My opinion is that really shouldn’t matter what you’ve done, if you weren’t on the clock, your employer has nothing to say about it.
I can see exceptions when you are misrepresenting yourself as acting in an official capacity or if you are clearly “the public face” of the company (like an on-air personality or public spokesperson). On the face of it, none of that applies here.
Most professionals are expected to uphold the standards of their profession, whether on the clock or not, and that typically includes not bringing the profession into disrepute. That is why doctors, nurses, etc., who spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccination were disciplined.
Fair enough. As I said, I can see room for exceptions, but the more control your employer has over your free time, the less free that time is. I’m not interested in going back to the days when a person could be fired for driving the wrong make of car.
That is a tough one, as it would also prevent employers from firing nazis or J6 insurrectionists as long as they keep it off the clock. But their bad actions can reflect poorly on the employer if they become public.
Part of me thinks what they do on their own time is none of the employers business, and another part of me thinks fuck those nazis, they deserve nothing but scorn.
I disagree. If I’m a welder in the back of the shop, nothing I do on my own time reflects positively or negatively on my employer as long as I leave my employer out of it. That some busybody wants to make it my employers business is unreasonable and unfair. And that goes double for the employer who decides to make it their business.
I think it’s quite clear that, in that case, the server is the face of that business. What happens if instead, the person is working in the back room keeping the books?
I guess my point was not laid out very well. I highly doubt CBC would be firing someone for this, yet CTV is. The Conservatives want a news agency that will fire someone for speaking the truth and attending a rally about the death of their own people.
From your perspective, how does the current situation in Israel and the territories that Israel controls differ from Apartheid South Africa? I’m trying to understand your world view.
I’m trying to understand how it is different in your eyes. How is the Israeli government’s segregation different from the Apartheid South African government’s segregation? Obviously you see a distinction but it’s not obvious to myself and I want to understand your perspective.
Easy! It’s because now a religious group that has historically been the target of unjust discrimination and genocide, are now the ones doing the genociding! The difference is you have to be more delicate in your criticisms
Basically any stance on this conflict besides “civilian casualties bad” is a shit take, I’m not going to be surprised if a reporter gets fired for conflating Israel v Hamas with Muslim v Jew
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Is this not a fairly cut and dry discriminatory firing case?
Depends on what she said.
And when/where/to who.
Edit: it states in the article what she said, which is that Israel should not exist.
It also says when (while she was not at work).
My opinion is that really shouldn’t matter what you’ve done, if you weren’t on the clock, your employer has nothing to say about it.
I can see exceptions when you are misrepresenting yourself as acting in an official capacity or if you are clearly “the public face” of the company (like an on-air personality or public spokesperson). On the face of it, none of that applies here.
Most professionals are expected to uphold the standards of their profession, whether on the clock or not, and that typically includes not bringing the profession into disrepute. That is why doctors, nurses, etc., who spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccination were disciplined.
Fair enough. As I said, I can see room for exceptions, but the more control your employer has over your free time, the less free that time is. I’m not interested in going back to the days when a person could be fired for driving the wrong make of car.
That is a tough one, as it would also prevent employers from firing nazis or J6 insurrectionists as long as they keep it off the clock. But their bad actions can reflect poorly on the employer if they become public.
Part of me thinks what they do on their own time is none of the employers business, and another part of me thinks fuck those nazis, they deserve nothing but scorn.
conflicted.
I disagree. If I’m a welder in the back of the shop, nothing I do on my own time reflects positively or negatively on my employer as long as I leave my employer out of it. That some busybody wants to make it my employers business is unreasonable and unfair. And that goes double for the employer who decides to make it their business.
So if I run around shouting slurs in my own time, should I be doxxed and reported to my employer?
Absolutely not. What business is it of mine who you work for?
Fair enough.
Imagine someone spends their weekends harassing gay people then during the week they work at a gay bar
Do you think the clientele would want to be served by them?
Who you are outside of work directly impacts the business
I think it’s quite clear that, in that case, the server is the face of that business. What happens if instead, the person is working in the back room keeping the books?
Anyone else getting that whole “wmd’s in iraq” vibe again?
This one is worse. Back then, one can argue, it was innocent times. Right now people have more access to information.
So much for “freedom of speech”! Bigots.
This is part is why the conservatives want to defund CBC.
Conservatives want private news agencies to be able to fire anyone they please and to remove protections.
Probably, but CBC has fired journalists in the past over controversies. They must want it to be even easier to dismiss people.
I’m confused. what does this have to do with the CBC? The network that fired her is CTV.
I guess my point was not laid out very well. I highly doubt CBC would be firing someone for this, yet CTV is. The Conservatives want a news agency that will fire someone for speaking the truth and attending a rally about the death of their own people.
Yes, I definitely agree with that. Conservatives want to have media that they can control. The Liberals are at least conflicted about it.
The Conservatives fully support Israel, and have both party policy and recent statements proving that.
They don’t like the CBC, but bias on this topic is not one of the issues they have with them.
I didn’t explain enough I guess, CBC has stood behind minority reporters before and it sure they would do it again while as CTV will fire them.
She didn’t speak up for Palestine, she spoke for the destruction of Israel and an Arab state where Jews are second class
Source?
The article itself…
Then you are reading into it as it did not say that anywhere. Feel free to point out the exact line so we can all confirm.
That is not talking about destruction? I don’t get your point?
Don’t you know? Nobody reads articles, we just make judgements based on the title!
From your perspective, how does the current situation in Israel and the territories that Israel controls differ from Apartheid South Africa? I’m trying to understand your world view.
Not all situations are the same. It’s a different region and situation, even if you really want it to be the same
I’m trying to understand how it is different in your eyes. How is the Israeli government’s segregation different from the Apartheid South African government’s segregation? Obviously you see a distinction but it’s not obvious to myself and I want to understand your perspective.
Easy! It’s because now a religious group that has historically been the target of unjust discrimination and genocide, are now the ones doing the genociding! The difference is you have to be more delicate in your criticisms
Got any quotes/source?
Basically any stance on this conflict besides “civilian casualties bad” is a shit take, I’m not going to be surprised if a reporter gets fired for conflating Israel v Hamas with Muslim v Jew
It’s literally in the article.
From her perspective, she stated the gov of Israel is incompatible with a free Palestine. The whole article is quoting her, I don’t see it.
So she was penalized for a political opinion as if it were hate speech against a religious group. The two are not the same.
Where does is says this as I am it seeing it?