Reply
JΔ$ Georgia 76360 posts
status 21st Nov '12

Good. She deserved to be fired.

Wiggity Wack 1 child; Connecticut 10780 posts
21st Nov '12

She was on a work trip, on company time. Her actions were disrespectful and unprofessional. This merits disciplinary action, of course.

Ellie. 34 kids; Arizona 25371 posts
21st Nov '12
Quoting Wiggity Wack:" She was on a work trip, on company time. Her actions were disrespectful and unprofessional. This merits disciplinary action, of course."


Was she on work time?

Did her company take a team building trip to that location? If not.... I'm assuming it was after hours and she was not getting paid for that time. Technically, it was not on company time.

Wiggity Wack 1 child; Connecticut 10780 posts
21st Nov '12

Her whole, "I want to challenge authority just for the fuck of it" attitude is pretty juvenile. Not someone I'd want working for me, personally.

Phallus Cranium cocksuck, LA, Sri Lanka 108799 posts
21st Nov '12

If she was on company time, I support her being fired.

If it was personal time, she was just being an asshole and is not representing her employer

Ellie. 34 kids; Arizona 25371 posts
21st Nov '12
Quoting .Colleen.:" If she was on company time, I support her being fired. If it was personal time, she was just being an asshole and is not representing her employer"


Yes.

Sweet Little Lies 2 kids; Deception, WI, United States 4141 posts
status 21st Nov '12

I think what she did was totally disrespectful. And her need to challenge authority? How old is she 14? Come on lady.

Wiggity Wack 1 child; Connecticut 10780 posts
21st Nov '12
Quoting Man. Bear. Pig.:" Was she on work time? Did her company take a team building trip to that location? If not.... I'm ... [snip!] ... If not.... I'm assuming it was after hours and she was not getting paid for that time. Technically, it was not on company time."

The article stated that she was on a work trip. Maybe she wasn't technically on company time, but I still think she should have acted professionally, as this wasn't a personal vacation.

MysticWitchKat 2052 posts
21st Nov '12

No because she has every right to be a twat of the highest order according to law. I find it amusing on one hand when people will demand the right to free speech, but expect someone to be punished for free speech they find distasteful.

*~Stella's Momma~* 1 child; Missouri 1654 posts
21st Nov '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting MysticWitchKat:</b>" No because she has every right to be a twat of the highest order according to law. I find it amusing ... [snip!] ... hand when people will demand the right to free speech, but expect someone to be punished for free speech they find distasteful."</blockquote>



:!:

JΔ$ Georgia 76360 posts
status 21st Nov '12
Quoting Wiggity Wack:" The article stated that she was on a work trip. Maybe she wasn't technically on company time, but I still think she should have acted professionally, as this wasn't a personal vacation."


This. Even if she was on personal time, a company has a right to fire whomever they wish. Employees are part of the representation of the company. If she was my employee, I wouldn't want her working for me. My husband is in the military, I have family members in Arlington and an uncle buried at the cemetery here at Benning.

Ellie. 34 kids; Arizona 25371 posts
21st Nov '12
Quoting Wiggity Wack:" The article stated that she was on a work trip. Maybe she wasn't technically on company time, but I still think she should have acted professionally, as this wasn't a personal vacation."


I could understand the company firing her over backlash.... but not over what she did on her own time, whether a company trip or not. Bottom line, she's a stupid immature bitch who disrespected a very sacred place. But IMO, you have to keep that apart from her work. :shrug:

Wiggity Wack 1 child; Connecticut 10780 posts
21st Nov '12
Quoting MysticWitchKat:" No because she has every right to be a twat of the highest order according to law. I find it amusing ... [snip!] ... hand when people will demand the right to free speech, but expect someone to be punished for free speech they find distasteful."

It's not really an issue of free speech. No one was trying to censor her or take down the picture she posted. She certainly has the right to say/post anything she wants, just as the company she works for also has the right to find the picture distasteful and discipline her for acting inappropriately on a company trip.

khigh 1 child; Fort Sill, Oklahoma 8101 posts
21st Nov '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting MysticWitchKat:</b>" No because she has every right to be a twat of the highest order according to law. I find it amusing ... [snip!] ... hand when people will demand the right to free speech, but expect someone to be punished for free speech they find distasteful."</blockquote>




That protects you from the fed, not your employer. The employer has the right to fire her.

MysticWitchKat 2052 posts
21st Nov '12
Quoting khigh:" <blockquote><b>Quoting MysticWitchKat:</b>" No because she has every right to be a ... [snip!] ... distasteful."</blockquote> That protects you from the fed, not your employer. The employer has the right to fire her."


The employer is only doing it because people are freaking out she did it however which proves my point.