[News] Leafs part ways with recently hired goalie coach after social media history comes up

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It’s the fault of people who (a) want to work for a highly visible company with set policies about inclusion and (b) proceed to publicize views the company doesn’t want associated with itself. That’s corporate freedom. So tell me, is there no view you find bad enough to merit firing an employee?

If it has no bearing on how the employee does his job, and is not against the law in itself, it does not merit firing. Employers are not God and they are not the law. It is not their job to police the private lives of their employees.

Now, you throw out this garbage:

If he’d openly supported making interracial marriage illegal, would that be OK, since it doesn’t affect his performance?

And then you have the gall to accuse me of this:

But thanks for the over the top characterization.

Pot, meet kettle.

But since you ask, and since you obviously think the question is some kind of ‘gotcha’ and you now have a nice knockdown argument against me, I will say this:

Yes, it would be OK if he ‘liked’ a tweet calling for interracial marriage to be illegal, because that is none of his employer's business and none of the general public's business. Leave it outside the workplace, and let his employers do the same.

And I say that as a man who is in an interracial marriage, and whose parents were also. Stick that in your pipe and woke-smoke it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Poe969

Tomorrow you get called into your bosses office. "So our team found a picture you posted and it turns out you've put mayo on a hotdogs. We don't tolerate that sort of thing around here. You're fired."

There’s nothing you can do about it. Other than get your pay in lieu of reasonable notice.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If it has no bearing on how the employee does his job, and is not against the law in itself, it does not merit firing. Employers are not God and they are not the law. It is not their job to police the private lives of their employees.

Now, you throw out this garbage:



And then you have the gall to accuse me of this:



Pot, meet kettle.

But since you ask, and since you obviously think the question is some kind of ‘gotcha’ and you now have a nice knockdown argument against me, I will say this:

Yes, it would be OK if he ‘liked’ a tweet calling for interracial marriage to be illegal, because that is none of his employer's business and none of the general public's business. Leave it outside the workplace, and let his employers do the same.

And I say that as a man who is in an interracial marriage, and whose parents were also. Stick that in your pipe and woke-smoke it.

It’s actually not “none of his employers business”, according to actual laws, but OK.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You’ve never seen his twitter feed. And apparently to you, if you post nothing but likes of anti-vaxxers, racists, and homophobes, that means nothing about your own views. That defies common sense.

I'm not convicting him based on your opinion of his opinions. In fact, I'm not convicting him at all. It's not my business, not your business, and shouldn't have been MLSE's business. But large corporations are deathly afraid of online mobs and will fire anyone – anyone – to appease them.

Don't pretend to yourself that this is about anything but appeasing a mob.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There’s nothing you can do about it. Other than get your pay in lieu of reasonable notice.

Then you find that every other company in the field has a policy of not hiring anyone who's been fired by your employer for alleged social-media violations.

I've worked in an industry where this was literally the case.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It’s actually not “none of his employers business”, according to actual laws, but OK.

So there is an actual law requiring his employer to fire him for doing things that are not against any actual laws? Cite, please.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm not convicting him based on your opinion of his opinions. In fact, I'm not convicting him at all. It's not my business, not your business, and shouldn't have been MLSE's business. But large corporations are deathly afraid of online mobs and will fire anyone – anyone – to appease them.

Don't pretend to yourself that this is about anything but appeasing a mob.

I don’t need to pretend. Because IMO it’s about a high profile company choosing not to associate itself with a person whose views they feel don’t represent the company well. Do you think they should have been forced to hire him? They said they wouldn’t have if they’d known.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So there is an actual law requiring his employer to fire him for doing things that are not against any actual laws? Cite, please.

No, there is an actual law saying they can fire him though. And there are actual laws saying a person’s social media is open for his employers to consider.

The Leafs didn’t have to fire him. But they were permitted to. And they were permitted to based on whatever they wanted.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I don’t need to pretend. Because IMO it’s about a high profile company choosing not to associate itself with a person whose views they feel don’t represent the company well. Do you think they should have been forced to hire him? They said they wouldn’t have if they’d known.

I've seen this play out too many times to be fooled. It's about a company that thought there was no good reason not to hire a person, and then when they hired him, they suddenly discovered that there was a torch-waving mob at the door demanding vengeance. So they sacrificed the new hire with a public announcement that they were doing it specifically because of the mob's complaints.

If this wasn't about appeasing the mob, they had no cause to drag the man's social-media history into the open, or to make any statement at all beyond ‘This man is no longer employed by MLSE’.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, there is an actual law saying they can fire him though. And there are actual laws saying a person’s social media is open for his employers to consider.

The Leafs didn’t have to fire him. But they were permitted to. And they were permitted to based on whatever they wanted.

Evidently you think that whatever is legal is right — for MLSE, because you agree with them, and therefore they were right to fire Dusty Imoo. But you don't think that whatever is legal is right — for Dusty Imoo, because you don't agree with him, and therefore he was wrong to like tweets. (Either that, or you think that what happens on Twitter is much more serious than, you know, being able to earn a living or work in your profession or trivial stuff like that.)

You want a man who broke no laws to be subjected to extralegal punishment for his opinions. But I already knew you were in favour of censorship, public shaming, and that you violently hate freedom of speech.

[jaginla]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm not convicting him based on your opinion of his opinions. In fact, I'm not convicting him at all. It's not my business, not your business, and shouldn't have been MLSE's business. But large corporations are deathly afraid of online mobs and will fire anyone – anyone – to appease them.

