What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Old Pio said:
New Jersey teacher loses appeal of her termination. She had referred to students as "future criminals" on her Facebook page. A court dismissed her First Amendment defense. I'm a strong First Amendment guy, and I find this decision troubling. If Fred Phelps is protected by the First Amendment (and he is) why not this silly lady?

http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/...ts_future_criminals.html#incart_river_default
Click to expand...

This is where we get into the tricky business between the First Amendment and the right to refuse service. Although it's a public school system, we're still talking about employment which is not compulsory, no matter how much the unions crow. The teacher did not have any civil or criminal charges filed against her, which would be dismissed anyway, since she was using a forum to which she had been granted the allowance to use.
 
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

FlagDUDE08 said:
This is where we get into the tricky business between the First Amendment and the right to refuse service. Although it's a public school system, we're still talking about employment which is not compulsory, no matter how much the unions crow. The teacher did not have any civil or criminal charges filed against her, which would be dismissed anyway, since she was using a forum to which she had been granted the allowance to use.
Click to expand...

And no mention of any misbehavior in front of the children, which would change things, IMO. I get the strong whiff of caving in to "community" pressure on this one. That doesn't explain the judge's ruling, however. And her Facebook postings apparantly were insulting but didn't advocate retaliation against the little darlings. This strikes me as a classic "slippery slope" situation. How far down the road do we want to go, monitoring and potentially punishing teachers for opinions with which we disagree? Opinions which are not expressed at work.
 
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Old Pio said:
And no mention of any misbehavior in front of the children, which would change things, IMO. I get the strong whiff of caving in to "community" pressure on this one. That doesn't explain the judge's ruling, however. And her Facebook postings apparantly were insulting but didn't advocate retaliation against the little darlings. This strikes me as a classic "slippery slope" situation. How far down the road do we want to go, monitoring and potentially punishing teachers for opinions with which we disagree? Opinions which are not expressed at work.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's up to the employers. Certainly we have our say with the Board of Education, but beyond that, it's still a republican form of employment, and the teachers aren't much different from appointed undersecretaries in the Cabinet. Also remember that although education is compulsory in this country, parents are still free to send their children to any district they choose (at least in NY that's the case, not so sure about NJ but I wouldn't be surprised if it were similar). Remember that although the opinion was not expressed at work, it was expressed in a domain that could potentially drive away those customers or even provoke the parents to ask for a change in classroom for their children, thereby creating more complications.
 
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Old Pio said:
And no mention of any misbehavior in front of the children, which would change things, IMO. I get the strong whiff of caving in to "community" pressure on this one. That doesn't explain the judge's ruling, however. And her Facebook postings apparantly were insulting but didn't advocate retaliation against the little darlings. This strikes me as a classic "slippery slope" situation. How far down the road do we want to go, monitoring and potentially punishing teachers for opinions with which we disagree? Opinions which are not expressed at work.
Click to expand...
If everyone were to be dismissed for expressing an opionion on the internet about people they work with (students, coworkers, bosses) unemployment would be a lot higher. I certainly wouldn't have a job. I make sure not to use names...but this teacher didn't use names either. She mentioned the class as a whole, not a specific student.
If someone vents on their Facebook page about the morons they work with, should they be disciplined?
 
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

wolverineTrumpet said:
If everyone were to be dismissed for expressing an opionion on the internet about people they work with (students, coworkers, bosses) unemployment would be a lot higher. I certainly wouldn't have a job. I make sure not to use names...but this teacher didn't use names either. She mentioned the class as a whole, not a specific student.
If someone vents on their Facebook page about the morons they work with, should they be disciplined?
Click to expand...

Once upon a time that "discipline" would have come from peer pressure and social sanctions, not from some twerpy bureaucrat. You want to vent on Facebook about the "morons" you work with, expect a frosty reception from your peers at work the next day!

Several years ago, someone in my department left, and I had to go through his emails to get myself up to speed on the projects he had been working on. About 40% of his e-mails were to his girlfriend bad-mouthing people in our office (no doubt a big reason why he left; his attitude was just not right for our culture). You can be sure I immediately stopped sending personal emails from work (except those "okay honey I'll get a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread on the way home" kinds, I don't care who sees those).
 
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

I often refer to friends' and family's kids as criminals and terrorists and hooligans. But everybody knows I am kidding and that it is all said in jest. I'm not sure if this teacher was kidding when she called them future criminals. And the racial makeup of the class makes for an easy hair-trigger on comments like this. She should be able to say it kiddingly without getting in trouble, but I'm not sure about this. It is definitely a slippery slope, though.
 
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

FlagDUDE08 said:
I suppose that's up to the employers. Certainly we have our say with the Board of Education, but beyond that, it's still a republican form of employment, and the teachers aren't much different from appointed undersecretaries in the Cabinet. Also remember that although education is compulsory in this country, parents are still free to send their children to any district they choose (at least in NY that's the case, not so sure about NJ but I wouldn't be surprised if it were similar). Remember that although the opinion was not expressed at work, it was expressed in a domain that could potentially drive away those customers or even provoke the parents to ask for a change in classroom for their children, thereby creating more complications.
Click to expand...

