a jerk?

There are rules that govern when an employee can be terminated for things such as whistle-blowing and retaliation:  e.g., an employer cannot fire an employee for reporting illegal conduct to a regulator.  But aside from that, yes, most employers have the right to decide who they pay to do work for them.  The employee does not have a right to the job--that is, they don't have a right to make the employer give them the employer's money.  To keep their jobs, they need to provide what the employer seeks.  And most employers care about both how the employee functions in their specific role, as well as the influence they have on the work environment/other team members.

But was there any evidence of this guy having a bad influence on his work enviroment? He was fired immediately after that whole matter came to light, which, to me, smacks like a company throwing him under a bus just in case. And I think this kind of attitude is wrong.

Quote
To stay employed, you should be good at your job, and you should be good as a person.  The idiot in that article may have been the former, but he evidently wasn't the latter.

Okay, this kind of approach really opens all kinds of Pandora's boxes. You need to be a good person to stay employed? Okay, so... let's say an employee cheats on his wife and his employer learns about it. Would it be okay for them to fire him?

Also, I would say that, overall, the notion of "you need to be a good person to stay employed" is simply not true. Many companies actually tolerate - or even encourage - their employees being jerks. Heck, there are studies that show that quite a few of successful businessmen are highly-functioning psychopaths. Overall, in the business world people are usually *not* being punished for being bad. So, why should this one guy be?

Finally, if we're speaking about the possiblity of that heckler guy not being tolerated by his employees because of what did... what happened to the idea of "you don't have to like someone to work with them"? I can imagine the women (as well as the more sensible men) in the company giving him a cold shoulder from now on... so? Does it mean that he wouldn't be able to do his job? And does it mean that these other people wouldn't be able to do their jobs because of having to see him occassionally?

If the employee were to sexually harass or threaten a coworker, the company would be exposed to liability because they didn't take suitable precautions based on his previous action. 

Same if he were to molest or rape someone he worked with, or was on company property. 

Same if anyone else there did something like that, because the corporation could be argued to have a policy accepting of the attitude/threats/behavior. 

Okay, I must say that: seriously? Would it be possible for a company to get sued successfully, if they didn't fire the heckler and *some other guy* molested someone while being employed there.

Seriously, this is ridiculous!

Quote
Publicity is a very real cost for a company, both negative (continuing to employ and be associated with someone like that) and positive (being seen to take a firm stance on personal rights, decency, and not being a twat).  You may not have influence on that, but at some point there's a consumer - an elected public official who decides what contractor to employ or women who think paying a bit more for services is worth not risking that tech being assigned to their service issue.

I seriously can't imagine a thinking public official who would punish a whole company for something one of their employees did when out of work. Come on.

I *can* understand female clients who wouldn't want to meet this guy - but we actually don't know if this guy ever dealt with the clients. From what we know, he was an engineer there.

Finally, as I already said earlier, expecting the company to take a stance regarding the "decency" of their employee's private lives could lead to all kind of wrongs...
« Last Edit: May 13, 2015, 02:14:44 PM by Beorning »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2015, 02:36:59 PM »
I'm really not sure if what he did really counts as a threat - it's not like he really wanted that reporter to get raped.

From the news article that was linked:  [He was] shown in the video using an expletive and calling his friend's use of FHTIP hilarious before telling the reporter she is lucky they didn't have a vibrator.

Why would she be 'lucky' he didn't have a vibrator?  What would have happened if he had a vibrator?  What is a vibrator usually used for?  He's just said FHRITP - what does that say about his mind-set?

If someone was in a verbal altercation with another person and said 'You're lucky I don't have a gun,' what would that imply?  And if the words 'This guy needs to be shot' were said beforehand?  Wouldn't a rational person take that as a threat?

Offline Cycle

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2015, 02:40:54 PM »
But was there any evidence of this guy having a bad influence on his work enviroment? He was fired immediately after that whole matter came to light, which, to me, smacks like a company throwing him under a bus just in case. And I think this kind of attitude is wrong.

I don't.  I think the company did the right thing and sent the right signal.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.


