Toronto Firefighters fired -- for tweets

[Argus]

I've never really understood the need for people to 'tweet' out private thoughts to people they don't even know, but it seems all sorts of people do it, including several Toronto firefighters. Their tweets, which were mildly sexist, got them in trouble with Toronto's oh-so-precious politically correct, and three of them were fired this week. No stern reprimands for them, even though these were first offenses. These extremey expensively trained employees were simply dismissed out of hand because the Tororonto bureacrats were embarrassed by their lack of political correctness. This was an unvealiably stupid decision which testifies to a couple of points.

1. We still do need unions. In all likelihood these men will wind up being rehired after the union appeals this to an arbitator. The draconion punishment certainly didn't fit the crime.

2. Bureacrats everywhere are soulless creatures who have no thought or care about whose lives they destroy in their desperate quest to look good. The people who fired these firefighters cared about one thing only, their own careers.

3. Too many people in the world expect GUYS, you now, GUYS, like firefighters, cops, soldiers, sports players, etc., to have the same humourless cultural sensitivity as politicians and the chattering classes of the media. They don't, and never will. Expecting it of them is moronic. Requiring it of them is even more moronic.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/16/two-toronto-firefighters-terminated-over-unacceptable-sexist-tweets-third-reportedly-fired-over-facebook-post/

[Boges]

That clown had a picture of him in his firefighting gear. He was representing his employer while tweeting those things.

If those posts were isolated thoughts that would be one thing, but they were responses to the Force's move to try and diversify the make-up of firefighters they employ.

Do you think the Mr. Lube employee that got fired because he tweeted out a request for Weed and the police were monitoring and told his employer on him also deserved to lose his job?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pot-plea-on-twitter-costs-mr-lube-worker-his-job-1.1392866

Edited September 17, 2013 by Boges

[g_bambino]

That clown had a picture of him in his firefighting gear. He was representing his employer while tweeting those things.

No, it was his personal account.

If those posts were isolated thoughts that would be one thing, but they were responses to the Force's move to try and diversify the make-up of firefighters they employ.

Evidence?

[Boges]

No, it was his personal account.

The first guy has a pic of him in his uniform as his profile pic, He's advertising the fact that he's a firefighter.

Would you argue that the Mr. Lube employee was also just using his personal account?

Evidence?

It's circumstantial but from the story in the OP

In July Chief Sales presented a report to the citys executive committee called A Path to Diversity.

Just 5.2% of Toronto Fire employees are women; visible minorities make up 4.2% of fire service employees. Most women at Toronto Fire work in fire prevention or communications, answering 9-1-1 calls, rather than on fire trucks. Of 2,742 Toronto firefighters on fire trucks, 67 are women.

I guess it's not a certainty that these guys were simply responding to a move by the employer to hire more women.

But even if that's not the case, their posts clearly show an anti-woman slant. And apparently according to this Star article, it's against the guidelines of their employment

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/09/16/toronto_firefighters_axed_over_inappropriate_tweets.html

These guidelines state employees should not engage in harassment, personal attacks or abuse toward individuals or organizations, and not use language that is discriminatory, hateful, or violent towards identifiable groups or that incites others to discriminate, practise hate or violence.

Members of the Toronto Fire Service are in positions of public trust. This trust is paramount to the divisions ability to carry out its work and deliver critical services to all Toronto residents, Sales said.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Boges

[g_bambino]

The first guy has a pic of him in his uniform as his profile pic, He's advertising the fact that he's a firefighter.

Whether it was his fire fighting gear or his uniform, using such a picture on a personal account doesn't make that account property of or even representative of the Toronto Fire Services. All it maybe shows (depending on what's visible in the picture) is that the individual works for the Toronto Fire Services.

People include their place of employment on their Facebook profiles. That doesn't mean they speak for their employers when posting on Facebook.

I guess it's not a certainty that these guys were simply responding to a move by the employer to hire more women.

Quite far from it.

[T]heir posts clearly show an anti-woman slant. And apparently according to this Star article, it's against the guidelines of their employment

Well, that's rather one of the points here, isn't it? Is the Toronto Fire Services or the City of Toronto right or even allowed to police their employees' expressions while they're off the clock? I certainly say 'no' to the former. But, maybe the latter is true; there's something in the contract. If so, though, that just raises more questions.

