Slagging your employer off on Facebook

February 5th, 2011 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

3 News has a story on Julie Tyler who is facing the sack from Burger King after she said on “Real jobs don’t under pay and over work people like BK does!”.

They also have a copy of the official letters from BK.

Sometimes an employer can over-react to comments on Facebook, but in this case I don’t think Burger King is over-reacting. She directly slagged her employer off in a public forum.

If she had not named the employer, then that would not be an issue. Likewise if an employee just posts about a bad day at work, then an employer might be over-reacting to take action. But the comments made by Tyler undermine the good faith needed in the employer/employee relationship.

As it happens, she was also on a final warning for swearing and customer relations.

Tags: , ,

72 Responses to “Slagging your employer off on Facebook”

  1. Caleb (467 comments) says:

    would BK get away with posting about a shit employee on facebook…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    Who can feel sorry for thos woman? A complete moron who doesn’t know to behave.
    She deserves to be sacked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. adze (1,937 comments) says:

    I thought this bit was significant:

    Ms Tyler posted the comment on a friend’s private Facebook page. A colleague spotted it and passed it on to management.

    If the friend’s page was “private”, presumably that colleague was a mutual friend. I have no expertise in privacy law but I’m not sure a private page could be considered a published statement. I think people should be able to express opinion privately as long as what is passed doesn’t itself include confidential information – so I don’t think it’s reasonable to get the sack solely on that basis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Real workers can get real jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Herman Poole (297 comments) says:

    # Put it away (1,405) Says:
    February 5th, 2011 at 11:17 am

    Real workers can get real jobs.

    Working at BK is real job pia, you seem to have quite a similar attitude to the woman in the article.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Try not to be a retard Herman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Silly story. BK look heavy-handed and defensive. The young lady looks naive and immature. But she is just a young lady talking rubbish with her friends on the internet. If the job is too much work for the pay then she can go and work elsewhere. And that is what BK should tell her, verbally – stop all this silly legalistic crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. big bruv (13,452 comments) says:

    Sack the silly bint and do not provide her with a benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. muncha1 (19 comments) says:

    “If the friend’s page was “private”, presumably that colleague was a mutual friend. I have no expertise in privacy law but I’m not sure a private page could be considered a published statement. I think people should be able to express opinion privately as long as what is passed doesn’t itself include confidential information – so I don’t think it’s reasonable to get the sack solely on that basis.”

    I disagree. From reading the artilce I’m asuming that the post was a ‘wall post’. This makes it public to however many friends that person has, which could be several hundred. This does not present a positve image of the company and thus the employer was right to take action, to protect thier image.

    In many ways there are vast parellels between this and the Hone vs the Maori Party debacle. Both indivduals have made comments in a public forum that has undermined the credibilty of the organisation of the party and the organisation had no choice but to take action.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. AlphaKiwi (687 comments) says:

    Who let’s your boss or employer be friends with you on Facebook anyway? Fucking stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. adze (1,937 comments) says:

    “In many ways there are vast parellels between this and the Hone vs the Maori Party debacle. Both indivduals have made comments in a public forum that has undermined the credibilty of the organisation of the party and the organisation had no choice but to take action.”

    There is an important difference though. Hone explicitly gave his correspondent permission to pass his comments to the media. To me that is key; it transforms his comments from private to public.

    EDIT: I’ve just realised you were talking about Hone’s published article in the SST, and not the “white mofo” controversy. That’s different again: it’s fully public.

    Having said that I agree Facebook blurs the distinction between public and private, and it was certainly unwise of the young woman to express the opinion in that medium – especially given the fact she was already in trouble with her employer – so I don’t feel strongly on the issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. paws (197 comments) says:

    Sigh the same old same old type of comment after this type of post
    Who can feel sorry for thos woman? A complete moron who doesn’t know to behave.
    She deserves to be sacked.
    I dont think so BK

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Inky_the_Red (741 comments) says:

    A final warning for posting something only a couple of people can read seems over the top.

    What about the employee who printed and distributed the material? Has BK given that employee a warning as well? Or do different rules apply there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Mr Gronk (45 comments) says:

    It’s not obvious to me that Burger King is dead set on firing her. Their letter suggested that dismissal could be an outcome. Depending on how she conducts herself, they may be content to dock her some pay or give her a stand-down. Having said that, it sounds as though she was already trying their patience.

