I remembered watching a doumentary as I say about how Russia deal with stuff like this. Some woman went on a one person protest, which was the only type of protest she is allowed. She broke no laws, but was still arrested. The authorities then expressed to her employers, their wishes, she was subsequently sacked. Be careful what we wish for people.
Yeah they will probably get him on social media usage and his political views, not fitting with the company image.
Or the employment contract, in which they're entitled to put whatever they like in line with employment law. Social media clauses are very common these days.
Yeah most jobs ive been in, have had social media contracts, and I've known people in those various companies to be sacked based on them. First time I've known someone to get sacked for a banner though. Obviously I appreciate it's connotations, my concern is now, his only option will be state benefits, afterall, who's now going to employ him, everyone will have the same view as the company that dismissed him, especially as he's across every paper.
The bloke was a massive ****ing racist. Some of his FB posts were put up on twitter yesterday, they weren’t ‘alternative opinions’ they were just grubby out and out racism. Same goes for his gf. By doing what he did he outed himself for what he was, and it’s had consequences. Tough ****ing ****e.
Maybe so Tobes, I don't disagree, but do we now pick up the bill for the rest of his life to support him. Just wondering where we are going with all this.
They wouldn’t have needed the thought police if Winston had just written of his distrust of the Party on Facebook.
We should also remember he wasn't sacked initially on his political views or twitter account, he's been sacked after it was highlighted by the media he flew a banner, even though no criminal charges were pursued.
The media didn't name him, he named himself. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bi...s/burnley-fan-jake-hepple-behind-18473390.amp
I suppose this lad could argue that he had not been sacked in the past for his political views or twitter comments, and are the company seriously suggesting they didn't know he was a racist?
The social media clause i can understand (in some ways), if you have linked yourself to a company and then gone on to attract attention with stupid behaviour or comments it could reflect on the company in a small way. Lets all be honest here, if we found out a baggage handler from Easyjet had been in a drunken brawl one Saturday night or using offensive language none of us would ever fly with them again would we, would we? With the political persuasion aspect, a company would have to put that in it's interview stage as a question otherwise it would be their fault for not asking. Might be regarded as a bit prejudicial or discriminatory if they did that though
I couldn’t care less if he ends up shovelling chicken **** for the rest of his life tbh mate. Not my concern. Loads of racists like him cry buckets about their supposed ‘loss of free speech’ when the reality is, they can say what they ****ing like, but what they haven’t got, is a right to free speech without consequence. You come out with racist ****e on social media and pull a stunt like he did, you take the consequences of what you’ve done to yourself.
Perhaps, and I agree you'd expect at least some of the management to know his views. I guess they would counter that by saying he's done something of extremely high profile that could potentially reflect very poorly on the company should they not act, in violation of clause x.
Yeah high profile incidents are always likely to cause a bigger backlash for the person involved. Rightly or wrongly.
You might not care, but we will all be picking up the bill for him and why just racists, let's have a field day, there are thousands of domestic abusers out there, let's reel them all in and put them out of work too. Btw bro his banner was not racist, the connotation was, so I think we need to set up a thought police for all future banners.
Probably not great PR for any small local business to be known as the company that stuck by someone like that. Win-win in any sort of employment tribunal should it come to it I’d have thought.
Ultimately everyone has the choice when they sign an employment contract. Don't agree with some of the terms? Can always look elsewhere. I agree it's less likely to be about 'political views' for what it's worth.
I wonder how many companies are employing racists, there's a lot of states that could end up without coppers in America, that would be fun, with no one to protect the civi's.
