Toronto Firefighters fired -- for tweets

[g_bambino]

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

I think most people agree with that, which is why the focus is on the profile picture. But, I still don't see any way the one guy's picture identifies the Toronto Fire Services nor have I even seen the other guy's picture at all.

[Wilber]

That didn't address either question.

I'm keeping an open mind on this for the moment. These firings will be disputed and the details will come out during the arbitration. I wore a uniform for nearly thirty years of my working career and was always very aware that if I associated it with anything that reflected poorly on my employer, there would be consequences. Fortunately, todays social media wasn't around so I couldn't easily broadcast any stupidity to the whole world.

[cybercoma]

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

You're right. He shouldn't have. And I already acknowledged that point and agree with it.

[Guest American Woman]

I think most people agree with that, which is why the focus is on the profile picture. But, I still don't see any way the one guy's picture identifies the Toronto Fire Services nor have I even seen the other guy's picture at all.

The other guy's picture isn't in uniform. But again. The media id'd them as Toronto Fire firefighters. They posted on a public domain, using their full names. They chose to make it public. They apparently went against the policy of their employer by making the tweets. And again. Those who work with them know who they are whether they are in uniform or not, and that includes the women on the force.

[Bonam]

Uniform I think is what makes it "ok" for the employer to do this. If these guys had done it out of uniform, I'd strongly support Argus' and cybercoma's argument that the employer has no business telling people what they should and should not do in their private life, but while you're wearing the uniform of your employer, you're not acting in a private capacity but representing your employer. It doesn't matter whether the particular fire department they worked for could be identified from the picture or not, that seems to me to be completely beside the point.

Now as to whether society/people should be offended by the comments made... that's a whole debate in itself, but in the end it doesn't matter, because if those comments were against the employer's policy, and the employees did it while in uniform... well there's nothing really to argue over. As to whether the punishment is the right one... probably not, given the amount of money spent on training. But it is the employer's choice what course of action to take, and the last thing I would want is more laws that restrict the ability of an employer to fire someone that clearly violated policies/procedures; it's already really hard to fire unionized workers and doesn't need to be any harder.

[Guest American Woman]

Now as to whether society/people should be offended by the comments made... that's a whole debate in itself, but in the end it doesn't matter, because if those comments were against the employer's policy, and the employees did it while in uniform... well there's nothing really to argue over.

Whether or not they were in uniform is irrelevant if what they did was against policy; I doubt whether "while in uniform" is part of said policy. All Toronto city employees don't wear uniforms, yet the social networking policy applies to all of them.

Again. Their remarks weren't made in private as their accounts were public.

I doubt if a teacher could twitter jokes about 'slapping stupid kids' and get away with it. Toronto Fire has a code of conduct, which apparently these firefighters broke; whether or not they were in uniform at the time is ultimately irrelevant to their actions.

Edited September 28, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

while you're wearing the uniform of your employer, you're not acting in a private capacity but representing your employer.

I've said this myself in the thread, so obviously I agree. However, it seems that one of these guys was not wearing the uniform in their Twitter profile. Also, g_bambino has made a good point about the uniform not necessarily being identifiable with the Toronto fire department. If someone is in a firefighter costume, do they represent the fire department of their town? Of course not. Now, while I recognize that it's a good point, it doesn't account for context. He may have spoken about being a fire fighter before, he may even mention it in his profile that this is his profession. So it's pretty easy to see that he's a member of this particular department and not just playing dress up.

So, in the end it's down to poor judgment. He should not have had a picture of himself in uniform as his profile picture on his personal account. This connects him to his job and the things he says and does publicly while in uniform are the business of his department. I don't think anyone has denied that Twitter is a public space, unless the account is locked and private. I also don't think anyone denies that you represent your employer when you wear their uniform and make public statements.

However, the question remains, does the punishment fit the crime? He made moronic and insensitive comments, but in his mind he was joking around, merely repeating things he saw and heard on television. That doesn't make the comments any less idiotic when they are out of that context, but if the fire department fired every moron in their ranks, they would lose a lot of jocks that are drawn to the profession for the physicality of the job. So is it fitting to fire someone from their job just for repeating sexist jokes on Twitter on their own time, despite having their uniform on in their profile pic? I suggest it's ridiculously heavily handed. Being fired from a job makes it incredibly difficult to find work later. And for what? For some Twitter nonsense?

This should have been addressed by counselling the employee and informing him that he should not be in uniform in his profile pics because anything he says on those profiles will be connected to the department. That is the appropriate course of action. However, the nature of mass media these days is such that we like to witch-hunt people. We like to see people shamed and abused for our entertainment. Reality shows are entirely based upon this because they feed into people's sense of superiority. Calling for this guy to be fired is unduly harsh for the nature of what he did. And more importantly the idea that an employer has control over its employees 24 hours a day, 7 days a week is incredibly troubling.