Quote
Okay, this kind of approach really opens all kinds of Pandora's boxes. You need to be a good person to stay employed? Okay, so... let's say an employee cheats on his wife and his employer learns about it. Would it be okay for them to fire him?

Also, I would say that, overall, the notion of "you need to be a good person to stay employed" is simply not true. Many companies actually tolerate - or even encourage - their employees being jerks. Heck, there are studies that show that quite a few of successful businessmen are highly-functioning psychopaths. Overall, in the business world people are usually *not* being punished for being bad. So, why should this one guy be?

Yeah, the fact that some companies tolerate assholes doesn't mean it is right to tolerate assholes or that all companies should tolerate assholes.  Some companies, like mine, don't.  Again, let's agree to disagree.


Offline Valerian

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2015, 02:42:42 PM »
Ah. But, IMHO, it means that the law there recognizes such a thing as being fired for no good reason. If it's possible to get compensation for that...
I'm not sure what this has to do with the main point, but yes.  Sometimes there are issues that are not covered under the law that make it impractical for someone to continue in a job -- problems with getting along with one's co-workers, for instance.  (Note that this does not require liking said co-workers, just the ability to coexist with them well enough to get work done.)  So sometimes employers have to fire someone without giving a reason such as incompetence, and in those cases the law provides the opportunity for the ex-employee to file for unemployment compensation, if the company doesn't offer it on its own.  But the law only goes so far with this sort of thing.  Much of it is left up to the individual companies.

Really? I'm not sure I want to play the guy's advocate here, but we really don't know anything about him, do we? At work, he might the most personable and well-mannered person ever. Are we sure that his female co-workers wouldn't want to work with him after that one thing he did?
All I can say is that I wouldn't want to work closely with him again.  As Avis pointed out, the odds that he just happened to get caught on video the only time in his life he gave in and did something like this are pretty slim.

According to this article, he's being fired because he violated the company's code of conduct, a list of rules that he would have agreed to follow when he was hired.  So he broke the terms of his employment contract, because of that the company chose to fire him, and it looks like employment experts are agreeing that the decision was fair.

Offline BeorningTopic starter

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2015, 02:45:34 PM »
From the news article that was linked:  [He was] shown in the video using an expletive and calling his friend's use of FHTIP hilarious before telling the reporter she is lucky they didn't have a vibrator.

Why would she be 'lucky' he didn't have a vibrator?  What would have happened if he had a vibrator?  What is a vibrator usually used for?  He's just said FHRITP - what does that say about his mind-set?

If someone was in a verbal altercation with another person and said 'You're lucky I don't have a gun,' what would that imply?  And if the words 'This guy needs to be shot' were said beforehand?  Wouldn't a rational person take that as a threat?

I'd say it'd all depend on the context. IMHO, in this particular context it's quite clear that these two guys weren't making serious threat toward the reporter - one of them even said that it's not about her at all. If I understand correctly, that whole FHRITP thing is some sort of (stupid) meme. As for the vibrator thing... well, okay, it might sound like a threat. But I seriously doubt that this guy meant it...

Please note, though, that I *agree* that - regardless whether these guys' words count as a genuine threat - their behaviour was a type of verbal abuse.

Offline Valerian

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2015, 03:03:21 PM »
I'd say it'd all depend on the context. IMHO, in this particular context it's quite clear that these two guys weren't making serious threat toward the reporter - one of them even said that it's not about her at all. If I understand correctly, that whole FHRITP thing is some sort of (stupid) meme. As for the vibrator thing... well, okay, it might sound like a threat. But I seriously doubt that this guy meant it...

Please note, though, that I *agree* that - regardless whether these guys' words count as a genuine threat - their behaviour was a type of verbal abuse.
If it looks like a threat and sounds like a threat, it's a threat.  How could anyone possibly tell whether he "really meant it" or not?  For whatever reason, he chose to use threatening language and now he has to face the consequences.

Offline BeorningTopic starter

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2015, 03:18:31 PM »
Yeah, the fact that some companies tolerate assholes doesn't mean it is right to tolerate assholes or that all companies should tolerate assholes.  Some companies, like mine, don't.  Again, let's agree to disagree.