Don't pretend to yourself that this is about anything but appeasing a mob.

This was his social media which is accessible by all public. If you choose to have things available to the public then you better be prepared for the backlash that follows. He made it everyone's business when he decided to associate his account with these posts. That is the reality of social media today and what a lot of people aren't getting. Its not like someone went into his house and found his diary, this is a public forum.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Evidently you think that whatever is legal is right — for MLSE, because you agree with them, and therefore they were right to fire Dusty Imoo. But you don't think that whatever is legal is right — for Dusty Imoo, because you don't agree with him, and therefore he was wrong to like tweets.

You want a man who broke no laws to be subjected to extralegal punishment for his opinions. But I already knew you were in favour of censorship, public shaming, and that you violently hate freedom of speech.

Tell me what was illegal about him being fired. I’ll wait.

He has freedom of speech. He hasn’t been censored at all. He just found out that it comes with consequences, which I always thought the right favoured. And “violently hate”? Riiiiight.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Tell me what was illegal about him being fired. I’ll wait.

I never said it was illegal. I said it was wrong. If you had a conscience or a sense of morals, you would understand that there is a difference between those two things.

He has freedom of speech. He hasn’t been censored at all. He just found out that it comes with consequences, which I always thought the right favoured. And “violently hate”? Riiiiight.

You believe that people who use social media to say things you disapprove of should lose their jobs and their careers. That doesn't sound like support for free speech to me.

I will laugh for hours on the day it happens to you.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by jaginla

This was his social media which is accessible by all public. If you choose to have things available to the public then you better be prepared for the backlash that follows. He made it everyone's business when he decided to associate his account with these posts.

OK, then, people can lash back at him in kind – with words, with social media posts, with social opprobrium if they wish. Instead, they went nuclear and destroyed his livelihood.

I do hope you have never in your life said anything that any other human being might disapprove of. Because if you have, the same thing can happen to you. I see it all the time.

[Southside]

Is it any wonder so many have turned away from social media? I only follow for hockey news now, but given CP does such a good job of that I might just walk away from it too. I'd hate to follow the wrong person, or like the wrong tweet and have my livelihood put in peril.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I never said it was illegal. I said it was wrong. If you had a conscience or a sense of morals, you would understand that there is a difference between those two things.



You believe that people who use social media to say things you disapprove of should lose their jobs and their careers. That doesn't sound like support for free speech to me.

I will laugh for hours on the day it happens to you.

Nope, never said that. I said people who say things that their employers disapprove of may be fired and there’s nothing wrong with that, assuming the employer pays them their legal pay in lieu of notice. I also think that employees should be smart about their employer’s expectations.

You will be waiting a while for it to happen to me, however, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I’m not an employee. And if I do say something that causes people to no longer retain me, that’s on me, and I won’t be blaming some imaginary twitter mob.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I've seen this play out too many times to be fooled. It's about a company that thought there was no good reason not to hire a person, and then when they hired him, they suddenly discovered that there was a torch-waving mob at the door demanding vengeance. So they sacrificed the new hire with a public announcement that they were doing it specifically because of the mob's complaints.

If this wasn't about appeasing the mob, they had no cause to drag the man's social-media history into the open, or to make any statement at all beyond ‘This man is no longer employed by MLSE’.

Aren't corporations that sell stuff and need to keep their customers generally happy, by their very nature, in the business of "appeasing the mob"? If the mob hates green m&ms, rest assured that m&m inc. is going to appease the mob by ditching the green m&ms. And if the mob hates homophobic facebook comments (or whatever), rest assured that m&m inc is not going to tolerate public homophobic comments by its high profile employees.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Aren't corporations that sell stuff and need to keep their customers generally happy, by their very nature, in the business of "appeasing the mob"? If the mob hates green m&ms, rest assured that m&m inc. is going to appease the mob by ditching the green m&ms. And if the mob hates homophobic facebook comments (or whatever), rest assured that m&m inc is not going to tolerate public homophobic comments by its high profile employees.

People love that free market until it doesn’t work out for them.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Nope, never said that. I said people who say things that their employers disapprove of may be fired and there’s nothing wrong with that, assuming the employer pays them their legal pay in lieu of notice. I also think that employees should be smart about their employer’s expectations.

So how many years in advance should Mr. Imoo have anticipated MLSE's social-media policy of 2021?

You will be waiting a while for it to happen to me, however, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I’m not an employee.

Bully for you. So you're fine with any horrible thing happening to people who are employees, simply because you feel a sense of personal immunity? Lovely.

And if I do say something that causes people to no longer retain me, that’s on me, and I won’t be blaming some imaginary twitter mob.

Twitter mobs are not imaginary. Good grief, don't you even know what century you're living in? I HAVE SEEN MULTIPLE CAREERS DESTROYED BY TWITTER MOBS IN A SINGLE DAY. IT IS BLOODY EVIL. And you APPROVE of it!!!!!

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So how many years in advance should Mr. Imoo have anticipated MLSE's social-media policy of 2021?



Bully for you. So you're fine with any horrible thing happening to people who are employees, simply because you feel a sense of personal immunity? Lovely.



Twitter mobs are not imaginary. Good grief, don't you even know what century you're living in? I HAVE SEEN MULTIPLE CAREERS DESTROYED BY TWITTER MOBS IN A SINGLE DAY. IT IS BLOODY EVIL. And you APPROVE of it!!!!!

I was unconvinced until you went all caps. Now I’ve seen the light.