Toronto Firefighters fired -- for tweets

[Black Dog]

Isn't it obvious? Murderers and terrorists are likely people with troubled childhoods who suffered at the hands of big, bad, whitey, and therefore we must have compassion for them. Meanwhile people who utter non-PC phrases are likely big bad whitey themselves and should have the full force of authority applied against them.

I'd like to see a mathematical formula that shows anyone thinks like this.

[guyser]

Where I used to work (CRA) virtually no one knew much of anything about the rules regarding electronic usage. That includes managers. Oh, they knew not to send porn or hate literature. But no one really understood they couldn't send jokes back and forth, say. One day the agency dragged a whole pack of people before disciplinary hearings with their directors for essentially, sending some jokes back and forth.

It rapidly became clear no one knew much of anything about the 'electronic networks policy' including managers and directors. It had grown and evolved year by year without anyone paying any attention to it. The agency held mandatory teaching sessions for all staff on the policy, but nevertheless, despite acknowledging a vast lack of understanding on the part of staff, continued to discipline those employees it had already found. Ignorance of the rules, as arcane and difficult to find as they were, was no excuse.

Rules are rules! Punishment must be meted out!

It struck me then as it does now that punishing people for doing something they didn't know wasn't allowed, and who hadn't caused any harm, was brainless and stupid.

As they say, cool story bro !

If that was some sort of analogy , well.....it isnt. I get what you are trying to say here but there is such a huge difference between the two to make it moot.

Your internal email is not availbale for public viewing.The messages are contained and controlled should they want.

Twitter is public, his uniform is public and he presented himself as a TFD employee.Huge mistake.

You and I both know well enough that had you in your past life tweeted something negative about the CRA whilst indentifying yourself as a CRA employee , say something along the lines 'Crushed another company in an audit today' that your bosses would take some action against you.

And as long as guys aren't sending tweets about south park all of them can convince themselves that most of the guys in those trucks aren't macho types who tell ribald jokes from time to time. Gotcha.

I dont think anyone thinks otherwise.

But slapping a womans head isnt ribald nor macho. Its the opposite. Gomeshi is macho??

Not to mention all that is beside the point. Keep it private and controlled and nothing happens.

Shout from the rooftops in uniform and ya takes what ya gets.

Here's an idea. How about they just tell him that if he's going to tweet stuff he shouldn't identify himself as a firefighter. Wouldn't that solve the problem? Or do you think firing him is going to change the temperament of a bunch of young macho guys?

Common sense in the first part. They did, he didnt read the policy.

In the second part, I am willing to bet that none of them post under the TFD banner or in uniform and none of them post publicly their profound stupidity.

Rob FOrd defence again.

[WestCoastRunner]

At least politically correct city dwellers anyhow. Once you leave the metro areas people relax quite a bit for the most part.

Sounds like a highly biased opinion based on nothing. You have never visited the west coast urban cities.

[jacee]

Here's an idea. How about they just tell him that if he's going to tweet stuff he shouldn't identify himself as a firefighter. Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Too late now. Who needs to be told that anyway?

Or do you think firing him is going to change the temperament of a bunch of young macho guys?

Yup. At least in uniform. Edited November 30, 2014 by jacee

[AngusThermopyle]

It might just cause them to engage the brain before spouting off on a public medium. Lots of young macho guys in the Forces who don't spout off publicly.

[Argus]

It might just cause them to engage the brain before spouting off on a public medium. Lots of young macho guys in the Forces who don't spout off publicly.

Haven't we grown beyond Voltaire? I remind you that Byng did not deserve to be thrown overboard either. In fact, he was court martialled as much to divert attention from the idiots in charge as anything else.

[Moonbox]

Argus these guys weren't tweeting 'mildly' offensive stuff. They were tweeting incredibly rude, offensive and vulgar garbage and were promoting violence against women (tongue in cheek or not). The're no better than the idiots in the US tweeting racist crap against black people in Ferguson who are finding themselves unemployed when they get caught.

I imagine the city of Toronto, like most private companies, has a code of conduct that its employees must adhere to. Your private life is your private life, but when you go out of your way to say idiotic stuff like that on social media where it can be screen captured and you're advertising where you work (or it can be easily traced), you're causing real harm to your employer. If these morons worked for a private company, it's very possible that people would complain and boycott that company as a result.