The work experience both of me and my family members shows that one is very lucky if they don't have to deal with some sort of asshole at the workplace. For example, at my current company, being a lying jerk seems to be a desired personality trait for team leaders and managers...  ::) And at a job I'll be probably starting soon, a manager started making venomous remarks at me ten minutes after she met me...

Also, overall, I'd say that jerkiness is ingrained within the current corporate culture. I mean, how many corporations do not treat their employees as disposable resources? How many corporations do not try to maximize their income regardless of cost? And how many corporations do not lie to their clients..?

All I can say is that I wouldn't want to work closely with him again.  As Avis pointed out, the odds that he just happened to get caught on video the only time in his life he gave in and did something like this are pretty slim.

I really wouldn't be so sure here. My opinion is that everyone does something stupid or inappropriate sometimes... especially when in a group. Groupthink makes people do really idiotic things.

Also, yes... being caught on video saying a thing like that does say *something* about this guy. But what? He might be a world-class sexist jerk who treats all women badly. Or he might be an emotionally immature dummy who just doesn't see a problem with saying things like, while not being really dangerous in any way...

Quote
According to this article, he's being fired because he violated the company's code of conduct, a list of rules that he would have agreed to follow when he was hired.  So he broke the terms of his employment contract, because of that the company chose to fire him, and it looks like employment experts are agreeing that the decision was fair.

I read this article and I honestly can't agree with any of these experts. As for the company's code of conduct: I can't really see how an employee could be subjected to a company's CoC *when out of work*. If you ask me, the idea that a company could try to scrutinize the employees' behaviour in their private time is *scary*.

If it looks like a threat and sounds like a threat, it's a threat.  How could anyone possibly tell whether he "really meant it" or not?

Actually, doesn't the law take the issue of *intent* into account? I'd say that it's rather obvious that these guys' intent wasn't to threaten the reporter. They made a stupid prank and, when confronted, started making excuses for themselves and spewing whatever nonsense came to their (possibly inebriated) minds.

But I really don't want to argue this matter, as I do agree that there most probably is some sort of law against what these guys said...

Offline Cycle

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2015, 03:24:51 PM »
The work experience both of me and my family members shows that one is very lucky if they don't have to deal with some sort of asshole at the workplace. For example, at my current company, being a lying jerk seems to be a desired personality trait for team leaders and managers...  ::) And at a job I'll be probably starting soon, a manager started making venomous remarks at me ten minutes after she met me...

Also, overall, I'd say that jerkiness is ingrained within the current corporate culture. I mean, how many corporations do not treat their employees as disposable resources? How many corporations do not try to maximize their income regardless of cost? And how many corporations do not lie to their clients..?

*shrugs*  We've had different experiences dealing with corporate culture.

What I don't understand is why you are defending this asshole's right to be an asshole.  I'd rather that the asshole stopped being an asshole.  I'm hoping he learns from this experience.


Offline BeorningTopic starter

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2015, 04:00:43 PM »
What I don't understand is why you are defending this asshole's right to be an asshole.  I'd rather that the asshole stopped being an asshole.  I'm hoping he learns from this experience.

I'm not defending his right to be an asshole. I applaud the reporter for confronting him and I do agree that, based on what he was saying, he seems to be a jerk - or, at least, an idiot. Also, I'm in favour of him being punished in some way.

What I'm trying to say is simply that I don't agree that him being fired is a just way of punishing him. Did he break any law? If so, then let the court punish him. He certainly behaved improperly at a sporting event - and so, I'm all for him being banned for attending such events. And finally, it's really great that the reported called him out and humiliated him publicly. Heck, is there some way for the reporter to sue him? If so, she should do it.

But him getting fired? Why? He really didn't do anything job-related there. So, for me, the employer getting involved is wrong. It really seems moralistic to me: the guy did something ugly, so the employer sacks him on principle, with no regard to logic or reason. That's not what the employer-employee relationship should be about and that's why I'm speaking out against it.

