• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should employers be able to fire employees for social media posts?

Should employers be able to fire employees for social media posts?

  • Total voters
    62
Slyfox696 said:
I agree with ALMOST all of this. I disagree with the right to fire for "about any reason" part. I think there are a list of reasons which should not be tolerated (most related to demographical information). Perhaps you were only meaning regarding to social media and, if so, I would mostly agree.

And I agree almost completely about government firings. Like you said, some things should be fireable, but it would have to cross a pretty obviously line.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I remember some government employees posting super racist stuff about Obama being black, which I'd be fine firing them for because government can't have such a cancer holding positions. Ironically, or should I say, contradictory?...I think private employers should be able to fire for those demographic reasons you talked about, and disagree with me on. They can suffer the consequences of doing that in the media fallout but I look at a business as no different than someone's home. It's private property and I am for very strong property rights almost above all other rights as I think most rights grow out of property rights.
 
If and only if there is demonstrable harm to the company. The idea that your boss ought to be able to look at your Facebook and decide, based solely on disagreeing with your political or social views, that you shouldn't have a job, that shouldn't be allowed.
 
If you believe in capitalism with little to no strings attached, then you should believe that your employer has the right to fire you any time for any reason.

Personally I believe that there should be a few basic rules against that, particularly when it comes to discrimination, but what one posts on social media shouldn't necessarily be included in those rules. Frankly if an employer establishes a pattern of firing people simply because of posts or pictures they make about their personal life, and they're not too bad--say, downing a keg of beer--then that's not a company I'm going to want to work for in the first place.
 
beefheart said:
As an HR professional....all I can say is: Don't do it. Big mistake, as the employer, you are entering a potential world of hurt if you do.
Click to expand...

If you actually incorporate a social media post into the reason for making the termination, I completely agree.

But, it's 2017 and I'd hope that at least someone in every HR department is savvy enough to know how to understand how social media works. If an employee is bad at updating their privacy settings on Facebook (or any other type of account for that matter), they are open game. From my perspective, the information gained from social media should never (well almost) be used as the direct evidence presented during a termination, but should rather be used to inform employers about who is working for them.

For example:

If someone who works for me, and was on the short list for promotion, calls in sick, but then posts online about going fishing that same day, not only are they probably going to miss that promotion, but they'd now be on my short list for termination.

Naturally, I'd never mention that I saw the Facebook post, but I'd absolutely screen-shot it and be looking for a legitimate reason to exit them from the company afterwards.
 
Beaudreaux said:
You have the right to say whatever you want, and your employer has the right to stop paying you if something you did harms them. Your employer is not telling you that you can't talk, or tweet, or protest, or snap chat, or whatever else. The employer is simply saying that if any of that stuff that you do harms them, they reserve the right to not have to fund you harming them anymore.
Click to expand...

I really like what you're saying there, and completely agree.

Honestly, from experience I'd even take it one step further and say that it's almost irresponsible (in 2017) for a company to not have at least one trusted manager keeping an eye on social media (or the internet in general really) for employee activity. Maybe that sounds a bit draconian, but as you've said companies are private entities that do need to look out for the bottom line. Sure, most of the stuff dredged up or posted on the internet will not be grounds for firing, but every once in a while you find a nugget worth using.

Say someone claims a workplace injury, only to show up on social media limping off the track from a BMX race the day prior. That might warrant a closer look, and is something that could've easily cost a company several hundred thousand dollars.

As an employee my goal was to stay employed, and in the 21st century I knew part of that was having a low social media profile. It just made sense.

As an employer, I know that every employee is a potential liability, and I want to make sure the ones I do keep around will practice good judgement at work and not put the company in a position of increased liability/ danger.

The internet is a valuable tool, and I've always been of the opinion that a private company should avail themselves of as much information as they can legally obtain.

Of course, this means that the company is ultimately responsible for the appropriate use of the information they find on social media, which is another topic altogether.
 
Chips said:
If you actually incorporate a social media post into the reason for making the termination, I completely agree.

But, it's 2017 and I'd hope that at least someone in every HR department is savvy enough to know how to understand how social media works. If an employee is bad at updating their privacy settings on Facebook (or any other type of account for that matter), they are open game. From my perspective, the information gained from social media should never (well almost) be used as the direct evidence presented during a termination, but should rather be used to inform employers about who is working for them.

For example:

If someone who works for me, and was on the short list for promotion, calls in sick, but then posts online about going fishing that same day, not only are they probably going to miss that promotion, but they'd now be on my short list for termination.

Naturally, I'd never mention that I saw the Facebook post, but I'd absolutely screen-shot it and be looking for a legitimate reason to exit them from the company afterwards.
Click to expand...

Unless you are releasing trade secrets, the employer should just walk away...not worth it...trust me.
 
beefheart said:
Unless you are releasing trade secrets, the employer should just walk away...not worth it...trust me.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I've seen it work out pretty well for the employer.