[jacee]

Whether they stay fired is still unknown.

I guess they're learning that male locker room talk doesn't belong on twitter, a world-wide public forum. Oh well.

[Argus]

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

No, no it actually hasn't. It's simply not publicized. But the way people talk among friends and families is NOTHING like what you see on television or in other media. That's particularly so for young people whose language is replete with obscenities and insults towards their friends and every imaginable grouping (fat, old, female, skinny, bald, black, muslim, indian, etc). Now little of this is meant to be taken seriously, which is the problem when the dainty, delicate ears of the easily offended members of the cultural elites and politically correct hear or read it.

When is the lsat time you heard anything said in a public venue against French speakers, or Natives? It doesn't happen. But I hear it all the time, quite casually, built up resentment and anger towards groups based largely on politics.

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 I wholeheartedly support the belief people should be able to say whatever the hell they want, barring hate speech laws. Outside of work, with very few exceptions, I don't care what your employer thinks of your words. It shouldn't matter.

[Argus]

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

In whose eyes?

[Argus]

They do if what you do reflects on them.

In my opinion the tweets do not reflect on the TFS at all.

The extreme overreaction of TFS management, however, does.

[Argus]

The other guy's picture isn't in uniform. But again. The media id'd them as Toronto Fire firefighters. They posted on a public domain, using their full names. They chose to make it public. They apparently went against the policy of their employer by making the tweets. And again. Those who work with them know who they are whether they are in uniform or not, and that includes the women on the force.

Ah, so it really doesn't matter whether they were in uniform or not. You believe the employer has the right to control their employees statements and behavior at all times, whether working or not. Tell me, do you also beleive if an employee wears something unfashionable, say while on vacation in another country, his empoloyer should be able to fire them? After all, that might reflect badly on his employer...

[Argus]

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.

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.”

But none of the posted quotes would, under reasonable interpretation, violate any of that. Of course, when you put lawyer in charge of hte interpretation such things can be interpreted any way they want them to be interpreted.

Basically, these things start out as something intended to ensure employees don't start posting hate literature or handing out nazi propaganda or stuff like that. Of course, once the hand-wringers get involved they then want to ban them from doing virtually anything and everything else which could possibly be interpreted as going against the employer's anti discrimination guidelines, thereby forcing employees to abide by those guidelines even while not at work.

Which is how a south park quote gets labelled as being of equal danger to the reputation of the TFS as if the employee was demanding the deaths of all Blacks and Jews or similar.

Btw, my employer wound up putting so many 'do nots' in their regulations that they basically resorted to banning any and all humour in emails. Because every single type of humour was found to be potentially offensive towards SOMEONE.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Argus

[Wilber]

In whose eyes?

In the employers eyes, they are the only ones that count because they are the ones writing the cheques. An arbitrator will decide if they were right or wrong.

[jacee]

But none of the posted quotes would, under reasonable interpretation, violate any of that.

Your opinion on that just might not be too credible.

[Argus]

Your opinion on that just might not be too credible.

I can tell you that will be the union's position.

[Guest American Woman]

I think there's more going on that what we see. We aren't privy to the policies or what the investigation turned up. Also, the timing of their tweets may have some bearing. From all I've read, Toronto Fire is making an effort to implement greater diversity. As I said previously, I recall a female firefighter being quoted in one of the articles I read stating that she knows of some women who started out in the Scarborough station that have had difficulties and had to move to another station. The two firefighters in question are from the Scarborough station. Perhaps there is a problem that we are not aware of, and the tweets added to the situation; added fuel to the fire.

At any rate, it's not as if their privacy was invaded - they knowingly made their comments on a public domain, and they should be aware of the city policy regarding social media. Is firing too strong a reaction? Perhaps we'd have to know the entire story, be aware of the total picture, in order to make that judgement. In the meantime, I don't doubt that the union will do whatever it can to get to the bottom of it. If they were wrongly fired, the union will have their back.

[jacee]

/firefighter-loses-fight-to-keep-job-after-tweets

Bye bye!

Id never let a woman kick my ass. If she tried Id be like HEY! You get your b---- ass back in the kitchen and make me some pie.Arbitration documents also noted tweets on the part of Bowman that were derogatory references to homeless people and used racist terminology.Edwards tweets included one that talked of giving a woman a swat in the back of the head to reset the brain.

[cybercoma]

It's a different world we live in. These racists, bigots, and misogynists would have flown under the radar in the past. Now they intentionally publish their hideousness for all the world to see and are baffled when they're held accountable for their vulgarity.

[Argus]

It's a different world we live in. These racists, bigots, and misogynists would have flown under the radar in the past.

Your habit of defining people as basically, less than human at the first sign of them failing to uphold your extreme politically correct beliefs is rather disturbing, you know.

I find this to be a really sad indication of the lack of humanity we find amongst bureaucracies. You have two young guys proud of being firefighters, proud enough they give some indication of who they are on their private little twitter accounts which almost no one read having their lives destroyed by shrill, hateful people simply because they off-handedly tweeted out, in one case a quote from South Park, and in the other some other kind of offhand blue collar remark.

I've had an odd life in that I'm something of an educated nerd, but I spent a lot of my earlier life around very blue collar people. I'm reasonably comfortable in both worlds. But It seems a lot of those in charge these days are of a dainty, delicate nature easily offended by fairly commonplace behaviour, specially commonplace blue collar behaviour.

There was a column in the paper the other day to the effect that a lot of young men don't know what it's supposed to mean to be a man in this day and age. To some it seems it means self-emasculating yourself and being exquisitely sensitive to the delicate sensibilities of every imaginable group of whiners, bitchers and complainers out there.

[Black Dog]

I've had an odd life in that I'm something of an educated nerd, but I spent a lot of my earlier life around very blue collar people. I'm reasonably comfortable in both worlds. But It seems a lot of those in charge these days are of a dainty, delicate nature easily offended by fairly commonplace behaviour, specially commonplace blue collar behaviour.

There was a column in the paper the other day to the effect that a lot of young men don't know what it's supposed to mean to be a man in this day and age. To some it seems it means self-emasculating yourself and being exquisitely sensitive to the delicate sensibilities of every imaginable group of whiners, bitchers and complainers out there.

Kind of a shame that you equate being a man with being an asshole. Seriously: why is the ability to freely disparage other groups so central to your conception of masculinity?

As for spending your life around blue collar people, that experience seems to have given you a real contempt and low expectations for them.

[Argus]

Kind of a shame that you equate being a man with being an asshole. Seriously: why is the ability to freely disparage other groups so central to your conception of masculinity?

It's not central, but certainly broadly outrageous humour, often sexual, is commonplace among all the blue collar guys I know. It does not imply or suggest they're racist, misogynistic or homophobic.

As for spending your life around blue collar people, that experience seems to have given you a real contempt and low expectations for them.

Nonsense. I simply understand them and don't denigrate them for minor things. Honestly, firing someone for tweeting a South Park line is the height of stupidity, and evidence of a priggish, humourless mentality.

Not that you've ever displayed the slightest hint of an understanding, much less an appreciation of humour...

Edited November 25, 2014 by Argus

[Black Dog]

It's not central, but certainly broadly outrageous humour, often sexual, is commonplace among all the blue collar guys I know. It does not imply or suggest they're racist, misogynistic or homophobic.

Someone who tells a racist, sexist or homophobic joke might not be racist, sexist or homophobic, but telling a racist, sexist or homophobic joke is exactly what someone who is racist, sexist or homophobic would do, so it's absolutely fair to believe someone telling a racist, sexist or homophobic joke is racist, sexist or homophobic unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Nonsense. I simply understand them and don't denigrate them for minor things. Honestly, firing someone for tweeting a South Park line is the height of stupidity, and evidence of a priggish, humourless mentality.

You denigrate them though the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Not that you've ever displayed the slightest hint of an understanding, much less an appreciation of humour...

This doesn't mean much, coming as it does from the least funny, most strident poster on this board.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Black Dog

[Argus]

Someone who tells a racist, sexist or homophobic joke might not be racist, sexist or homophobic, but telling a racist, sexist or homophobic joke is exactly what someone who is racist, sexist or homophobic would do, so it's absolutely fair to believe someone telling a racist, sexist or homophobic joke is racist, sexist or homophobic unless you have evidence to the contrary.

If you're easily offended, I suppose. The most liberal, tolerant guy I know tells the most outrageous jokes about women, gays, Jews, Muslims and ethnic groups. And he has no time for intolerant people and often mocks conservatives.

You denigrate them though the soft bigotry of low expectations.

My expectation is that they act like guys. Your expectation is that they act like frightened, emasculated librarians. I don't think that makes my expectations lower than yours, just more realistic.

This doesn't mean much, coming as it does from the least funny, most strident poster on this board.

There are at least twenty more strident, humourless people on this site than I am and you're pretty high on that list, chum.

[Black Dog]

If you're easily offended, I suppose. The most liberal, tolerant guy I know tells the most outrageous jokes about women, gays, Jews, Muslims and ethnic groups. And he has no time for intolerant people and often mocks conservatives.

It's always interesting that you always just happen to know someone who just happens to be able to confirm your world view. Convenient, even.

My expectation is that they act like guys. Your expectation is that they act like frightened, emasculated librarians. I don't think that makes my expectations lower than yours, just more realistic.

We've already established that, for you, being a guy means being an asshole. Which, I suppose, makes you a real guy's guy.

There are at least twenty more strident, humourless people on this site than I am and you're pretty high on that list, chum.

Aw, you only think that because you don't understand humor beyond what you read in paperbacks on the back of the shitter, chum.