Your use of terms like "employers," "customers," "republican form of employment" and "cabinet undersecretaries" makes your point more opaque, IMO (at least for me.;)). I gather what you're saying is because someone might overreact to her opinions, she loses her First Amendment rights? So you're okay with teachers being fired for having and expressing opinions with which others disagree? Even though those opinions aren't expressed at work and don't affect their performance? And don't advocate anything illegal? Really?
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

wolverineTrumpet said:
If everyone were to be dismissed for expressing an opionion on the internet about people they work with (students, coworkers, bosses) unemployment would be a lot higher. I certainly wouldn't have a job. I make sure not to use names...but this teacher didn't use names either. She mentioned the class as a whole, not a specific student.
If someone vents on their Facebook page about the morons they work with, should they be disciplined?
Click to expand...

As someone who has been punished a couple of times by the "Lords of USCHO.com" for popping off, there's no question she should have resisted the impulse to post her comments. Calling her into the office and giving her the word with the bark off would seem to be sufficient. But that doesn't explain the judge's reasoning.
 
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

UncleRay said:
I often refer to friends' and family's kids as criminals and terrorists and hooligans. But everybody knows I am kidding and that it is all said in jest. I'm not sure if this teacher was kidding when she called them future criminals. And the racial makeup of the class makes for an easy hair-trigger on comments like this. She should be able to say it kiddingly without getting in trouble, but I'm not sure about this. It is definitely a slippery slope, though.
Click to expand...

That's a significant point. We don't really know if her comments reflected a deeply held opinion. Or were merely the reaction to a particularly hard day with the little darlings. It's possible she's really dedicated to her students, and their various problems, but just had a bad day or even a bad moment.
 
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Old Pio said:
Your use of terms like "employers," "customers," "republican form of employment" and "cabinet undersecretaries" makes your point more opaque, IMO (at least for me.;)). I gather what you're saying is because someone might overreact to her opinions, she loses her First Amendment rights? So you're okay with teachers being fired for having and expressing opinions with which others disagree? Even though those opinions aren't expressed at work and don't affect their performance? And don't advocate anything illegal? Really?
Click to expand...

I suppose the first amendment only pertains under specific circumstances now. Obviously you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. And it is becoming more common that you cannot post FIRE on your Facebook page. Just ruminating.....
 
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

DrDemento said:
I suppose the first amendment only pertains under specific circumstances now. Obviously you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. And it is becoming more common that you cannot post FIRE on your Facebook page. Just ruminating.....
Click to expand...

Hopefully, things are starting to change.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/s...s-from-demanding-employee-facebook-passwords/

Read an article a few months back where prospective employers are demanding to look at people's social media as part of the screening process. I'd tell them to **** off if anyone ever asked that of me - and I have nothing bad on Facebook. Bunch of family photos for the most part. Still wouldn't let them see it though.

I certainly wouldn't want them to see my contributions to this forum though... :D
 
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

DrDemento said:
I suppose the first amendment only pertains under specific circumstances now. Obviously you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. And it is becoming more common that you cannot post FIRE on your Facebook page. Just ruminating.....
Click to expand...

And I'm afraid I can't ignore concerns of a dual standard here. Would she have been fired if she'd complained about snotty white sh*ts on Facebook? Maybe. But I'm not entirely convinced.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Gurtholfin said:
Hopefully, things are starting to change.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/s...s-from-demanding-employee-facebook-passwords/

Read an article a few months back where prospective employers are demanding to look at people's social media as part of the screening process. I'd tell them to **** off if anyone ever asked that of me - and I have nothing bad on Facebook. Bunch of family photos for the most part. Still wouldn't let them see it though.

I certainly wouldn't want them to see my contributions to this forum though... :D
Click to expand...

Employers will do anything they can get away with in the hiring process, until they're stopped. You may recall in the 80's it became quite fashionable for employers to demand that prospective employees take polygraph tests. Most frequently for low waqe, low benefit, entry level positions. Certainly cheaper and easier for the employers. Anyway, IIRC an unprecedented alliance between Barry Goldwater and Ted Kennedy helped put an end to that nonsense.

On another occasion, Goldwater found out Maricopa County officials were demanding Social Security numbers to register voters. He put a stop to that, to.
 
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Gurtholfin said:
Hopefully, things are starting to change.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/s...s-from-demanding-employee-facebook-passwords/

Read an article a few months back where prospective employers are demanding to look at people's social media as part of the screening process. I'd tell them to **** off if anyone ever asked that of me - and I have nothing bad on Facebook. Bunch of family photos for the most part. Still wouldn't let them see it though.

I certainly wouldn't want them to see my contributions to this forum though... :D
Click to expand...

Don't give password: "You must have something to hide. We won't hire you."

Give password: "How are we supposed to trust you with protected information if you just handed us your password? We won't hire you."

Don't have a Facebook: "INSERT SPREE SHOOTER HERE didn't have a Facebook. You might be a sociopath. We won't hire you."
 
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Gurtholfin said:
Hopefully, things are starting to change.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/s...s-from-demanding-employee-facebook-passwords/

Read an article a few months back where prospective employers are demanding to look at people's social media as part of the screening process. I'd tell them to **** off if anyone ever asked that of me - and I have nothing bad on Facebook. Bunch of family photos for the most part. Still wouldn't let them see it though.

I certainly wouldn't want them to see my contributions to this forum though... :D
Click to expand...

Nobody in North Dakota would hire you, that's for sure.

And don't tell me you wouldn't love to live there.
 
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Applying for a job and asked for my Facebook and Twitter information would not bother me. I have neither and would tell them so. But i would offer to join both if they wanted me to(Perhaps they would pay me extra if I did and mentioned the workplace for them):)
 
Re: Nice Planet, Part 2: A-holes on parade

Former employer required us to be connected to them through FB. I set up a second account for that purpose only. They had no reason to be able to root around in my personal life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top