10

Is It OK To Fire Employee For An Opinion Stated on Personal Time?

Posted by $ rainman0720 6 years, 7 months ago to News
54 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I had an interesting discussion with Beth (my wife) about Hayley Geftman-Gold, the now-former CBS VP and Senior Counsel. Ms. Geftman-Gold posted a comment in a Facebook discussion thread that got her fired, essentially saying that she had no sympathy for the Las Vegas shooting victims because most Country and Western fans are probably gun-toting Republicans.

My wife’s position is that CBS was fully within its rights to can her based on her statement. If she was talking on the Facebook thread as “Hayley Geftman-Gold, CBS VP and Senior Counsel”, then I agree. They were well within their rights to dump her, since she brought her employer into the conversation without their knowledge or consent.

But if she was simply acting as an individual with an opinion (however ludicrous and stupid and insensitive that opinion might be), my position is that if she was acting purely as a Facebook participant and NOT as a CBS employee, she should not have been subject to any discipline by CBS.

If she was not acting as a CBS employee, what CBS did to here is—in my opinion—no different than what the leftist idiots at Berkeley did to Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos. The idiots at Berkeley didn’t like what Coulter and Yiannopoulos might say, so they did everything they could to prevent them from speaking.

If Geftman-Gold’s sentiments were her own as a person and not as a CBS employee, she should not have been terminated because of her ideas. To punish her for believing something—anything—seems like Orwell’s Thought Police live and in person and coming to a theater near you.

I’d like to get perspectives and opinions from others about this. And please disregard any “employment at will” concepts; I’m simply talking what’s right and wrong. I’m asking purely about whether you believe an employer has the right to punish an individual for having an opinion, when that individual was not on work time, and was not speaking as an employee of that company.

If Geftman-Gold was acting as an individual and not as a CBS employee, do you think CBS was right to fire her?

Or do you think what happened to her is as wrong as what happened to Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos?

Or do you see it some other way?

Thanks,

Ray



These comments added 05.October, 8:15am EST.

I’d like to thank everyone who responded to my question. Got a larger response than I thought I would. Rather than trying to respond to selected answers, I’m updating my original post.

I think my problem (if “problem” is the right word) is twofold, one based on my perspective, and one based on my ignorance.

First, I’m a grunt, someone who isn’t even on the corporate ladder (and who has absolutely no intention of trying to find and climb that corporate ladder). I’ve spent my entire 40 year career as a computer programmer, perfectly content to watch people move up the food chain—only to be eaten by someone else more ambitious moving up that same food chain.

So I have absolutely no idea what it’s like to be viewed by others outside my company as an executive of some kind, rather than someone who maintains the day-to-day functions of a Fortune 500 company.

If I was somewhere on that corporate ladder, I may well understand that the line between who I am when I’m “on the clock” and who I am after-hours isn’t nearly as clearly defined as it is in my current position.

Second, I am probably one of 17 people in the entire United States who has absolutely no presence in the social media world. I doubt anyone really gives much of a rat’s behind about my feelings as I watch a television program. I really don’t think anyone cares about something that happened to me at work, or on my vacation, or about what I ate for dinner. And yes, that pretty much means I don’t care about others’ feelings about that same television show, or what they did at work or on vacation, or what they had for dinner. It’s just not a world I’ve ever been interested in joining.

If I was active in social media, I may well understand again how that line between the on-duty me and the off-duty me isn’t as clear as I think it is.

For me, that line between the two parts of myself is very clear and distinct. Anything I’m doing that’s in any way related to my company, I have an absolute responsibility to do what’s in the company’s best interests. But when I go off the clock, that responsibility ends. I’m living for myself at that point, not for my employer.

Anyway, you’ve all given me some great situations, perspectives, situations, etc., and I really appreciate everyone’s comments.

And it seems like my naiveté is firmly on display for everyone to see.

I’ve got my reality, and in that reality, there are two different aspects of me: the employee, and the individual away from work. But it’s become obvious after reading these comments that how I see the world is different than most of you. And the reality is that you’re probably right, and I’m probably wrong.

Thanks again, everyone, for the replies.