    I don’t agree with those who say Facebook is private. If the friend on whose wall she commented has 300 other Facebook friends, that’s larger than some small towns. It’s about as public as most of us would ever get without, say, printing flyers or expressing our views in the paper.

    One could also interpret her statement as an accusation that BK is breaking employment law. I’d be pretty ticked off if an employee of mine said that about me.

    Would she deserve to be sacked? For this alone, I’d say probably not. But if she has a history of poor self-control relating to her job, then yeah; she could do with the opportunity to reflect and grow up a bit.

    Re: malcolm’s comment about looking heavy-handed and defensive. I’ve no doubt it comes down to management covering their backsides. As I dare say you’d do if any oversight could see you asked to explain yourself to the Employment Relations Authority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,149 comments) says:

    More details in this ODT report. Some expert opinion:

    Media commentator Jim Tully, of Christchurch, said people in public life knew items posted on social media could get “picked up” and the same rule could apply to anyone else.

    “If you don’t accept that, you are living [in] cloud cuckoo land.”

    University of Otago School of Business (management) head of department Prof Alan Geare said when it came to social media, people would be well advised to remember any posting should be treated “like putting a note on a public noticeboard”.

    If people were not happy with any comments or photos entering the public domain, they should not post on the internet, he said.

    Some not so expert opinion:

    Unite national director Mike Treen said he was not aware of anyone being dismissed from a job for commenting in a private group on Facebook, which he likened to a modern version of a “pub discussion”.

    Posting anything in writing, especially on the Internet, is very different to a pub conservation. It can be even easier to shoot from the keyboard without having to face anyone while you do it, but people have to learn that as a potentially permanent record any “conversations” have potential risks attached, for some time.

    In any case, if a BK manager overheard an employee slagging off the company in a bar discussion they could also face repercussions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. paws (197 comments) says:

    No good feelings here the day before maori day

    big bruv (8,128) Says:

    February 5th, 2011 at 11:30 am
    Sack the silly bint and do not provide her with a benefit.

    you dont get a benifit if you are sacked from (BK) or anyone else straight away

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    I am sick to fucking death of these employers who think they own an employee.

    If she did it work time, its an employment issue.

    If she did it in her onw, private time, it is a private matter and none of the employers fucking business.

    If the employer does not like the comments, then it becomes a civil issue and should be treated exactly the same if those comments were made by a person not employed by the company.

    When I contract to work, I contract to exchange a set amount of my time for a set amount of the employer’s dollars. I do not hand over my life. I do not become their slave or their property.

    BK lost me as a customer a long time ago for its policy of employing dumb fuck asians who couldn’t understand a simple order in English. And its this sort of “we own you”mentallity that will stop me ever going back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    MNIJ,

    I don’t think BK is shedding any tears at the loss of your patronage.

    With your friendly attitude to Asians perhaps you might like to form a support network with Sherril George and Joana.

    As for your comment about the employee’s comments and whose business they are or are not – the legal process will determine that now won’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    When I contract to work, I contract to exchange a set amount of my time for a set amount of the employer’s dollars. I do not hand over my life.

    What if your contract says you can’t slag off the company? What is so wrong with two parties having a mutually agreeable contract?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Christopher Thomson (376 comments) says:

    Perhaps this experience will help her understand the maxim about biting the hand that feeds you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ben (2,412 comments) says:

    Silly girl. Go pick some raspberries, then, or start your own burger chain and see how far you get.

    MNIJ – as hudson said, there is already an overbearing process in place to decide whether BK has overstepped the mark, so you don’t need to second guess whether BK is acting like it owns the employee. But thanks for the racism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. elscorcho (153 comments) says:

    Here’s the key point: how do you prove Jane Doe’s facebook page is Jane Doe?
    I could find some pics of D.Farrar, set up a fake FB page, and write whatever I wanted.

    If your employer ever asks you about your FB, reply “I don’t have a Facebook page.”
    There is absolutely no way short of a search warrant at your house they can prove otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    So Jack, if you hired a cleaner for your house, and then saw them calling you an cuckolded idiot and your wife a whore on Facebook, would you think “huh, it offends me, but the comments were made outside of work hours so I guess I have to keep them employed”?

    Telling them to “fuck off, find another job, and dont expect a fucking reference” would probably be closer to a realistic outcome.

    That wouldnt be you showing that you “own” them, it would be them being shown they do not own their job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    “There is absolutely no way short of a search warrant at your house they can prove otherwise.”