I mean... in the past, there were people who lost their jobs just because they weren't "decent" enough (like, say, women being sacked for getting pregnant without getting married etc.). It was wrong, because employers shouldn't be their employees' moral guardians. And I see the same ugly mechanism repeating itself here... even though the victim here *is* an idiot and *does* deserve scorn. Still, even idiots deserve justice and proper treatment from their employers, right?

Offline Cycle

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2015, 04:10:58 PM »
Still, even idiots deserve justice and proper treatment from their employers, right?

Right.  And in this case, I think the idiot did receive justice and proper treatment:  he was fired. 

I think that's the disconnect.  You don't think he should have been fired for it.  I do.  So yeah, let's agree to disagree.


Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2015, 04:31:53 PM »
Sorry, can someone PM me and tell me what it stands for?  I've never seen the acronym before and am struggling to work it out.

Cheers.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2015, 04:41:31 PM »
Also, I'm in favour of him being punished in some way.

Alright - thought-experiment time.  This behavior is happening all over Toronto.  One reporter has even recounted an incident where a nine-year-old interrupted her broadcast with it.  Think about that - a nine-year-old.  What is it going to take to make people finally 'get it', that jumping out and screaming obscenities into a reporter's microphone - ANY reporter's microphone - is simply a damn stupid thing to do? 

Sorry, can someone PM me and tell me what it stands for?  I've never seen the acronym before and am struggling to work it out.

Cheers.

If you watch the reporter's video, it's printed on the screen.  The PG-13 words of it are 'her right in the'.

Offline Valerian

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2015, 04:53:20 PM »
I read this article and I honestly can't agree with any of these experts. As for the company's code of conduct: I can't really see how an employee could be subjected to a company's CoC *when out of work*. If you ask me, the idea that a company could try to scrutinize the employees' behaviour in their private time is *scary*.
The company didn't scrutinize his behavior.  What he did was shoved into their faces and broadcast around the world.  They could hardly have avoided knowing what he did.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2015, 04:56:05 PM »
Honestly I've seen people in my field brought before their licensing boards for far less than he did.  Losing one's professional license is a far worse punishment than being fired.  So if I was caught on camera, yelling profanities or making a general ass of myself in public intentionally I would be expecting an ass chewing at the very least from my boss if not fired and reported to the board.

Offline eBadger

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2015, 05:11:54 PM »
I'd say it'd all depend on the context. IMHO, in this particular context it's quite clear that these two guys weren't making serious threat toward the reporter

There is no way to scream threats of rape at a stranger without it's being serious.  Intent is hard to determine, and if nothing else tolerating it creates an unspoken approval, leading others to think the behavior is acceptable and escalate. 

Okay, I must say that: seriously? Would it be possible for a company to get sued successfully, if they didn't fire the heckler and *some other guy* molested someone while being employed there.

Seriously, this is ridiculous!

The courts disagree.   The term is "hostile work environment," and the key is treatment either serious or pervasive enough to intimidate.  Keeping someone on staff who thinks it's funny to threaten women with rape would certainly qualify.  These are not small suits, either - a quick search shows several with amounts in 6 or 7 digits. 

Finally, as I already said earlier, expecting the company to take a stance regarding the "decency" of their employee's private lives could lead to all kind of wrongs...

Such as?

The issues I see are hiring/firing policies based on bigotry - race, religion, sex, age, etc. - which are already protected.  For the rest, there's a reason privacy is a thing. 

Capitalism is also a corrective tool here (it's not always bad!).  You can legally fire everyone at your company that jaywalks.  But your competition is going to hire up all the good talent you got rid of or scared off, and run you out of business. 

Offline Corsair

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2015, 05:32:03 PM »
The guy was definitely inappropriate and it was ugly to watch.

However I don't feel he deserved to lose his job over it and I think the company might find themselves getting sued. I also think that this could set a dangerous precedent. Should the way you behave outside of work be a concern to your employer?

What if your employer finds out you have been writing rape porn on an Erotic Role Playing site in your free time at home? We know employers look at people's internet activity. What if they are offended by what you write about or even if you write more vanilla stuff they just don't like you being on the site?