All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by chad 6 years, 7 months ago
    When you work for a company even you are not 'on the clock' you still represent what the company thinks their employees should be like. If you do not want to be represented in a particular manner as a company you have the right to get rid of anyone for any reason. The idea that once someone is hired the company no longer has the right to make decisions about who might work there then you have stated that the company is now owned by the state the ethereal 'public' and there is no recourse but to obey others outside of your property. If the decision is a foolish one and is not logical the owner will pay the price.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ben_C 6 years, 7 months ago
    My take is that CBS was fearful of a slander lawsuit. While damages are difficult to prove the fact she told more than two people her characterization of the attendees a trial lawyer would jump at the chance to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of the victims and survivors. We live in a different world with social media which I decline to use.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 7 months ago
    CBS can fire her, keep her, or take away perks. She is their employee, after all. However, if she merely expressed herself as a private citizen and made that clear CBS might have just reprimanded her but not fired her.

    There is a big difference between a person making a public speech and a statement on Facebook. No one in their right mind could accuse the lady with the compound name of representing the college. There is no connection between her and the venue.And most importantly, never should freedom of speech be stifled by coercion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ gharkness 6 years, 7 months ago
    In Texas, you can be fired for parting your hair on the wrong side. Or for any reason at all. You don't even have to be a company spokesperson or even known to work for that company. In this case of a high-profile company spokesperson, it would seem the "reason" for termination" was "having employed a particularly stupid person to start with." Late, but better late than never.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IndianaGary 6 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry William, but as pedantic as I am, I was wondering just how one becomes pregnant on the Internet.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 7 months ago
    Re: “If Geftman-Gold was acting as an individual and not as a CBS employee, do you think CBS was right to fire her?”

    Suppose she had made those comments before she was hired by CBS. If this were the case, would CBS be right to not hire her because of those comments?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IndianaGary 6 years, 7 months ago
    Once cannot bifurcate an individual; e.g. "compartmentalize" one's statements into "personal" and "business". What one says or does reflects upon the character of the individual regardless of the setting. An individual is a "whole" human being. A careless remark can have a devastating impact upon one's future. At work, unless an explicit contract is involved, most people are "at will" employees; CBS had every right to terminate her based upon an opinion she expounded that reflected badly upon the company. She should have known better, but snowflakes will be snowflakes; perhaps she will learn from the experience, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Her mistake was an indication of her stupidity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by iowachess 6 years, 7 months ago
    It is NOT like shutting down a speaker because that was done with violence, in a forum of free speech (govt funded area--a private college would be different), and with the idea of keeping the speaker from speaking. No one has told the employee that they cannot speak, they didn't hit her, and they are private. The 1st Amend says that the GOVT may not.... A private individual in YOUR house does not (if you so desire) have freedom of speech because YOU are not the govt
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 6 years, 7 months ago
    With a big corporation, image is everything. The fact that a senior executive made that declaration in any forum, official or otherwise, the public outrage can have a serious impact on corporate image, revenues. CBS did the right thing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 7 months ago
    What it really depends on is if that person is in an agent capacity for the company they work for. The other question is the size of the audience. If you express your opinion to a small group at a private function, then no, you shouldn't be fired for it even if you are an agent. If you are at a corporate function, however, you are acting on behalf of the company, so you should seek to accurately represent the company you work for.

    Facebook is a really bad place to state opinions if you are an agent for a company - especially as tasteless as this opinion is. It's also pretty bad if you are a run-of-the-mill employee, which is why I gave up on Facebook years ago for anything other than keeping in touch with friends and relatives.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 6 years, 7 months ago
    The standard for fiduciary duty as an executive, particularly a legal one, is going to be different from that of a rank & file.

    If the person speaking was for example a teller for Wells Fargo, the standard is going to be substantially "looser" than that of what the CEO of Wells Fargo may say.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by TheOldMan 6 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A point that is lost on many people. I recall way back when the Ding Dong Chicks cried "1st Amendment censorship" when TX radio stations quit playing their songs after their comments about GWB. I made the same point.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 6 years, 7 months ago
    In non government, non union private industry I doubt they need any reason to fire an employee.
    Anything you say such as what ever you say right here could be used as a reason to send you packing from your job if they even need a reason.
    I had an employee I overheard telling another employee he though I was an A hole because of a decision I made. He was on his way with lunch box in hand 10 minutes later. That decision I made saved the home owner over $10K.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 6 years, 7 months ago
    She is a person with a job in the public eye and she made a dumb ass statement on social media which is a worldwide megaphone. Since she could be readily identified her statements reflected on her employer which is a company involved in media....an organization which purports to be factual, even handed and free of bias. [By the way...complete bullshit] Her statements made obvious the fact that she was not factual, even handed and free of bias, which then undermines her employer. They quite rightly fired her.

