amazon wont do anything about their employee if they are being rude on third party sites.

why should they?

they represent amazon. Why is it you can act unprofessional and get away with it.

because its the free time.

what is this a slave state?

do I get any of my own time to say what I feel or should that now be punishable by getting fired?

because its free time..

so you think anything you say or do 100% of the time regardless of if you are at work or not should be in the good graces of the company you work for.

no freedom of speech basically

just don't call your customers "retards" and use n word as a joke when your white.

well I just have to disagree sorry.

unless these 'customers' as you say are 'prooven to be customers' and the person said what they said while in the role as a Representative of the company which does NOT mean just their name, in their own time.

do they in this capacity? or is this slack channel like for an open source project?

@tryit: I don't know what company you work for but almost every one I worked for could fire you for actions outside of work.

I would imagine that is true, but I dont support it.

I think its wrong to do so

@tryit: Oh ok. Yeah I agree with ya there.

What a bogus complaint!

bogus means not genuine or true no deception has been attempted, what you see Is what you get.

if you think its fake I can't say anything to make you change your mind.

Are you a bot BloodHound99

rofl.

Its in the terms of most employment contracts in the UK.

Says something to effect of anything you do that tarnishes the companies image could he considered misconduct or gross misconduct.

I worked ar Gala Bingo as a manager for around 10 years, had to fire a few staff based on things they did outside of work

- first one a bloke got arrested and got a police caution between shifts, for a bust up he had at a pun while still wearing a company uniform.

He had to go

- another one a girl had a bad night with a rude customer and commented about it on Facebook to vent her frustration, a friend of the customer happend to see it and conplain, she had to go.

Both instances here were actions the emplyees did in their spare time but still lost their job.

Hypothetical situation: My friend hangs out at my place sometimes. We have lunch together, play a video game, and drink a few beers while watching football. Sometime later, I catch wind that he's an active member of the KKK and participates in racist rallies and racist propaganda. I confront him with this knowledge. He then replies, "what's the big deal? I'm doing it in my own free time. I'm not acting like a racist piece of crap when I'm hanging out with you."

I then decide, "you know what? I don't think I want to associate with that kind of person any more." I then stop hanging out with him and stop inviting him to my home. Essentially, I cut him off entirely.

My question is: is it wrong for me to decide that I don't want to associate with the guy any more? Or, like, is that an expression of my free speech and a justifiable course of action since who I associate with actually reflects on ME?

If you want him fired, then you have to make a big enough stink about it. Basically, Amazon has to feel there's going to be a considerable drop in revenue as the result of one their employees. Otherwise, what is done in their own free time is not really the employer's concern. That's kinda how it's always been. Also, regardless if you agree to it contractually, you are always representing your company on your free time. Guilty by association. As MrGeezer pointed out, a guy can be a KKK member in his own free time, but once word gets out that a company is willingly employing this person, then the question is asked: why does this company want to associate with the KKK?

So what?

Exactly. I'm not even saying that Amazon should give a crap what this guy does when off duty. if they don't think it's affecting them, then I don't see why it should automatically be something that they should feel they need to waste their time addressing.

I'm just saying that I take big issue with the idea that employers are somehow OBLIGATED to put up with their employees' crap, even when that crap is actually affecting the employer, just because it happened away from work.

Let's take my previous hypothetical situation a step farther. Now suppose it's someone working at an establishment with a large black customer base. Then it comes out that one of the employees is a KKK member. Now suppose that many of the black customers (understandably) just plain feel uncomfortable going somewhere to be served by someone who they know is in the freaking KKK. So they just plain stop going to that business. This results in LOWERED revenue for the business. Why the hell would it be "wrong" to immediately fire that employee? The people in charge are running a business, not a charity. And in the event that they want to get charitable, they're far more likely to donate their money to something like famine relief rather than throw away their just to keep employing a racist who is hurting business.

But hey, some might say that's an absurd example since there aren't that many KKK members around. So let's remove the racial aspect entirely. Suppose I'm at work at I hate some of my customers. So then when I get off work, I log onto social media and talk about how my customers are total assholes. If my customers then happen to catch wind of those posts and see that the people who work at that establishment hate their guts, it's not entirely unreasonable for them to not want to come back. That DEFINITELY affects my employer. So why exactly would it be "wrong" for my employer to fire me for comments that I made that are hurting the business, just because those comments were made in my "free time"? The fact that the comments are made in my free time sure as hell aren't stopping those comments from affecting business. So how exactly is it my employer's moral duty to continue employing me?

Look, I get that in specific cases it may be "unfair" to fire someone for a specific thing that may have been said. But that's not I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who somehow have the idea that they should get total immunity from the consequences of their actions, regardless of what effect those actions have on other people, solely because "it happened in my free time" or "it was just words, I didn't beat someone up." Since when has that EVER been a thing?

Furthermore, going back to my hypothetical example of my friend turning out to be a KKK member, I will ABSOLUTELY judge the hell out of people for things that they do when they're not around me. In this kind of personal instance, it doesn't even have to involve some kind of perceived potential for monetary loss on my part. I might stop associating with a person because I just plain kind of don't like him. I don't think that's inherently wrong, and I'd wager that most people do that all the freaking time. It would be hypocritical as hell for me to say that it's not wrong for ME to avoid contact with people for reasons that flimsy, but that my employer should somehow be obligated to keep me employed even when my deliberate decision to act like a piece of crap is actually hurting his business. If I'm allowed to use my "free speech" to disassociate with someone for such flimsy reasons as "not liking him", then why the hell shouldn't my employer be allowed to disassociate from me when my actions are actually causing him to lose money? If judging people for "what they do away from me" or "what they say, rather than what they do" is just that inherently bad, then I'd be a huge f***ing hypocrite to not apply that same standard to MYSELF as well.