    They dont have to prove it 100%. They only have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Proving ownership of an active Facebook account is not that difficult.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. elscorcho (153 comments) says:

    Kimble, tell me how they are going to prove it?
    Pictures mean nothing, anybody could obtain them elsewhere.
    Like I said, if I were your FB friend I could download your pics and setup a fake you without any difficulty.

    They’d have to prove that your IP accessed that account.
    Remember the onus is on the prosecution here, not me. I don’t have to prove anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    elscorcho,

    All they would have to do is show that there is enough personal information that it is unreasonable to expect the account to belong to anyone else.

    If there is two years of information, for example (two years of activity, two years of other people tagging the account in their photos, etc) then it is unreasonable to assume that someone has gone to all that trouble in order to get the person fired from their job at a fast food restaurant.

    An active account is hard to disown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    ben, pointing out that BK is overstaffed with dumb fuck asians who couldn’t understand a simple order in English is not racist. It is a statement of fact.

    Saying “BK is overstaffed with dumb fuck asians” may be racist.

    See the difference?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Doug (407 comments) says:

    Kimble
    1.Proving ownership of an active Facebook account is not that difficult.
    It is very difficult when you sign up to Facebook you have no rights, Facebook own all content.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    Actually, “BK is overstaffed with dumb fucks who couldnt understand a simple order in English” is not racist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    elscorcho, (this comment was stuck in moderation, I dont know why)

    All they would have to do is show that there is enough personal information that it is unreasonable to expect the account to belong to anyone else.

    If there is two years of information, for example (two years of activity, two years of other people tagging the account in their photos, etc) then it is unreasonable to assume that someone has gone to all that trouble in order to get the person fired from their job at a fast food restaurant.

    An active account is hard to disown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RightNow (6,780 comments) says:

    MNIJ, I would assume that you also believe BK should have a right to post a comment like “Julie Tyler has a poor work ethic, bad manners and would be overpaid on the minimum wage” on their website, or their Linkedin or Facebook profile?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Jim (404 comments) says:

    MyNameIsJack: If you are unable to make yourself understood in a BK outlet then I’d say the dumber fuck is not the one behind the cash register. But whatever, have it your way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. nasska (10,827 comments) says:

    Most contracts have an “in good faith” clause inserted somewhere. I would have thought that this employee’s actions would have been provocative enough to be in breach of this proviso.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. grumpyoldhori (2,412 comments) says:

    Christ this is bloody dumb of BK, have none of the company management read about the McLibel case ?
    This is part of the decision the judge came to in London with McLibel, notice the part about fast food and low pay.
    http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/mclibel.html

    ((As for workers’ rights, the judge noted that McDonald’s paid low wages and this tended to push down wages throughout the fast-food sector. He mentioned “the hard and sometimes noisy and hectic nature of the work, occasional long, extended shifts including late closes, inadequate and unreliable breaks during busy shifts, instances of autocratic management, lack of third-party representation in cases of grievance.” He also criticized the practice of sending workers home early in their shift, without pay, when business was slow: “This practice is most unfair … and in my judgment it shows where the ultimate balance lies … between saving a few pounds and the interest of the individual, often young employees.))

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. paws (197 comments) says:

    Wow in some gastly future NZ could be over run by some on kiwiblog, enough to make you slit your veins or raise up and reclaim freedom from right wing suppression, um just a idiol thought with 7s on a glass of sav blanc as we go into maori day/ weekend with hone /key/ john hatfield running the shithouse

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. starboard (2,489 comments) says:

    Actually, “BK is overstaffed with dumb fucks who couldnt understand a simple order in English” is not racist

    …but thats not what MyNameIsRetard said…he said….

    “BK lost me as a customer a long time ago for its policy of employing dumb fuck asians who couldn’t understand a simple order in English.”

    …now THATs racist…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. scrubone (3,074 comments) says:

    When I contract to work, I contract to exchange a set amount of my time for a set amount of the employer’s dollars. I do not hand over my life. I do not become their slave or their property.

    Of course, but the contract signed by this person put more obligations on her than simply turning up to work. One of those obligations was to not bring her employer into disrepute in social media.