    If she had been writing under a moniker like maybe"notEvilLiberalWackJob" sort of like my moniker....she would not have had a problem. But given the fact that she wrote under her name, she actually used the prominence of her employer to enhance her message,. Given that she was in fact using them in this way it is reasonable to see how they would not like it and that she in fact was in effect "Stealing from the company" by making public statements under her own name while being employed in a prominent position by a media company.

    The real funny aspect of this is that her opinions likely reflect the opinion of many...if not most...in leadership there. She just made the mistake of pointing out the emperor has no clothes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbunce 6 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    First Amendment "Congress shall make not law..." is protection from government infringement, not your employer.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbunce 6 years, 7 months ago
    Just as an employee (unless under specific contract for length of service) can leave at any time, so should an employer be free to part ways with employee at any time for any reason. Amendments and Court rulings say otherwise... I disagree with them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 6 years, 7 months ago
    Some people at high levels in a company are "speaking for the company" even if they aren't. Obvious examples are: Zuckerberg, Jobs, Paige, Musk and Kalanick. Even in technical discussions on a contract, people at a certain level can be asserted to have provided contract direction in a meeting, without a contract change letter (e.g. constructive change).

    Companies can expect a certain discretion from their senior employees, if they choose and if they communicate such prior. Why should they be limited in this perspective? The name "CBS" featured directly in media coverage of the statement. A CBS VP, particularly a lawyer, should know better on many levels.

    CBS should be allowed to do as they please. What choices we make in response to CBS's action is similarly up to us.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 6 years, 7 months ago
    Senior executive officers, especially Vice Presidents, are representing the company wherever they go. She would have had to take out a Facebook account completely devoid of any mention of her position as Vice President and Senior Counsel for CBS, Inc.

    And for the Grand Legal Eagle of any company to get into a scrap like this, makes me wonder what law school had the misfortune of graduating her.

    I always hold Vice Presidents--and especially Vice Presidents and General Counsels--to a higher standard of off-the-job conduct.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What value do I get from Joe would be my first thought. I obviously would wonder about his intent and character. What was his reason for making a statement of that nature? Did he hire the best person for the job or did he let his prejudice decide for him. Has he put the company in jeapordy. After consideration he may or may not be fired.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 6 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What would you do if "Joe" commented in a private conversation that you overheard how much he hated black people. And "Joe" works in personnel. Clearly there is a potential for a large lawsuit.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "The original post didn't distinguish between a right to fire her versus making a sensible business or personal judgment and then exercising the right."
    When it said "disregard any employment at will concepts," I took it to mean disregard whether it's illegal.

    "A private company can fire anyone for any reason"
    Right. They can hire for any reason too. In this day-and-age, there is definitely a market for outrageous comments. I really think keeping someone out of duty, pity, or whatever, is punishing them worse than letting them go. It hurts them if they don't want charity, and it keeps them from enjoying some future job that lives for lurid attention-grabbing sound bites, and it keeps that sensational media org from an employee. It's bad for everyone.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 6 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree. On social media people with jobs need to watch what they write.
    For example, employers like the Communist Broadcasting System do not want resentful Republicans to think of them of as the Communist Broadcasting System for effective propaganda purposes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The original post didn't distinguish between a right to fire her versus making a sensible business or personal judgment and then exercising the right. ("Right and wrong" was mixed with "right to punish".)

    A private company can fire anyone for any reason; it's not restricted to 'business questions' such as cost to morale. In addition to not liking what she said (with or without wanting to 'punish' her for it) and determining that her public statement was damaging to their own business reputation, they might also judge that they don't want someone who thinks like that working there and making decisions, whether she reveals it publicly or privately.

    Since it's CBS, they may have fired her because they didn't want the public embarrassment, regardless of principles. They would have a right to do that, too, though we would want to be able to expect more of them.

    The operations of a private company are very different than the situation at Berkeley, which is a public university -- that arrangement should not exist, but since it does, the principle of freedom of speech versus government applies to it -- plus thugs are forcibly obstructing invited speakers, etc. with a fascistic, anti-intellectual mentality at what is supposed to be an institution dedicated to pursuit and discussion of ideas. CBS is (supposed to be) a news organization, not a flow of noises based on anything goes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You could have deleted and re-posted -- you were right to notice that moral and morale are very different, which is especially important in the particular context of "cost/benefit".
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo