Fired for "disrespectful" Facebook post about my company!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious about OP's age. At 41, this is a no-brainer for me. Hell, you don't even complain on your work email account.

Probably a millenial.

The Millenials at my job are so by-the-book it is sad. they couldn't bend a rule, much less break one, if their lives and careers depended on it. years of helicopter parenting, I guess.

I was thinking more about their need to share everything on social media.

I'm a "millenial" and I would never write anything negative about my company on the internet, period. That's just asking for it, frankly, and I really don't share much on social media at all. Don't group our entire generation together. Can't wait til you baby boomers all retire and GTFO of the workforce with your stereotyping. Also, while I'm thinking about it, when you retire, please stay off the roads too.

How curious that you think there are baby boomers here. We're Generation X, bitch. And we're sick of your whining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find the ignorance about common labor law in this thread extremely disturbing. OP, you may have not done anything "wrong," but if you are at-will, you can be fired for any reason, which is why people keep their mouths shut on FB.

Amazing. For a such a "smart" region like DC, such utter ignorance.

Are you a labor lawyer?

Obviously not.

No, even the 75-80 year old dinosaur labor lawyers are well aware of what the NLRB's been doing with social media activity the last few years. PP is either stupid or just trolling. (If not trolling, it's funny s/he is deriding people's ignorance about "common labor law," whatever that is - a common law body of labor law? what? "common sense" labor law? is there such a thing?)

[Anonymous]

Everyone's an expert. They throw around a few phrases like "at-will" and think they know everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, there is at least one NLRB case on the issue of "likes" being concerted (they are, and it's the same as engaging in a conversation).

Yup, that totally makes sense to me. The whole point of "likes" is that you are showing that you _agree_ with the status update! That's the same thing, these days, as if the OP made her statements in the lunchroom and asked for a show of hands for those who agreed with her. Those who raised their hands = "liking" on FB.

Hmmm....I'm just wondering, because I've screwed up on facebook before and by accident, liked something, or sent a friend request. Especially on my iPad, if you hover over something it's pretty sensitive. this wouldn't apply to OP since she blatantly wrote an update, but I'm wondering if someone could argue they didn't mean to like something. Seems like it would be pretty plausible.

Of course. All those "likes" could turn into "unlikes" or explained as accidents. OP will be left standing alone.

Anyone who knows NLRB case law knows this is ludicrous. No ALJ (and certainly not this NLRB) is going to buy that the "likes" were all accidents. Not to mention, there are a couple of recent cases that characterize certain discussions (e.g., about wages) as "inherently concerted" because they go to the heart of one's employment. This effectively removes any requirement that there be any actual concerted activity (not sure what the appellate courts would have to say about this). Additionally, you don't have to actually engage in concerted activity WITH other employees, if you are, by yourself, discussing a truly "group" concern (in other words, if you are saying "we we we" rather than bitching about your own situation).

You obviously misunderstood what I was saying. Who would say that all who liked the post were accidents? I'm talking about, couldn't one individual say they inadvertently hit like and didn't mean to if they were being sued? That is my question. Seems it would be pretty plausible.

No person who clicked like would have any reason to claim they inadvertently did so, because they wouldn't be "sued" (or charged with a ULP) for doing so. The employer would be in legal trouble, not the employees who clicked like. I think you are misunderstanding a lot of stuff here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, there is at least one NLRB case on the issue of "likes" being concerted (they are, and it's the same as engaging in a conversation).

Yup, that totally makes sense to me. The whole point of "likes" is that you are showing that you _agree_ with the status update! That's the same thing, these days, as if the OP made her statements in the lunchroom and asked for a show of hands for those who agreed with her. Those who raised their hands = "liking" on FB.

Hmmm....I'm just wondering, because I've screwed up on facebook before and by accident, liked something, or sent a friend request. Especially on my iPad, if you hover over something it's pretty sensitive. this wouldn't apply to OP since she blatantly wrote an update, but I'm wondering if someone could argue they didn't mean to like something. Seems like it would be pretty plausible.

Of course. All those "likes" could turn into "unlikes" or explained as accidents. OP will be left standing alone.

Anyone who knows NLRB case law knows this is ludicrous. No ALJ (and certainly not this NLRB) is going to buy that the "likes" were all accidents. Not to mention, there are a couple of recent cases that characterize certain discussions (e.g., about wages) as "inherently concerted" because they go to the heart of one's employment. This effectively removes any requirement that there be any actual concerted activity (not sure what the appellate courts would have to say about this). Additionally, you don't have to actually engage in concerted activity WITH other employees, if you are, by yourself, discussing a truly "group" concern (in other words, if you are saying "we we we" rather than bitching about your own situation).

You obviously misunderstood what I was saying. Who would say that all who liked the post were accidents? I'm talking about, couldn't one individual say they inadvertently hit like and didn't mean to if they were being sued? That is my question. Seems it would be pretty plausible.

No person who clicked like would have any reason to claim they inadvertently did so, because they wouldn't be "sued" (or charged with a ULP) for doing so. The employer would be in legal trouble, not the employees who clicked like. I think you are misunderstanding a lot of stuff here.

Not the PP you are responding to, but I am a labor lawyer. If I had clicked "like" (as I sort of do routinely on most posts) and later learned that there was any type of litigation over that post, I would distance myself in any way I could. I would not want to become involved in potential testimony against my employer. It is not fear of being sued myself, it is being involved in a suit.

[Anonymous]

Another labor lawyer here. Doubtful that an employee who clicked like would be dragged in. The existence of the post containing the like would be sufficient, and I doubt the GC would call each employee to testify that they clicked like.

The only way I could see the employees getting involved is if the employer Johnnie's Poultried the employees to find out the circumstances of each employee "liking" the post (which I'm not even sure they could do, because the questioning would be 100% about PCA).