    She may not like the rule, but there is little question that she broke it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. grumpyoldhori (2,412 comments) says:

    scrubone if it is a fact she is underpaid and overworked I can not see how BK can have a problem with that being made public.
    Or if asked if they are well paid for the work they do if asked, even if they are poorly paid, do staff have a duty to lie ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    So, starboard, expecting to be understood in the natioanl language is now racist?

    Guess you’re a dumbfuck, too.

    The dumbfucks I was referring to are asian and incapable of understanding English. Its the second bit that excludes it from being racist.

    But even if the whole thing WAS racist, so fuckingh what?

    I do not like chinese in greater concentrations than 1 part per 10,000. Wherever they come to predominate, the area turns to shit. Filthy shops, filthy footpaths, filthy people.

    Prove me wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. DJP6-25 (1,295 comments) says:

    She’s lucky she’s not in any of the Asian Tiger economies. She’d be out the door at once.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    MyNameIsKyle,

    You really are doing a great job of showing your true colours

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,819 comments) says:

    So just a market correction then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. scrubone (3,074 comments) says:

    scrubone if it is a fact she is underpaid and overworked I can not see how BK can have a problem with that being made public.

    That’s just a weird comment. Wages for fast food staff are no state secret, and she hardly did an undercover sting did she?

    Or if asked if they are well paid for the work they do if asked, even if they are poorly paid, do staff have a duty to lie ?

    Straw man. No one asked her, she freely offered an opinion on social media even though she signed a contract effectively saying she would not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Rex Widerstrom (5,307 comments) says:

    I’m sure many of those supposedly aghast at this woman daring to offer an opinion rather than doffing her cloth cap to t’management (as they are carried by on the shoulders of their humble employees) have occasionally criticised DPF’s running of his blog, his choice of topic etc.

    Yet he provides this service to us through a great deal of effort on his part and, to his immense credit, tolerates a great deal of criticism. He’s even, I suspect, taken not of it sometimes and changed tack accordingly. Yet he’d have every right to tell any one of us – who are far greater parasites to him than this woman is to her employer since she gives them her labour – to go take a jump.

    Similarly Winston, whatever other faults he may have, was always willing to listen to criticism and respond without threat or rancour. It’s about being mature, accepting you can improve, and engaging your critics (who, any good marketer will tell you) can become your best evangelists.

    Reaching for the billy club, on the other hand, is the hallmark of a bully.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    You do not have any metric by which to say that fast food workers are underpaid. You might THINK they are underpaid, or that they deserve to be paid more. But that is an opinion, not a fact.

    Overworked is a slightly different matter as the 40 hour week has been established as a fair level. Did this chick have to work more than 40 hours? More than 50? More than 60? Is that too much? Who can really say?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    Hey DPF, is there any room in the demerits system for political campaigning, troll-like, non sequitur?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Steve (4,517 comments) says:

    The dismisal is by design. Slag the employer, get the sack, and then cry. This person does not want to work even to the extent of not getting any Welfare for X weeks. Tosser, loser.
    You are next Phool. You are unemployable but that does not mean the Taxpayer owes you a living

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    “I’m sure many of those supposedly aghast at this woman daring to offer an opinion rather than doffing her cloth cap to t’management…”

    Straw-man. She can have an opinion. What she doesnt have is any right to expect zero consequences for expressing it.

    No-one is saying she CANT say it, or that she shouldnt be allowed to if she wants. Nobody is against free speech. They are saying that IF she says it, others have the right to act in response, and the response of BK seems reasonable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Jim (404 comments) says:

    I do not like chinese in greater concentrations than 1 part per 10,000. Wherever they come to predominate, the area turns to shit. Filthy shops, filthy footpaths, filthy people.

    Prove me wrong.

    Umm, ever been to Singapore?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. elscorcho (153 comments) says:

    Kimble I disagree entirely
    The burden of proof is on the employer. There is absolutely nothing linking the facebook page for ‘El Scorcho’ with me (if that were my real name.) The only proof is the IP address. Without that, I can say ‘Look, it’s not my page, I don’t have a page’ and there’s pretty much nothing you can do to deny it. The burden is on YOU proving the page is mine, I don’t need to refute anything, and there’s absolutely nothing about two years of activity that proves it’s mine.

    Trolling is an artform, and 2 years of fake FB is entirely reasonable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. nuinui (8 comments) says:

    My name is Jack …. If the employer does not like the comments, then it becomes a civil issue and should be treated exactly the same if those comments were made by a person not employed by the company.