[ed.: +]

Edited September 17, 2013 by g_bambino

[Boges]

Well, that's rather one of the points here, isn't it? Is the Toronto Fire Services or the City of Toronto right or even allowed to police their employees' expressions while they're off the clock? I certainly say 'no' to the former. But, maybe the latter is true; there's something in the contract. If so, though, that just raises more questions.

[ed.: +]

This is the conundrum of the internet, more specifically Twitter. Can anything you say online be used against you regarding employment?

People use it to say offensive things and then wonder why there's blow back. Clearly the lawyers determined that these firefighters were in breach of contract or they wouldn't have fired the employees because as mentioned earlier. The appeal process unions go through trying to keep their members employed is extensive.

[cybercoma]

There was a girl on Big Brother this year that was a model. She was fired while she was on the show (unbeknownst to her at the time) for the racist comments she made in the house that made it on air.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about these things. On the one hand, I can understand that the employers have a reputation and public image to maintain. On the other hand, I don't like what all of these firings imply. It implies that if you work for a company, then that company owns you and every part of your life. They don't just own your labour while you're there. They own every statement that comes out of your mouth or gets posted to Twitter, regardless of whether you're on the clock at the time or not. Combine that idea with employees being tethered to work via cellphones or email these days and you have a complete blurring of the work-leisure divide. The notion is troubling.

[guyser]

Far too heavy handed to fire these guys.

REprimand for sure, but firing?

And when one considers that there are police still on the force after being convicted of crimes (but not jail time).....does anyone use their brain anymore?

[jacee]

Their tweets, which were mildly sexist, ...

I suggest you all ask your wives/girlfriends/sisters/mothers/daughters whether they find these only "mildly sexist" (my ratings in brackets).

Reject a woman and she will never let it go. One of the many defects of their kind. Also weak arms, (mild)

Id never let a woman kick my ass. If she tried something Id be like hey! you get your bitch ass back in the kitchen and make me some pie! (offensive)

would swat her in the back of the head been considered abuse or a way to reset the brain?

(violent, offensive)

the way to a womans heart is through anal. (violent, extremely offensive)

Report back to me what the women in your life say.

Personally, I suspect these sh!t-for-brains lowlifes are victims of small-penis-syndrome, totally undateable.

Edited September 17, 2013 by jacee

[guyser]

Whether it was his fire fighting gear or his uniform, using such a picture on a personal account doesn't make that account property of or even representative of the Toronto Fire Services.

I figure any picture of a uniform makes it a TFS issue and as such thats why they are in trouble.

I am aware that any uniformed soldier cannot make a political speech or comment of any kind without reprimand.

Considering they violated protocol, I am thinking the same applies.

[jacee]

This is the conundrum of the internet, more specifically Twitter. Can anything you say online be used against you regarding employment?

If it's public, yes.

People use it to say offensive things and then wonder why there's blow back. Clearly the lawyers determined that these firefighters were in breach of contract or they wouldn't have fired the employees because as mentioned earlier. The appeal process unions go through trying to keep their members employed is extensive.

And they will.

[jacee]

Whether it was his fire fighting gear or his uniform, using such a picture on a personal account doesn't make that account property of or even representative of the Toronto Fire Services.

They published their comments in the public domain, identifying themselves and their employer.

[Boges]

I suggest you all ask your wives/girlfriends/sisters/mothers/daughters whether they find these only "mildly sexist" (my ratings in brackets).

Reject a woman and she will never let it go. One of the many defects of their kind. Also weak arms, (mild)

I'd never let a woman kick my ass. If she tried something Id be like hey! you get your bitch ass back in the kitchen and make me some pie!

I know these 2 for sure are quotes from popular culture. (The American Office and South Park) and are meant to offend. Not sure about the others.

There was another post where one of them were mocking a women's use of the word "like" I believe.

The fact that these guys posted these things out of context in a public forum, making their identity and employer known shows an immense lack of maturity and professionalism.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Boges

[Guest American Woman]

Well, that's rather one of the points here, isn't it? Is the Toronto Fire Services or the City of Toronto right or even allowed to police their employees' expressions while they're off the clock? I certainly say 'no' to the former. But, maybe the latter is true; there's something in the contract. If so, though, that just raises more questions.

The firefighters’ social media activity was in clear violation of city policies, and was not “in any way acceptable for city employees,” fire chief Jim Sales said on Monday, declining to go into further detail.

If this is the case, and the firefighters knew it was against city policy and had agreed to abide by city policies when accepting employment with the city, then I would say they dug their own grave. The Union is appealing, so time will tell. If they are reinstated, I would imagine that they will be entitled to back pay from the time they were fired.

[g_bambino]

They published their comments in the public domain, identifying themselves and their employer.

That doesn't mean they speak on behalf of their employer.

[g_bambino]

This is the conundrum of the internet, more specifically Twitter. Can anything you say online be used against you regarding employment?

I'd say if you're slagging your boss or you lied about being sick to get time off and then are tweeting about what an awesome day you're having at the beach or something similar and your employer finds out, then, yes, that could well be used against you regarding your employment. Ditto anything that's criminal: threats of death or violent attack. That's no different than if you were heard by your employer saying those things out loud. But, anything else, no.

These guys did none of the above. One made some mildly sexist cracks, at least one of which I know is taken verbatim from South Park and another is apparently from The Office; he didn't even think the "offensive" words himself, the writers of popular television shows did it for him. Firefighters can watch, enjoy those shows on TV at home and at the hall, but they can't tweet about it? And the other guy's comment about swatting the woman who said "like" way too much: that isn't even sexist.

[g_bambino]

I figure any picture of a uniform makes it a TFS issue and as such thats why they are in trouble.

Well, I don't even know if the one was in uniform or in fire fighting gear (one identifying the particular force more than the other) or whether one could tell he was part of the Toronto Fire Services from that picture or not. But, putting that aside, and assuming what you say is true, what of the other fellow? Did his account also have a picture of himself in identifiable TFS uniform or fire fighting equipment?

[Argus]

Saying it's 'against city policy' is essentially meaningless. "City policy" is reams and reams of legalize and bureacratic gobbledegook I guarantee you none of their employees can possibly recite, much less understand. Further, 'policy' like this is designed to be 'interpreted' any way the employer wants to to cover anything the employer wants it to cover. I know. I've read such policies and interpreted them, and complained about how hard is is for ordinary employees to understand what they mean. They're deliberately vague.

What you've got is some blue collar guys, young, cocky blue collar guys full of piss and vinegar joking around and acting a bit stupid. How is it they're supposed to conduct themselves, even in their private lives, to suit the prune faced spinsters who live to be offended by anything a guy like this says or does? it's ridiculous, and it's a waste of money to throw away three guys careers when the taxpayer has spent a fortune hiring and training them.

And with no warning, no talking to, no suspension or anything. Nope. Right to firing. Why? Because the bureacrats want to use them as examples of how they (the bureacrats) abhor such language, such crudity, such offensive (to the easily offended) guy-like comments! Firefighting is for gentle, sensitive, caring, understanding men who cry a lot, you know, not guys like these.

[Argus]

The first guy has a pic of him in his uniform as his profile pic, He's advertising the fact that he's a firefighter.

Would you argue that the Mr. Lube employee was also just using his personal account?

The comparison is moronic.

The Mr. Lube employee was ordering illegal drugs at his workplace. That also implied that as he worked on people's cars he might have been high. Of course he was fired.

Anyone who thinks a couple of smartass tweets indicates these guys can't do their jobs is an idiot.

[g_bambino]

Firefighting is for gentle, sensitive, caring, understanding men who cry a lot, you know, not guys like these.

Yet, South Park (and Archer and The Office and Futurama) hasn't been banned from television sets in fire halls. Yet....

[Guest American Woman]

Saying it's 'against city policy' is essentially meaningless. "City policy" is reams and reams of legalize and bureacratic gobbledegook I guarantee you none of their employees can possibly recite, much less understand. Further, 'policy' like this is designed to be 'interpreted' any way the employer wants to to cover anything the employer wants it to cover. I know. I've read such policies and interpreted them, and complained about how hard is is for ordinary employees to understand what they mean. They're deliberately vague.

Stephan Powell, a spokesman for Toronto Fire, said that after an extensive investigation, on Monday Toronto Fire fired the three firefighters at a meeting at headquarters.

The investigation, Mr. Powell said, uncovered several breaches of the citys policy on the use of social media. We found a pattern that clearly violated those policies.

What you've got is some blue collar guys, young, cocky blue collar guys full of piss and vinegar joking around and acting a bit stupid. How is it they're supposed to conduct themselves, even in their private lives, to suit the prune faced spinsters who live to be offended by anything a guy like this says or does? it's ridiculous, and it's a waste of money to throw away three guys careers when the taxpayer has spent a fortune hiring and training them.

I'm sure that whether or not it's a waste of taxpayer's money is not even remotely a consideration. If they violated policy, then that's the only issue. The Union is fighting their dismissals, so I would think that they will get their jobs back if they didn't agree to some sort of policy that they didn't adhere to.

And with no warning, no talking to, no suspension or anything. Nope. Right to firing. Why? Because the bureacrats want to use them as examples of how they (the bureacrats) abhor such language, such crudity, such offensive (to the easily offended) guy-like comments! Firefighting is for gentle, sensitive, caring, understanding men who cry a lot, you know, not guys like these.

Actually, they were suspended - but without pay - while the investigation was going on. I think it definitely should have been a suspension with pay until it was determined whether or not they did go against city policy.

For the record, firefighting is for women, too. Not just men. At any rate, a guy can be caring and understanding - and respectful - without being someone who "cries a lot."

I don't know the context of the comments so I'll refrain from judging, but I won't jump to the conclusion that anyone who found them offensive is "easily offended," either.

Edited September 18, 2013 by American Woman

[Boges]

Anyone who thinks a couple of smartass tweets indicates these guys can't do their jobs is an idiot.

No one suggested they can't do the job.

These guys are getting fired for making their employer look bad in the public square by being sexist morons.

The policy cited in media reports clearly states what they did was wrong. No confusion.

Now should they have been fired? Perhaps not, we'll see if appeals work.

Needless to say no woman will want to work with them anymore.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Boges

[cybercoma]

That doesn't mean they speak on behalf of their employer.

Of course it doesn't, but when they're dressed in their uniform they're certainly tying their employer's image to their content.

[cybercoma]

Saying it's 'against city policy' is essentially meaningless. "City policy" is reams and reams of legalize and bureacratic gobbledegook I guarantee you none of their employees can possibly recite, much less understand. Further, 'policy' like this is designed to be 'interpreted' any way the employer wants to to cover anything the employer wants it to cover. I know. I've read such policies and interpreted them, and complained about how hard is is for ordinary employees to understand what they mean. They're deliberately vague.

What you've got is some blue collar guys, young, cocky blue collar guys full of piss and vinegar joking around and acting a bit stupid. How is it they're supposed to conduct themselves, even in their private lives, to suit the prune faced spinsters who live to be offended by anything a guy like this says or does? it's ridiculous, and it's a waste of money to throw away three guys careers when the taxpayer has spent a fortune hiring and training them.

And with no warning, no talking to, no suspension or anything. Nope. Right to firing. Why? Because the bureacrats want to use them as examples of how they (the bureacrats) abhor such language, such crudity, such offensive (to the easily offended) guy-like comments! Firefighting is for gentle, sensitive, caring, understanding men who cry a lot, you know, not guys like these.

They certainly shouldn't have been fired, but this entire thing wouldn't have been an issue if he wasn't in uniform in his profile picture. That's the problem. His personal life can be his personal life, but as soon as you connect your job to your comments by wearing your gear in your profile picture it becomes your employer's problem.

[cybercoma]

The policy cited in media reports clearly states what they did was wrong. No confusion.

The policy argument is a stupid one. I'm willing to bet money that they never once saw the policy. That they signed their paperwork when they became a firefighter and that was that. These policies are rarely outlined in detail to employees and even if they were given the policy, it was probably noted in some vague way that "you represent the fire department when you're in uniform." When the guy is sitting behind his computer in his underwear posting on Twitter, he probably wasn't even considering having a picture of himself in his uniform on Twitter as "being in uniform." Sitting down with the employee and counselling him on this is a far more appropriate course of action. You pull the guy aside and tell him he made some really stupid comments on Twitter that look bad on the FD because he's presenting himself in uniform there. He should have been told to take down the picture of himself in uniform and put something else up if he wants to make those comments. Furthermore, he should put a disclaimer in his profile that says, "the views and opinions expressed here do not represent those of my employer." I've put this on all of my social media accounts just to cover my ass for exactly this reason. It seems a bit much and nobody really does it, but I would like to see an employer just try to fire me for something I post on social media. That disclaimer would be the first thing brought up at trial.