[Michael Hardner]

Moonbox has pointed out the important point: your social media is your 'public' face, and the fact that everybody with Facebook now has a 'public' face is a new thing that people need to get used to.

I would say that the emergence of this new aspect of civic life is a good thing, as democracy depends on people having informed and considered opinions and being responsible for them. Democracy doesn't work as well with large masses of people being advertised to; individuals with opinions are what it depends on.

[Argus]

Argus these guys weren't tweeting 'mildly' offensive stuff. They were tweeting incredibly rude, offensive and vulgar garbage and were promoting violence against women (tongue in cheek or not).

It was a South Park quote! And young men often try to be deliberately rude and vulgar. Blame our culture.

I retain an unshakeable belief in fundamental justice, and that requires weighing damage caused vs punishment meted out. I do not see the damage caused by a few tweets to be sufficient to justify destroying someone's life, especially on a first offense.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Argus

[Moonbox]

It was a South Park quote! And young men often try to be deliberately rude and vulgar. Blame our culture.

I missed that sorry. Young men do try to be rude and vulgar. I am guilty of it myself. The difference is that I choose my audience carefully. In the hockey dressing room? Absolutely. Among friends that I feel will get a laugh out of it? Sure. Do I mean it? Generally not, and people I'm with and know are aware.

Online, however, you do not choose your audience. Your potential audience is everyone. The target of your jokes/demeaning comments may very well read them and be angered/hurt by them. You might have idiots who don't know any better be influenced by those comments. They can also digitally captured and all sorts of information can be gleamed from your profiles. When someone says stuff like this and you can link the speaker to an organization, that organization is harmed by association. Not disciplining the offenders can potentially be seen as supporting/condoning their behavior.

I retain an unshakeable belief in fundamental justice, and that requires weighing damage caused vs punishment meted out.I do not see the damage caused by a few tweets to be sufficient to justify destroying someone's life, especially on a first offense.

You're minimizing the damage caused to the organization by the tweeting and exaggerating the punishment on the offender.Their lives aren't 'destroyed' and the damage a few vicious/moronic tweets can cause is significant. These fools didn't just say something stupid online either. They said some really disgusting and vicious stuff and one of them was dumb enough to make his association with the City painfully obvious.

[Michael Hardner]

It was a South Park quote! And young men often try to be deliberately rude and vulgar. Blame our culture.

My eyebrows went up when I read that. Do you have some set of criteria that you use to excuse individuals' behavior and put it on their 'culture' ? I have seen you characterize entire religions according to generalizations, but excusing individuals seems like a new one.

[Argus]

My eyebrows went up when I read that. Do you have some set of criteria that you use to excuse individuals' behavior and put it on their 'culture' ? I have seen you characterize entire religions according to generalizations, but excusing individuals seems like a new one.

The point I was making was their behaviour was NORMAL behaviour for young men. And I wasn't excusing it. I was pointing out it was harmless, especially as compared to ruining someone's life.

[Argus]

I missed that sorry. Young men do try to be rude and vulgar. I am guilty of it myself. The difference is that I choose my audience carefully. In the hockey dressing room? Absolutely. Among friends that I feel will get a laugh out of it? Sure. Do I mean it? Generally not, and people I'm with and know are aware.

And while I don't use them I most people who are not public figures probably figure that is the situation, that only a few dozen friends are going to read what they write.

When someone says stuff like this and you can link the speaker to an organization, that organization is harmed by association. Not disciplining the offenders can potentially be seen as supporting/condoning their behavior.

I think the harm is highly debatable, and no one said they shouldn't be disciplined at all. You can make it clear as an organization that certain behviour won't be tolerated without taking an axe to their necks.

You're minimizing the damage caused to the organization by the tweeting and exaggerating the punishment on the offender.Their lives aren't 'destroyed' and the damage a few vicious/moronic tweets can cause is significant.

There was NO damage. I'm not sure how I can be accused of minimizing zero. And being a firefighter is not like any old job. People put years of work and effort into getting hired, and there's only one game in town. It's not like when you get fired by Target you go and apply at Wal-Mart.

[guyser]

The point I was making was their behaviour was NORMAL behaviour for young men.