    Employment Law is a type of civil law…. under contract law

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    Two years of fake FB IS entirely reasonable. Two years of pretending to be someone else? No, not very reasonable.

    I said an ACTIVE account is hard to distance yourself from. Unless you have tried to be anonymous, your activity on FB will usually result in enough information for someone to be fairly sure it is you. If you have 250 friends, and they are conversing with you on a daily basis, the chances of someone keeping up a fake account in your name over any decent amount of time is very slim.

    Which is massively more likely? That someone has pretended to be you for a couple of years, posting pictures with you (hacked?), conversed with your friends, set up events even, without you knowing or your friends finding out and telling you, just to say something possibly inflamatory on the wall of one of your friends that MIGHT possibly get you fired from your (shitty) job? OR it is your account and you did something stupid?

    It is beyond reasonable doubt that the account is yours. Any judge would have to very stupid to buy that BS story.

    Taking your argument to its logical extent, which would mean having to prove guilt with zero doubt rather than reasonable doubt, it would be impossible to say that anyone did anything ever. Video evidence? Weta studios is out to get you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Rex Widerstrom (5,307 comments) says:

    Kimble suggests:

    Straw-man. She can have an opinion. What she doesnt have is any right to expect zero consequences for expressing it.

    Ah I see. So if I say “Kimble, you can have an opinion. What you don’t have is any right to expect zero consequences for expressing it. So disagree with me and I’ll come round and kick your cat” is in no way improper, initimidatory or just plain over-sensitive.

    An employer / employee relationship should not affect the employee’s right to hold and express an opinion without fear of retribution (other than if the employer can prove defamation) or the opinion is in some way illegal (“someone should burn the boss’s house down”) in which case it’s a police matter as well as an employment one.

    If the woman had said “their food makes you sick” or “there are cockroaches everywhere” and that was untrue, then fair enough. If an employer isn’t capable of hearing “you don’t pay me enough and you work me too hard” (and who hasn’t said that about an employer?!) then a short course in HTFU would seem to be in order.

    And yes, I’ve run businesses and employed people. In general I’ve paid above the going rate and offered decent conditions (such that employees of much larger firms were constantly asking for jobs) and thus never had to worry about being called something nasty. But if it had been about wages and hours, I couldn’t have cared less.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Dirty Rat (504 comments) says:

    Kimble @ 7.09

    At what age were you when you stopped running to mummy for help ?

    Man up – its in your handbag, next to your tampons

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Dirty Rat (504 comments) says:

    I Take it Katie Acklin got the same warning ?

    As for giving an Abusive customer the swerve, fuck thats good, and having another customer back her up is priceless. If it were my kid being paid minimum wage and having to put up with the abuse and swearing by some drunken short fat ugly glasses wearing chick, I’d get D4J to kneecap the bitch.

    Poor wee thing desrves a medal for standing up against that shit,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    Rex what the fuck are you on about?

    She wasnt told to shut up or be fired, she said something stupid and got canned for it. Cause – Effect.

    BK never made any threats. BK responded to being slagged off.

    I have complained about my workplace, pay, coworkers, and conditions. But I would never do so in a public forum. Because to do so would be fucking stupid.

    There is a huge difference between bitching about your boss to your friends, and writing something with an audience of the entire western world. She didnt simply have an opinion, she expressed that opinion publicly, deliberately doing BK harm.

    Lets change it up a little bit, what if one of your favoured suppliers, one that provided a product that wasnt proprietary and that you could get anywhere for no additional cost, had a section on their website telling everyone that your business was ripping them off? Would you go back to that supplier once you discovered it?

    No, you wouldnt. The value to you of getting that product specifically from them is not offset by the annoyance you feel at the reputational damage done to your business.

    Would you agree with their complaints that you had no right to remove your patronage? What would you think of arguments from other people that your actions were that of a fascist? Is it your fault that your former supplier now doesnt make much money?

    No, its their fault, for saying what they did. They might be right, you might not be paying enough. But does that mean you would still shop there? Hardly likely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    Is completely offset, rather than is not offset. LDO

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    And be quiet Dirty Rat, the adults are talking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Rex Widerstrom (5,307 comments) says:

    Kimble:

    With respect I think the question of whether she was warned before the action was taken is moot… BK are still stifling free speech. Certainly no other employee will dare speak out about conditions there now. “I’m not paid enough and made to work long hours” isn’t a stupid comment, it’s a legitmate complaint. “My boss is fat and sweats a lot and I hate him” is a stupid comment.