Obviously, discretion needs to be applied when using the information obtained through social media, but that's just part of the game.

A lot of workers-comp insurers will actually hire someone to stalk someone's social media accounts following a questionable injury, which when done correctly can prevent false claims.
 
I think racist/hate/discriminatory SM messages or threats/plans pertaining to violence would qualify for dismissal as would negative ruminations about your place of employment and/or its management/employees/products.

Such caveats should be noted in the employee policy manual.
 
IF on the employer's ''dime'' then YES fire them !
IF a ''hate'' post , then report the SOB to our government with the proof and our government must then send them to Antarctica .
 
Cephus said:
If and only if there is demonstrable harm to the company. The idea that your boss ought to be able to look at your Facebook and decide, based solely on disagreeing with your political or social views, that you shouldn't have a job, that shouldn't be allowed.
Click to expand...

Not A job, but THAT job.

Of course a boss can fire an employee even before an employee hurts the company, if he thinks it will happen.

Should a police officer only arrest a drunk driver after he has hurt somebody?
 
Beaudreaux said:
So. What do you think? I think that anything that reflects badly upon the employer that an employee does, no matter whether it occurs on the job or off the job, the employer should have the right to protect itself by firing the employee.
Click to expand...

I think that's certainly true, but there should be a pretty high bar for it, and the company should have to make an argument for why their statements make their continued employment more difficult. But ultimately businesses can face boycotts and other things if they continue to support an employee who has made horrible statements or actions.

The NFL has certainly faced backlash for not doing enough to punish players that have committed horrible crimes. I do to a certain degree give the NFL a bit of kudos for how it handled the Colin Kap situation. While people will argue that teams are avoiding signing him, the league as a whole didn't overreact to it which I think was smart.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, if the behavior of the employee reflects badly on the image the company is trying to project, the company has a right to fire that employee, per hiring agreements. A lot of very extreme examples will be brought up in this thread, but generally speaking, the higher up the chain the employee is and the more extreme the behavior, the more likely the company will be to fire the employee.

I don't really consider it relevant if the behavior is on social media.

I will say though that this right can be abused.
Click to expand...

^^^I agree with this.

There are a number of reasons I don't use things like FB, and knowing of people who have gotten in trouble at work for activities on those sites is one of them.
 
If you're not acting in any official capacity of the employer or giving away information, etc. that would be harmful to the employer, I think that your time is your time. And if we misbehave on our time, then that's our deal.

There are always going to be cases to push that, and in certain cases it may be that one deserves to be fired. But also, I do think we're really encroaching on some amount of "privacy" (in that our private lives are separate from our working lives) and speech issues here.

It's a hard issue either way, I'd say.
 
Chips said:
I really like what you're saying there, and completely agree.

Honestly, from experience I'd even take it one step further and say that it's almost irresponsible (in 2017) for a company to not have at least one trusted manager keeping an eye on social media (or the internet in general really) for employee activity. Maybe that sounds a bit draconian, but as you've said companies are private entities that do need to look out for the bottom line. Sure, most of the stuff dredged up or posted on the internet will not be grounds for firing, but every once in a while you find a nugget worth using.

Say someone claims a workplace injury, only to show up on social media limping off the track from a BMX race the day prior. That might warrant a closer look, and is something that could've easily cost a company several hundred thousand dollars.

As an employee my goal was to stay employed, and in the 21st century I knew part of that was having a low social media profile. It just made sense.

As an employer, I know that every employee is a potential liability, and I want to make sure the ones I do keep around will practice good judgement at work and not put the company in a position of increased liability/ danger.

The internet is a valuable tool, and I've always been of the opinion that a private company should avail themselves of as much information as they can legally obtain.

Of course, this means that the company is ultimately responsible for the appropriate use of the information they find on social media, which is another topic altogether.
Click to expand...

I have a good friend who was an HR manager who was basically hired for short term gigs solely to clean house. He seldom stayed over a couple years but when he left the company aholes were long gone.

I'm sure he's not the only one around.
 
IMO a company should be able to fire someone for any reason that they want.

That said, they should have to prove that what was said on a social media account cost that business money in order for them to get out of paying unemployment costs to that person or from being sued for wrongful termination.
 
jimbo said:
I have a good friend who was an HR manager who was basically hired for short term gigs solely to clean house. He seldom stayed over a couple years but when he left the company aholes were long gone.

I'm sure he's not the only one around.
Click to expand...

My sister in law is head of HR for a company of ~1,000. I do know that they search social media as part of the screening process before hiring, but I don't know if that's followed up periodically or even what the standards they used are. Standards could be a little arbitrary, and therein lies the rub. There are obvious flaming red flags (threats to harm others, abusive posting) but otherwise I don't know where the line is.
 