Agreed.

And now we know why Rules and Reg's are in place for social media.

[guyser]

There was NO damage.

The TFD didnt think so. THey felt that female recruiting and/or other aspects of being a firefighter could be placed in ill repute.

And being a firefighter is not like any old job. People put years of work and effort into getting hired, and there's only one game in town. It's not like when you get fired by Target you go and apply at Wal-Mart.

Firefighting, like policing, like engineering, like insurance brokers, like anything else of a rather small and close industry they go out after awhile of hiding and get another job. Chances are they have to move but the same societal rules apply.

A big city fireman jumps the queue plenty of times searching jobs in the FD's of the world.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Guyser2

[Moonbox]

And while I don't use them I most people who are not public figures probably figure that is the situation, that only a few dozen friends are going to read what they write.

Undoubtedly, but was an idiotic thing to assume. It's social media. It's not like these guys were unwittingly recorded conversing among friends. They published their statements openly on broad-reaching multimedia.

I think the harm is highly debatable, and no one said they shouldn't be disciplined at all. You can make it clear as an organization that certain behviour won't be tolerated without taking an axe to their necks.

It doesn't need to be made clear. It can be reasonably assumed by an intelligent and responsible human being. That sort of behavior isn't acceptable anywhere and, as I mentioned, I'm sure these folks also signed Code of Conduct clauses in their contracts.

As for what an organization can do to maintain their public image (which has significant monetary value), their options are unfortunately limited. Comments like we're talking about here demonstrate significant flaws of character to the public. Whether or not the organization disciplines this person, he's still the vicious bigot/idiot who promoted sexual violence or abuse against women and that's going to stick. The organization has a fairly permanent image problem in maintaining his employment.

There was NO damage. I'm not sure how I can be accused of minimizing zero.

because you're wrongly assuming that brand/public image don't have immense value. They do.

And being a firefighter is not like any old job. People put years of work and effort into getting hired, and there's only one game in town. It's not like when you get fired by Target you go and apply at Wal-Mart.

You're right. Becoming a firefighter is hard and being one is a privilege. The departments are flooded with applicants and only a select few are given positions. Knowing this, and knowing that you're employed by taxpayers, a certain modicum of human decency should be expected when communicating with the public.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Moonbox

[jacee]

Well I guess these guys' mothers saw their sons' stellar behaviour.

Here's a thought:

-how-to-fight-back-against-internet-trolls: tell-their-mothers/

Her approach is unconventional: Tracking down the boys' mothers online and sending them screenshots of the violent and offensive sexual messages.

.

[WestCoastRunner]

Well I guess these guys' mothers saw their sons' stellar behaviour.

Here's a thought:

-how-to-fight-back-against-internet-trolls: tell-their-mothers/

Her approach is unconventional: Tracking down the boys' mothers online and sending them screenshots of the violent and offensive sexual messages.

.

I love it. If mama ain't happy, no one is.

[Michael Hardner]

The point I was making was their behaviour was NORMAL behaviour for young men. And I wasn't excusing it. I was pointing out it was harmless, especially as compared to ruining someone's life.

"Blame our culture" sounds like "don't blame them", ie. an excuse.

[Michael Hardner]

And while I don't use them I most people who are not public figures probably figure that is the situation, that only a few dozen friends are going to read what they write.

This is true. I think what "we" have to get used to is that social media is a public face. To me, we're in a transition period where people are going to be held to their comments a lot more than in the recent past. There are, though, positive aspects to democracy here in that our democratic traditions were established at a time before mass media, and at a time when your public face was more known to your neighbours. It's impossible to predict where it will end up, but I see it as a moderating force.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a fascinating thing to observe large changes in media. I have seen, in my lifetime, the ascension of television, of cable television, the internet and social media. What would McLuhan say, I can only wonder...

[guyser]

What would McLuhan say, I can only wonder...

You know nothing of my work

[Michael Hardner]

You know nothing of my work

Don't you wish real life was like that ?

[guyser]

Don't you wish real life was like that ?

I have no idea what you mean. Im guessing tho you got the quote and where it came from?

[Michael Hardner]

I have no idea what you mean. Im guessing tho you got the quote and where it came from?

Yes, I gave you the next line in the film.