    I also find the comparison between supplier and employee to be stretching the analogy a little, though I agree it has some validity. The supplier, however, presumably has other clients so the withdrawal of my custom isn’t likely to be devastating, wheresas getting the sack is (something to which I can attest from experience!) and thus is a punishment that doesn’t IMO, fit the crime.

    I’m not certain how public her message was (I’m not on Facebook and don’t “get” this talk of walls versus messages etc) but someone above mentioned she was silly to have her boss as an online “friend” so I’m assuming that if someone Googled “Burger King jobs” her comment wouldn’t show up? That, I think, is a crucial point – the extent of the potential damage.

    But to get back to your supplier question, yes of course I’d be angry. But that’s based on two assumptions: 1) I wasn’t being exploitative and 2) (and most importantly) the person making the comment had made no effort to raise the concern with me first. Again I’m not sure whether the woman in question had made any effort to express her discontent directly.

    Incidentally, does anyone know if “Undercover Boss” screens in NZ. Cheap tabloid trash… but sometimes fascinating tabloid trash all the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    The comment wasnt stupid, the commentER was. It was stupid to say such a thing in a public forum because it had foreseeable negative consequences.

    I dont think you appreciate what “free speech” means. Free speech doesnt mean you can say something and then have everyone else act as if you didnt say it. BK is only stifling ‘free speech’ as much as a wife is stifling free speech when she leaves you after you go on live TV to tell the world that she has a nasty cooch. (Would it matter to her if it was only an infomercial at 3am?)

    “The supplier, however, presumably has other clients so the withdrawal of my custom isn’t likely to be devastating…”

    Well then lets assume the supplier doesnt have any other customers. That would just make what they did all the more stupid.

    “I’m not certain how public her message was…”

    Thats the thing, you cant know how how wide an audience something will have on the internet. Which makes her comments more stupid.

    ” But that’s based on two assumptions: 1) I wasn’t being exploitative and 2) (and most importantly) the person making the comment had made no effort to raise the concern with me first.”

    1) lets say you dont think you are being exploitative but he does. Its a difference in opinion, which is all this BK situation is about. Its opinion, not fact. Just because you agree with her opinion doesnt make it a fact, either.

    2) lets say they did raise it, but you dont value their product enough to pay them more. In fact, no one values their product enough to pay them more for it. As that is probably close to what the reality is in the BK case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    And whenever fast food workers complain about the hours and workload, arent they really just complaining about their life circumstances that mean they cant earn more money in a better job elsewhere?

    I mean, no one is an indentured servant in NZ, you can always quit your job. There is little keeping you in that job other than what you impose on yourself. Employment contracts are more onerous on the employer than they are on the employee.

    What is it that makes people think that they have a right to demand that someone pay them more than anyone else is willing to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Dirty Rat (504 comments) says:

    Choke on a Double Whopper fattie

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    That from the guy practically sucking off D4J a few hours ago? Brilliant.

    Why do you have to call him in to kneecap someone? Dont have the guts to do it yourself? Go run to daddy, little boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    Well said Kimble at 1.52am.
    By the way, don’t you sleep? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. starboard (2,489 comments) says:

    The dumbfucks I was referring to are asian and incapable of understanding English.

    …MyNameIsRetard

    Why dont you open your small mind and perhaps learn some of the Chinese language.. maybe you could interact with them..Im sure even you after a while would realise they are not bad people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Jack, not being able to speak in another language is not dumb. My English is worst than yours but you’re more dumber than me and that’s a statement of fact. Those asians would similarly call you a dumbfuck for not knowing a single chinese word, exactly as Starboard mentioned above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. elscorcho (153 comments) says:

    Kimble…

    “I said an ACTIVE account is hard to distance yourself from. Unless you have tried to be anonymous, your activity on FB will usually result in enough information for someone to be fairly sure it is you. If you have 250 friends, and they are conversing with you on a daily basis, the chances of someone keeping up a fake account in your name over any decent amount of time is very slim.”

    Let’s posit two situations: (1) is your situation, (2) involves someone setting up another profile.
    From the perspective of an independent observer, both (1) and (2) appear identical. There is absolutely no difference. We can only identify a difference with additional information that links Person X with Profile Y through the IP address used to login, which will be linked to an account (and even then, it is possible in a shared flat to have that used by others.)