I selected yes.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, to express their opinion and to act upon their opinion.

That includes the employer. If they have an opinion about the actions of one of their employee they are free to express their opinion...including by firing that employee.

That also includes the employee. If they have an opinion about the actions of their employer they are free to express their opinion...including resigning from that employer.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Pretty simple poll, "Yes," "No," or "I'll explain in my post."

I get emails from the company that I have my company's insurance with all the time discussing small business issues to help their customers manage liability and basic business issues. Today I got one that had a link to this article - 5 Cases of Employees Getting Canned Over Social Media - and it got me thinking about what our membership here at DP would think about the basic issue of whether an employer (private or government employer) should have the right to fire an employee for what the employee does on the employees private social media account?

So. What do you think? I think that anything that reflects badly upon the employer that an employee does, no matter whether it occurs on the job or off the job, the employer should have the right to protect itself by firing the employee.
Click to expand...
As a simple answer, yes, but I chose to explain because nothing is ever simple.

- If a person openly advocates criminal activity, yes.

- If a person has been accused of a crime, yes, but... to me that reflects negatively on the employer. I understand that I would be in the minority on that, as people are petty and want to believe sensationalist drama. I do my best to live by "innocent until proven guilty" as far as actions go. IUPG does not preclude opinions, though.

- If a person is openly hostile to their employer, it should be expected. To this this includes generic statements like, "I hate my job.", and even "It's Friday! Yay!" If it's done every Friday. Looking forward to a vacation or a special weekend does not count.

- A simple matter of political or social (non-threatening) opinion, no.
 
Last edited:
JamesBY said:
If the individual is identified with a particular company, the company has the right to say "you are out of here."
Click to expand...

I purposely do not identify my employer, or for the most part even my profession, on social media. People know that I have *A* job, and that's it. Few people know what industry. A very select few know who the employer is, but those people I generally also know in so-called real life.
 
This level of intolerance is sad.

Very sad.
 
Yes and no. I understand the logic of both sides. One should show some self control online. But also? One should be allowed to act as one wishes without having another party attempt to control you. Especially when they are NOT paying you.

This is why I am set to private and do not add people from work. I don't even go by nickname at work. I go by my very generic name.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cephus said:
If and only if there is demonstrable harm to the company. The idea that your boss ought to be able to look at your Facebook and decide, based solely on disagreeing with your political or social views, that you shouldn't have a job, that shouldn't be allowed.
Click to expand...

Not strictly related, but your post reminded me of this. I know a guy in my industry here in town that opened his own firm several years ago. Let's just say he is a very opinionated guy. I was talking with him a few years back one day and he told me... bragged, really... that his business was doing well enough that he "fired" all of his Obama-loving clients (customers).

I just nodded my head and listened, but I thought it was rather shortsighted and self-defeating. He's still in business, though, and doing well from what I can tell.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
Pretty simple poll, "Yes," "No," or "I'll explain in my post."

I get emails from the company that I have my company's insurance with all the time discussing small business issues to help their customers manage liability and basic business issues. Today I got one that had a link to this article - 5 Cases of Employees Getting Canned Over Social Media - and it got me thinking about what our membership here at DP would think about the basic issue of whether an employer (private or government employer) should have the right to fire an employee for what the employee does on the employees private social media account?

So. What do you think? I think that anything that reflects badly upon the employer that an employee does, no matter whether it occurs on the job or off the job, the employer should have the right to protect itself by firing the employee.
Click to expand...

I think in given situations it should not only be allowed but expected. However, that only applies to given situations. Generally speaking I would say no.
 
Texas is an "employment at will" state. There's very little in many Texas laws that I agree with but this is one that I do. Many other states are similar. Essentially, "at will" means that you are employed and can be fired "at the will" of your employer. You can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all. (You can't be fired for any illegal reasons like the Big 8 EEOC reasons). And the reason CAN BE because the employer believes that your public or private conduct IS, MAY BE, or MAY POTENTIALLY BECOME detrimental in any way to her/his business.

By the way, the employee can quit "at will" as well (for literally any and all reasons), so it works both ways.

In some cases, employment agreements (contracts) between the parties, if applicable, may have some civil legal binding.
 
Mason66 said:
Not A job, but THAT job.

Of course a boss can fire an employee even before an employee hurts the company, if he thinks it will happen.

Should a police officer only arrest a drunk driver after he has hurt somebody?
Click to expand...

No, but the drunk driver has already broken the law by drinking and driving. They should be arrested for that. However, someone posting something that has nothing to do with work on their own personal social media has no bearing whatsoever on their job. If their boss takes a personal dislike to their views, views that have nothing to do with work and will never affect work, their boss should not be permitted to terminate them for a personal disagreement. There are people out there who have been fired from their jobs because they voted for Trump. That's absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom