Toronto Firefighters fired -- for tweets

[Argus]

Personal conversations with consent are a different issue than public comments affecting the workplace.

Blithering drivel.

Any converstion in the workplace, personal or not, in cafeteria, hallway or bathroom can be punished if it fails to abide by the often arcane regulations related to harrassment, prejudice, ingegrity, etc. But that's the workplace. To transplant those soul sucking regulations out of the workplace and into people's off-duty lives is a giant leap into surrendering more and more control to the stifling corporate mentality which sees employees as nothing but drones with no personal freedom or choices.

It's WHERE and TO WHOM - context and consent - and the effects on others and the workplace that makes it inappropriate in this case.

It was said off duty, in their private lives, to the few people who had subscribed to their twitter feeds, people who presumably consisted almost entirely of friends and family. If you and your corporate masters don't like that, Dre, that's too damn bad.

[Argus]

Someone mentioned non-consensual sex and you replied with "some women like it rough." Non-consensual sex is rape. I trust I don't need to repost the discussion.

Keep your fantasy conversations to yourself. Someone was talking about sex and violence, not non-consensuality. There is a difference, believe or not, as books like Fifty Shades of Gray, or their innumerable more graphic cousins might demonstrate.

[Argus]

Not sure that matters g .

It looks like TFS , and if one looks up Matt Bowman you go here... http://my.firefighternation.com/profile/MatthewRobbertBowman .

His bosses supposedly know who he works for, so in that regard, it does matter.

But no one really expected them to be fired, nor do i. But given a spell at home unpaid...yes.

As a union activist my response to retarded bosses who want to punish employees usually falls along these lines:

Did what the employee do cause any actual harm?

Did it involve intent to cause harm or some kind of malice?

Did the employee realize what they were doing was punishable under employee codes of conduct/integrity?

If the answer is no, and it usually IS no, then the immediate response should not be punitive but educational. In almost all situations that is more than sufficient to ensure the action is not repeated. You tell the employee not to do it again. There. Problem solved.

Unfortunately, management in corporate bureacracies (including government) usually isn't smart enough to understand that sort of thing, and even if they are they generally have no balls (regardless of their gender). In my experience, directors and directors general being paid well into six figures will instantly ask a far lower level HR/staff relations person what the 'guidelines' and policies say and what they recommend. That way they don't have to make a decision, and thus defend that decision if others find it wrong (or dumb).

And by the way, could you tell the difference between a toronto firefighter and an ottawa or chicago firefighter based on a picture the size of a postage stamp?

Edited September 26, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

Only for some cultures apparently.

This from the spokesperson for cultural relativism.

[Argus]

I bet his bosses did.

Probably because he was identified as such in the story. Otherwise, no way can you tell what fire department he's with from those pictures.

[Argus]

I never would have taken you for a cultural relativist, but here we are.

On the contrary, as a judgemental bastard I regularly understand how culture effects people's behavior. However, regardless of that, I judge them based on MY cultural values.

Now you will say that is exactly what is being done here to these firefighters, and you would be correct. However, the point I'm making is the cutural value set of the employer and the cultural elites is distinct to themselves and largely foreign to 90% of the people in this country. Thus we should push back strongly when they try to mandate our adherence to their soul sucking values.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Argus

[g_bambino]

How did you conclude that from my post?

From your focus on the ability of one to conclude from his Twitter handle and picture that he's a firefighter, not that he is (or was) specifically a Toronto firefighter.

I'm just saying that it's likely... that there was more information on this guy's Twitter feed to indicate where he worked

Perhaps. But, even if that's so, it still means some people here are drawing conclusions based on less than the full amount of evidence. So far, it's been all about the pictures.

[Black Dog]

On the contrary, as a judgemental bastard I regularly understand how culture effects people's behavior. However, regardless of that, I judge them based on MY cultural values.

That's nowt to do with cultural relativism, though. You're implying that it's wrong to judge/dismiss these guys and similar offensive behaviour because it's just a "perfectly normal" part of "male culture". Much as a cultural relativist would defend practices like, say ritual cannibalism or stoning women to death.

Now you will say that is exactly what is being done here to these firefighters, and you would be correct. However, the point I'm making is the cutural value set of the employer and the cultural elites is distinct to themselves and largely foreign to 90% of the people in this country. Thus we should push back strongly when they try to mandate our adherence to their soul sucking values.

I don't buy that. But for the sake of argument, so what? At one point casual racism, sexism and homophobia were endemic in our society. That's changed a lot and I doubt even you would suggest we're worse for it as a society. Well, it certainly wasn't the 90% who decided that stuff wasn't cool. A widely held cultural value is not, ipso facto, a cultural value worth preserving.

And really, it's not even about culture; it's about entitlement. I should be able to say what I want without consequences because I don't think it's offensive and to hell with your feelings. And boy do the defenders of consequence-free speech wail when someone calls them out. Th eculture thing is a smokescreen, and a lazy one at that.

Something else. To Boges you said:

I honestly don't give a damn what words people use nearly as much as their intent.

How do you think people derive intent if not by listening to your words? Are they to read your mind?

Edited September 26, 2013 by Black Dog

[Wilber]

Well, there's a self-contradiction if I ever saw one.

No it isn't. If you are wearing the uniform when you do something dumb assed, you are attaching the uniform to the dumb assed behaviour whether you intended to or not. If you wear a uniform and don't understand that, you are looking for trouble.

[g_bambino]

No it isn't.

Whether he was representing the TFS is irrelevant. He was presenting himself, his employer and the rest of his colleagues in a negative manner.

It's irrelevant. It's relevant. Which is it?

[Wilber]

It's irrelevant. It's relevant. Which is it?

What's relevant is his behavior was making his department and his colleagues look bad.

[Guest American Woman]

From your focus on the ability of one to conclude from his Twitter handle and picture that he's a firefighter, not that he is (or was) specifically a Toronto firefighter.

Perhaps. But, even if that's so, it still means some people here are drawing conclusions based on less than the full amount of evidence. So far, it's been all about the pictures.

Anyone working for Toronto Fire recognized the uniform as Toronto Fire's; women working with them certainly knew who they were. At any rate, the media ID'd them both as Toronto firefighters, and being city employees, they are supposed to follow the city's social media guidelines. That's the bottom line. If the firings were out of line, the union investigation will likely result in their being reinstated. In the meantime, a month long investigation concluded that there was a pattern inconsistent with policy. It doesn't matter if they id'd themselves as Toronto Fire firefighters or not - the are subject to city policy regardless.

The two firefighters were from the Scarborough Hall and I recall reading in one of the many articles about this incident that a female firefighter said that there had been some problems there - that she knew of some women who started out there and had to move to different halls because of difficulties that they experienced there. So perhaps there's more to the story than we are privy to. At any rate, when sexist posts are made in the public realm, there are going to sometimes be repercussions. It was a stupid move on their part to make such posts public.

Again:

As city employees, firefighters are required to follow the city's social media guidelines.

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.”

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

Sales said an internal investigation has found "public comments and a pattern of social media activity [by the firefighters] that clearly violates city policies and is not in any way acceptable for city employees, and will not be condoned or tolerated by Toronto Fire Services."

http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/toronto-firefighters-lose-jobs-after-sexist-tweets-1

Whether you agree with it or not, that's the policy.

[g_bambino]

What's relevant is his behavior was making his department and his colleagues look bad.

Which raises the questions: If his department can't be discerned from his Twitter feed, handle, or profile picture, how? And, if nobody but some friends and family are following his tweets, to whom?

[Guest American Woman]

Which raises the questions: If his department can't be discerned from his Twitter feed, handle, or profile picture, how? And, if nobody but some friends and family are following his tweets, to whom?

Evidently someone besides his friends and family were following their tweets. Unless one of their friends and/or family members outed them to the media.

[guyser]

Which raises the questions: If his department can't be discerned from his Twitter feed, handle, or profile picture, how? And, if nobody but some friends and family are following his tweets, to whom?

The TFS has concerns other than this one (or two) idiot(s) and there dumb statements.

The TFS could and/or would be held negligent should any of the female employees be able to show a pattern of misogyny and harrassment. In this age of litigious suits against employers, there really wasn't much wiggle room although I would have preferred a suspension or some such. Afterall the TFS has paid a ton for these guys training.

The TFS did not even know for some time that this tweet existed, it wasnt until the Natl Post printed it that they became aware.

Once known, they had to move on it for the reasons above. Had they not, they could be held liable in the future.

That said, the tweets should have never been done, the author of same knew, or ought to have known , that they could be (likely) misconstrued in a 140 character universe. Its a limited social platform that doesnt lend itself to explanations. (a blog would have been better)

Now there are differences insofar as how we treat the social media sites that all the cool folks have to use. But these guys are adults and should know better. A younger person of say 17 in high school can be suspended by having Facebook pics of him at a drinking party on a weekend. I certainly dont agree with any of that shite, since of course there is no employee/employer contract, but once employed and handed the Guidelines to Employment w Toronto Fire ** he has no real excuse.

**my made up name for it

Edited September 26, 2013 by Guyser2

[Boges]

Evidently someone besides his friends and family were following their tweets. Unless one of their friends and/or family members outed them to the media.

In the case of the Mr. Lube employee that got fired for trying to score weed, the cops were scanning hashtags mentioning them. Apparently the guy has mentioned something to do with the police before hand, that led them to the Tweet about trying to score weed.

Anytime you hashtag something people can see your profile if they're looking for the same hastag.

[Guest American Woman]

In the case of the Mr. Lube employee that got fired for trying to score weed, the cops were scanning hashtags mentioning them. Apparently the guy has mentioned something to do with the police before hand, that led them to the Tweet about trying to score weed.

Anytime you hashtag something people can see your profile if they're looking for the same hastag.

This is true. People didn't have to be following their twitter accounts, the hashtag very likely got a lot of people's attention. Edited September 26, 2013 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Which raises the questions: If his department can't be discerned from his Twitter feed, handle, or profile picture, how? And, if nobody but some friends and family are following his tweets, to whom?

When are people going to understand that anything they put on Twitter is public domain and they have no control over who sees it after they have given one person their twitter handle. You would think it would have sunk in by now but apparently not, they keep making fools of themselves and suffering the consequences.

[jacee]

However, the point I'm making is the cutural value set of the employer and the cultural elites is distinct to themselves and largely foreign to 90% of the people in this country. Thus we should push back strongly when they try to mandate our adherence to their soul sucking values.

Yes employers do tend to value appropriate behaviour and punish inappropriate behaviour that reflects on them or poisons the work environment.

Don't like it ... there's the door.

Pretty much always been like that.

Edited September 27, 2013 by jacee

[cybercoma]

Employers have no right to demand anything of you when you're not on the clock.

[guyser]

Employers have no right to demand anything of you when you're not on the clock.

Except for many and numerous occassions.

When you do something dumb in the uniform or outfit of your employer.

Bring unwanted bad press to the employer.

Behave inappropriately in public.

The fact is , rights issue or not, employers more and more deem behaviour away from the office as their business. In many cases I can see the reasons why, may not like it but thems the rules.

[cybercoma]

Except for many and numerous occassions.

They do it. That doesn't give them the right. I fear the society we live in where an employer has control to punish you for things you do that don't affect your work and are in your personal life and on your personal time. Employers do not OWN their employees. They own their employees' labour for a set period of time in most cases. There are exceptions to this, but they're not the average jobs.

When you do something dumb in the uniform or outfit of your employer.

This I agree with. When you're in uniform, you ought to be on the clock and you are representing your employer. This is understood, which is the problem with these firefighters on Twitter. However, if those firefighters were not in their uniform and their employer fired them, I would be even more concerned with the situation. Mind you, this has happened to others.

Bring unwanted bad press to the employer.

Maybe. We should be asking if their actions are related to their employer or should be construed in such a way. When they're in uniform or on the clock, then this makes it obvious. They're representing their employer and are connected to their employer. When they're not on the clock or not in uniform, then perhaps we should be asking ourselves if this has anything whatsoever to do with their employer. Posting on Twitter in one's personal time does not. My person time is my personal time and has nothing to do with my employer. Moreover, my employer has absolutely no right to regulate what I do on my own time. F*** that.

Behave inappropriately in public.

Again, F*** that! Employers do not get to dictate morality or "appropriate behaviour" to me when I'm not working for them. They don't get control over every last aspect of my life. That's absolutely ridiculous. And more importantly it's a troublesome trend that has been occurring lately. The implications of which you should take the time to imagine. Here's a single extreme example, you can think up your own I'm sure. An employer finds homosexuality inappropriate. You're heterosexual and happily married, but you attend your best friend's gay wedding over the weekend. Monday morning you're fired because the employer doesn't want to be identified with homosexuality and finds your attendance inappropriate (maybe you work for Barilla pasta, who knows). Is that allowed to stand? I sure as hell hope not. While I disagree with these idiots commentary, if they weren't in uniform and were saying these moronic things on their own time, I don't believe their employer should have the option of financially punishing people for things they do on their own time.

The fact is , rights issue or not, employers more and more deem behaviour away from the office as their business. In many cases I can see the reasons why, may not like it but thems the rules.

First of all, thems not the rules. These are liberties that employers are taking and it behooves us to resist them claiming ownership over our personal time. I don't buy this cowardly, "well they're going to do it anyway," line of crap. We should be outraged by it and we shouldn't stand for it. Even if it means sticking up for two meat-headed neanderthals that made stupid comments on Twitter. We need to be putting our feet down and saying enough is enough; behaviour away from the office is NOT their business. When those behaviours affect someone AT the office, then the problem is the office behaviour and that's fair game. Until then, f*** off and leave people's personal lives alone. You don't OWN them. You buy their labour.

[jacee]

They do it. That doesn't give them the right. I fear the society we live in where an employer has control to punish you for things you do that don't affect your work and are in your personal life and on your personal time. Employers do not OWN their employees. They own their employees' labour for a set period of time in most cases. There are exceptions to this, but they're not the average jobs.

This I agree with. When you're in uniform, you ought to be on the clock and you are representing your employer. This is understood, which is the problem with these firefighters on Twitter. However, if those firefighters were not in their uniform and their employer fired them, I would be even more concerned with the situation. Mind you, this has happened to others.

Maybe. We should be asking if their actions are related to their employer or should be construed in such a way. When they're in uniform or on the clock, then this makes it obvious. They're representing their employer and are connected to their employer. When they're not on the clock or not in uniform, then perhaps we should be asking ourselves if this has anything whatsoever to do with their employer. Posting on Twitter in one's personal time does not. My person time is my personal time and has nothing to do with my employer. Moreover, my employer has absolutely no right to regulate what I do on my own time. F*** that.

Again, F*** that! Employers do not get to dictate morality or "appropriate behaviour" to me when I'm not working for them. They don't get control over every last aspect of my life. That's absolutely ridiculous. And more importantly it's a troublesome trend that has been occurring lately. The implications of which you should take the time to imagine. Here's a single extreme example, you can think up your own I'm sure. An employer finds homosexuality inappropriate. You're heterosexual and happily married, but you attend your best friend's gay wedding over the weekend. Monday morning you're fired because the employer doesn't want to be identified with homosexuality and finds your attendance inappropriate (maybe you work for Barilla pasta, who knows). Is that allowed to stand? I sure as hell hope not. While I disagree with these idiots commentary, if they weren't in uniform and were saying these moronic things on their own time, I don't believe their employer should have the option of financially punishing people for things they do on their own time.

First of all, thems not the rules. These are liberties that employers are taking and it behooves us to resist them claiming ownership over our personal time. I don't buy this cowardly, "well they're going to do it anyway," line of crap. We should be outraged by it and we shouldn't stand for it. Even if it means sticking up for two meat-headed neanderthals that made stupid comments on Twitter. We need to be putting our feet down and saying enough is enough; behaviour away from the office is NOT their business. When those behaviours affect someone AT the office, then the problem is the office behaviour and that's fair game. Until then, f*** off and leave people's personal lives alone. You don't OWN them. You buy their labour.

Maybe he shouldn't have posted a pic of himself in his employer's uniform!

[Wilber]

Employers have no right to demand anything of you when you're not on the clock.

They do if what you do reflects on them.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Wilber

[g_bambino]

When are people going to understand that anything they put on Twitter is public domain and they have no control over who sees it after they have given one person their twitter handle. You would think it would have sunk in by now but apparently not, they keep making fools of themselves and suffering the consequences.

That didn't address either question.