    Your strawman of artificially created video is ridiculous. Video evidence clearly shows a person undertaking an act, whereas FB shows *someone* undertaking an act under a particular label that is linked to a *specific person*. That’s why individuals don’t get tickets for speed camera fines, a rego isn’t enough, there needs to be a positive identification of the individual.

    You cannot deny that for an independent observer, both situations would appear identical, and in such cases the benefit of the doubt needs to go with the defendant in the absence of additional information.

    And this is without going into the “someone logged in as me” argument (which is separate, so don’t worry I’m trying to slither out of this argument). The next stage would be “yes I’ve got an FB but no that comment was my flatmate/boyfriend/girlfriend.” Not sure about you, but at least every week I see 1-2 people with comments on their page because they
    ‘ve left themelves logged in. And I only have 230 friends, so at 2/230 each week…there’s a 63% chance any individual on the page will have at least one fake comment a year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. elscorcho (153 comments) says:

    And indeed even with the artificial video, we could forensically examine the video to identify if there was manipulation – which has been done (and should be if someone states they were at a different place at the time.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    scorch the example of the video not even being 100% proof of guilt is not a straw man. It is the logical extension of your argument. Even video evidence COULD be falsified.

    You COULD claim that the person in the video isnt you, and forensic examination MIGHT find that it was faked, but what if the crime involved is allowing your dog to crap on someone else lawn. How ridiculous is it to claim some mighty conspiracy in that circumstance?

    It is unreasonable that someone would pose as you for 2 years, going to the time and effort to create and maintain a facebook account. And it is nigh on impossible that that titanic effort of impersonation would culminate in one seemingly innocuous comment about your workplace (one that you happen to agree with at that). The final thing is just too mundane for the first thing to be realistic.

    Similarly it it unreasonable that someone would take the opportunity of your logged in account and your absence to pretend to be you and write something you would say and that you agree with.

    Only reasonable doubt has to be eliminated before guilt is determined. UNreasonable doubt can never be eliminated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Rex Widerstrom (5,307 comments) says:

    Kimble:

    It was stupid to say such a thing in a public forum

    If it was a “public forum” (which in this situation I’d use to describe a web page readable by anyone and which could conceivably be googled) I’d agree she was stupid. That’d be like writing it on a billboard. But didn’t she just communicate it to friends, as one might have done in a letter in the days when people still wrote them? And if it had have been in a letter I doubt it’d be causing this sort of fuss.

    Its a difference in opinion, which is all this BK situation is about. Its opinion, not fact. Just because you agree with her opinion doesnt make it a fact, either.

    I understand that. In the hypothetical supplier situation you raised above I’d be angry, undoubtedly. Whether I’d choose to starve the person (by cancelling my order as his only customer) for expressing the opinion that he thought I should be paying more for his goods… not so sure. It certainly wouldn’t be my first response. But then I’ve been called far worse :-/

    There is little keeping you in that job other than what you impose on yourself.

    Yeah, many’s the time I’ve chided myself for indulging in this “eating” and “having a bed to sleep in” lark.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    Rex the wall is similar to having a billboard outside your house, so every time someone walks past, they can see what is said on it. The chick wrote something on someone elses billboard.

    In the supplier example, you arent his dad. If you dont buy his stuff he will have to find someone else who will. You dont owe him your patronage. You might feel sorry for him, but you certainly dont have to.

    “Yeah, many’s the time I’ve chided myself for indulging in this “eating” and “having a bed to sleep in” lark.”

    You will engage in SOME employment to provide for yourself, but thats different from the reasons you engage in employment in a specific job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. bka (135 comments) says:

    Kimble, the comment was on Katie Acklin’s page which is not publicly accessible, and may not have been at the time, so it is not quite telling the world, it is telling however many people Katie Acklin has as friends, that number isn’t visible.
    Lots of people think they are overworked and underpaid, that’s the basis of negotiations on pay and conditions.
    Reading the conversation from the page, the context of the remark is some banter after someone has had a long week of the kind that most people are familiar with, and Katie Acklin’s friends are likely to read it as such.
    I think it would be more desirable to bring out these clauses in the contract for things like personal allegations about management, statements about poor hygiene, law violations, myths about what’s in the coleslaw and the like.
    The concern with the remarks about being overworked and underpaid would be the effect on hiring quality employees, I don’t think taking strong action on this will attract them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.