What if your politics differ to your boss and they don't like what you have been posting online, commenting on in newspapers? This happened recently in Australia where some guards who were employed at a detention centre for illegal immigrants were fired because they posed for a photo with a politician with an anti illegal immigrant agenda. Legally they did nothing wrong but their employer feels they breached the terms and conditions of their contracts as they agreed they were "Culturally Sensitive" that is another topic of course but one can be sensitive to others and still hold an opinion.

So I do disagree with this man being fired, I don't think it was his employers duty to get involved at all. At the very least they could have spoken to him first and just told him to be careful, especially when he has a camera in his face!

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2015, 05:40:46 PM »
As much as I hate to say it. It is not against the law to be an asshole. (Yet). Should this reflect on his reviews? Absolutely. Immediate firing offense. I don't know.

To be honest I'm not happy with the precedent it could set. If your employer disagrees with your hobbies, like oh this website...or the fact you like to larp or civil war react as a confederate, does that justify firing? Does the words you say public, say at a mateos night or dinner theater event cross the threshold?

I'm saying its a slippery slope.

Still, the guy is a total tool. I'm a retired sailor and we never acted like that.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2015, 05:45:07 PM »
I am not sure screaming sexually explicit threats and insinuating rape on live television toward women on the street really falls under a hobby activity. 

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2015, 05:48:57 PM »
I am not sure screaming sexually explicit threats and insinuating rape on live television toward women on the street really falls under a hobby activity.

No it doesn't but would it be safe to say some of the gaming practices here would get you shunned if publicly revealed?

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2015, 05:54:50 PM »
Of course, but so could the download content of most people's internet browser.  I think going from screaming at female reporters on camera to writing some dirty sentences on a privacy enforced website is sort of going far down that slippery slope. 

Offline eBadger

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2015, 06:04:41 PM »
The firing wasn't because of a crime; he wasn't convicted of anything.  The legality is a separate issue, and yes, a company can indeed fire you for posting here. 

Which is why you don't post your real name or address, why this board is largely blocked to non-approved persons, and why you shouldn't scream your kinky role plays in front of a television camera.  Not just so your company doesn't find out, but so that even if they do, it's not a publicity disaster for them because the rest of the nation has found out, too. 

Beyond that, the best counter against the 'slippery slope' argument (which is a logical fallacy, btw, so just calling it that sort of undermines the point) is to examine real world facts.  Online kink and porn are...well, the internet is for porn, right?  And there are no mass firings, no corporate flunkeys tracking each employee's private life for a public shaming.  So if ya'll are going to keep pushing the slippery slope notion, it's time to bring out some evidence to support it. 

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2015, 06:33:11 PM »
Actually depending on his contract/paperwork with his firm.. he might be properly fired.

As I was driving back from work it hit me.. what he did, that falls under ethics and standards clauses right? If you misbehave and you sign the right agreement with your employer.. he could get fired for breaking that. I know that behavior..well the least folks would have wound up at Captain's Mast back when I was in the Navy, and at least two firms I worked for had behavior rules for 'on site'.

My issue is.. everyone is 'fire em/ruin em'.

What does that teach them? You ruin them.. you put that man, his family, in the hole for what could be one really stupid drunk day.

Offline Cycle

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2015, 06:42:56 PM »
I'm hoping that it teaches him--and those who see what happened to him--that it is not acceptable, regardless of whether you are drunk or not, to yell "f*ck her right in the p*ssy" at a woman.

If he learns his lesson, and proves he has matured, then I am sure he can find another job someday.  A genuine apology wouldn't hurt, either.


Offline BeorningTopic starter

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2015, 06:43:49 PM »
Alright - thought-experiment time.  This behavior is happening all over Toronto.  One reporter has even recounted an incident where a nine-year-old interrupted her broadcast with it.  Think about that - a nine-year-old.  What is it going to take to make people finally 'get it', that jumping out and screaming obscenities into a reporter's microphone - ANY reporter's microphone - is simply a damn stupid thing to do?

Well, I think that what the reporter did was a step in the right direction. Also, as I said earlier, I have no problem with other possible consequences that guy might face. Really, I'm definitely not saying that this kind of behaviour should go on without any reaction...