Hmm, it´s not wrong for you to stop hanging out with him, even if you enjoy hanging out with ham, having that kind of ties could come back to bite you in these times, so even though he may be a normal nice guy when you are together, it´s not worth the risk.

The problem only comes if you in this hypothetical situation took it to Amazon and tried to get him fired for his action doing his free time.

Glad i can get away with these. No gives a crap what I do outside of work.

Two things:

1) While I agree that it takes a total asshole to look for things to get a person fired, in this hypothetical situation the bad behavior was just presented to me. I didn;t go out looking for it. Point being: it's one thing to (for example) hate a waiter and go out looking for stuff to get him fired. But if you go out to eat and a waiter just happens to be rude to you, is it wrong to complain then? More to the point, going back to the hypothetical situation of a waiter at a predominantly black restaurant making racist comments about blacks in his free time. Some customers may learn about the guy's off-the-job activities and just plain be uncomfortable being waited on by him. That's understandable, right? Here's the question though: if they're so bothered that they're making the decision to stop patronizing the business, why exactly SHOULDN'T they say that they're not patronizing that business any more? One could easily make the argument that ANY time you feel the need to stop using a service or a product, that you're automatically justified in explaining WHY. The business is then free to do with that information what they will. But I don't think that ANYONE is morally obligated to not complain if their problem is severe enough for them to stop giving their money to a business. If you're going to take the stance of "I can no longer justify dealing with these people", then I don't think it's wrong to explain your reasons why.

2) Even if the person who is logging the complaint is doing it for petty jerk reasons, does that automatically mean that Amazon should automatically ignore the complaint just because the person who is complaining happens to be an asshole? You can criticize the asshole who went out of his way to dig up dirt to get a get fired, but once that dirt is out there, that doesn't automatically make it NOT a problem for Amazon. What exactly is a company's obligation to take a hit due to an employee's bad behavior, solely because they want to stick it to the assholes who dug up dirt on the employee in the first place? Going back to the hypothetical of a KKK member working at a place with a large black customer base. The reveal that the guy is in the KKK might have been brought up just to screw the guy over and make him lose his job. But once the information is out there and there's the high likelihood that customers will stop spending their money there, then is it STILL wrong to fire the guy? The fact that the information was leaked for selfish petty reasons doesn't change the fact that it's hurting the company's revenue. And the reason for the termination still falls within acceptable parameters, even if the person who brought that information forth is an asshole. Why exactly would the employer be morally obligated to keep on employing the guy?

This topic seems related to the other "Is there a double standard when it comes to racism?" thread. Except this is the reverse. Which goes back to my point about it depending on company policy, not the race of the employee.

Question should be why is TC cyberstalking this person and wanting to ruin their life?

As far as I can tell, this comes down to trying to figure out where the line is drawn on whether or not it's okay to behave a certain way outside of work or how far you can go without repurcussions at work. I don't think there will ever be a clear line.

If someone says customers are dumb at some point outside of work, well, people have generally known this to be true for a very long time and are less likely to be outraged about it. If someone says that all of his black and brown customers are dumb because they are black or brown, well, that may get them fired. It seems doubtful that these sorts of repurcussions will be applied equally to all people, and there's probably a decent argument to be made that it shouldn't regardless of how fair it seems. The lines are and will continue to be messy regardless of how you feel about it.

I'd also like to add that keeping things general helps.

1) If you have to go online and vent about your job, it's preferable to do so on a site where your real name isn't visible to everyone. It's one thing for "Mr Geezer" to think that his customers are all jerks. It's another thing for "Randall Cobb in Lubbock, TX" to think that his customers are all jerks.

2) For god's sake, do not mention where you work and who is employing you. If you go online and say that your customers are all jerks, that also might get a pass. That's far less likely to happen if you mention that you "work at Home Depot store #647, at the corner of 1st and Main".

3) Avoid mentioning specific details or events that can be tied back to specific people such as your boss or a specific customer. A customer might see you tweeting about customers in general being jerks and brush it aside. But once he can tell that you're specifically calling HIM out as the jerk, then he's far more likely to make a complaint (especially considering that he knows EXACTLY where you work).

It's best for people to really not talk about this kind of stuff at all online. But if someone really feels the need to do it, then the smartest thing to do is to keep everything as vague and as general as possible, and avoid any details that could come back to bite them in the ass.

exactly for several days MrGeezer was basically arguing that its bitwise and not a sliding scale.

I think its a sliding scale, its just a question of where.

and to me, yelling at a customer while in uniform in the checkout line is not equivalent to hunting down tweets that might be considered racist if you look at them just right.

now to be fair, my example is based on the other thread but the point is still the same here, its not all the same, so the question really is..where is the line.

well I know what Putin would like the line to be

So, on the topic of there being no clear line, what do you personally think of the notion that the closest thing we have to a clear line is the point at which the employee's actions become the employer's problem?

As in, if my actions are clearly and demonstrably hurting business, and it's clear that it's due to my comments, how much does it matter how long ago the comments were made, or if they were made while on-duty? One could certainly say that "it's ridiculous to punish the employee for comments that are that old." But if those comments are still relevant enough to be hurting the business, then isn't equally valid to say that the comments are relevant enough to fire the guy who said it? Regardless of how old such comments are, or if they were made on the company's dime, if SOMEONE is going to have to take a hit for the comments then isn't it only fair that it's the employee who made the comments and not his employer?

stalllker

It's definitely a good thing to keep in mind, but I feel like this topic just became about James Gunn. Did it just become about James Gunn?

In his example, I would like to think that the company would stop to distinguish the difference between troll campaigns designed to smear their employees and stand with them rather than do the easy thing and give in to the trolls. I get that that's not what happened and I get that Disney isn't obligated to act in such a way.