The company didn't scrutinize his behavior.  What he did was shoved into their faces and broadcast around the world.  They could hardly have avoided knowing what he did.

True, but it's still not their business to get involved.

Honestly I've seen people in my field brought before their licensing boards for far less than he did.  Losing one's professional license is a far worse punishment than being fired.  So if I was caught on camera, yelling profanities or making a general ass of myself in public intentionally I would be expecting an ass chewing at the very least from my boss if not fired and reported to the board.

Hmm. It's kind of hard to comment without knowing what your career field actually is... But my first reaction is that what you say sounds scary.

There is no way to scream threats of rape at a stranger without it's being serious.  Intent is hard to determine, and if nothing else tolerating it creates an unspoken approval, leading others to think the behavior is acceptable and escalate.

Again, I'm not saying that it should be tolerated. As for the matter of whether the guy's words constitute a rape threat, we'll simply have to agree to disagree here.

Quote
The courts disagree.   The term is "hostile work environment," and the key is treatment either serious or pervasive enough to intimidate.  Keeping someone on staff who thinks it's funny to threaten women with rape would certainly qualify.

I really can't agree here. I understand what hostile work enviroment is and I really can't agree that one guy who blabs about vibrators in one-time, specific situation *which takes place completely out of work* constitutes such an enviroment.

Quote
Such as?

The issues I see are hiring/firing policies based on bigotry - race, religion, sex, age, etc. - which are already protected.  For the rest, there's a reason privacy is a thing.

Well, as other people mentioned, our activity here on E could serve as an example...

Other examples? Well, how about homosexuality? Back here, it doesn't fall under any kind of legal protection. So, I can perfectly imagine a situation where a conservative employer fires a gay employee on the grounds that he feels that he needs to "take a firm stance" against this employee's supposedly-immoral behaviour.

But it doesn't have to be about homosexuality... A real example I can think of is a case of an office worker in some townhall who got fired, because she set up a dating profile on some website and her boss at the townhall decided it put the whole institution in bad light. It really happened!

Quote
The firing wasn't because of a crime; he wasn't convicted of anything.  The legality is a separate issue, and yes, a company can indeed fire you for posting here. 

... which is utterly wrong.

Quote
Beyond that, the best counter against the 'slippery slope' argument (which is a logical fallacy, btw, so just calling it that sort of undermines the point) is to examine real world facts.  Online kink and porn are...well, the internet is for porn, right?  And there are no mass firings, no corporate flunkeys tracking each employee's private life for a public shaming.  So if ya'll are going to keep pushing the slippery slope notion, it's time to bring out some evidence to support it.

Actually, I remember very clearly that one member of E *got* fired for being here. So it does happen.

I think going from screaming at female reporters on camera to writing some dirty sentences on a privacy enforced website is sort of going far down that slippery slope.

Really? I'm pretty sure that there are people out there who would consider these two things equally reprehensible and firing-worthy.

"This guy writes countless fantasies about raping women! Would *you* feel safe sitting in one office with him?!? They need to fire him immediately!"
« Last Edit: May 13, 2015, 06:47:24 PM by Beorning »

Offline Corsair

Re: The FHRITP heckler issue
« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2015, 07:20:57 PM »
I am not sure screaming sexually explicit threats and insinuating rape on live television toward women on the street really falls under a hobby activity.

*Tongue firmly planted in cheek*  In a way though it is a hobby for him and his group of friends, this is how they socialize and bond. It is wrong and sad, very sick but nonetheless that is what some guys do. I work with some who are much the same. I am writing this with tongue in cheek as I agree with you I don't think it could seriously be classed as a hobby but try explaining that to some of these guys. In fact the reporter did and he became even more arrogant.

The other thought that occurred to me is that as wrong as this guy is he is still the wrong the target. The Reporter mentions that this happens to her everywhere and no doubt other female reporters so why didn't her network do something about it? Run some stories on it, awareness etc?

Secondly depending on where these other situations occurred, but assuming they were also at public venues why aren't the venues themselves doing something, some kind of message being sent out to say that this won't be tolerated?

It's happened now but I don't think it will achieve the desired result.