Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74

[LEMon]

I have a scrap of sympathy for him, in that he posted anonymously, and didn't expect it would connect to him or his employer.

That sympathy is swamped like an ant in a tidal wave with disgust at him being so vile as to post such things on a memorial forum, while hiding behind anonymity and "I just wanted to stir the pot".

I think people REALLY need to learn that "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from consequences". If your speech reveals you to be a vile, revolting person - well, yes, the rest of society may not want to be around you. Words, as well as actions, have consequences, even if you don't get jailed by the government for them.

I think the way he sort of shrugs and claims that he really feels badly for the family - while telling them he's rejoicing their daughter is dead - indicates a strange sort of disconnect some people have. It's as though they really don't see their words as having any meaning in the real world. Yes, he wanted to play troll, and have everyone mad at him (anonymously, of course). That they were angry because he was causing real pain, and behaving disgustingly, doesn't seem to occur to him. I presume (until he finds himself unemployable in the small town he lives in) he still thinks it was a rather witty joke.

This is beautifully written Twik, it sums up exactly how I feel.   

I too feel a scrap of sympathy for him - I'm sure he's just your everyday guy, who doesn't go around acting as heinously as his online comments might indicate.   But actions have consequences, and life is choices.   He wanted to be a troll, his employer didn't want to be associated with that kind of heartless behaviour.   His attitude towards the whole thing is off - he's sorry he lost his job, not sorry that he potentially caused greater hurt to an already grieving family and friends.   

FTR, I don't totally disagree.  I just don't think his job had anything to do with it.

I go to look up the person who is going to be working with me and discover this:  Will I be using the company?  So connected to his company, in my opinion, but most importantly in his boss' opinion.

[Mental Magpie]

I have a scrap of sympathy for him, in that he posted anonymously, and didn't expect it would connect to him or his employer.

That sympathy is swamped like an ant in a tidal wave with disgust at him being so vile as to post such things on a memorial forum, while hiding behind anonymity and "I just wanted to stir the pot".

I think people REALLY need to learn that "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from consequences". If your speech reveals you to be a vile, revolting person - well, yes, the rest of society may not want to be around you. Words, as well as actions, have consequences, even if you don't get jailed by the government for them.

I think the way he sort of shrugs and claims that he really feels badly for the family - while telling them he's rejoicing their daughter is dead - indicates a strange sort of disconnect some people have. It's as though they really don't see their words as having any meaning in the real world. Yes, he wanted to play troll, and have everyone mad at him (anonymously, of course). That they were angry because he was causing real pain, and behaving disgustingly, doesn't seem to occur to him. I presume (until he finds himself unemployable in the small town he lives in) he still thinks it was a rather witty joke.

This is beautifully written Twik, it sums up exactly how I feel.   

I too feel a scrap of sympathy for him - I'm sure he's just your everyday guy, who doesn't go around acting as heinously as his online comments might indicate.   But actions have consequences, and life is choices.   He wanted to be a troll, his employer didn't want to be associated with that kind of heartless behaviour.   His attitude towards the whole thing is off - he's sorry he lost his job, not sorry that he potentially caused greater hurt to an already grieving family and friends.   

FTR, I don't totally disagree.  I just don't think his job had anything to do with it.

I go to look up the person who is going to be working with me and discover this:  Will I be using the company?  So connected to his company, in my opinion, but most importantly in his boss' opinion.

Depends what his job is, really, and that's part of why I don't think it has anything to do with his job.  If he was a high school teacher, I would think it does have to do with his work.  If he's a video game programmer, not so much.

[LEMon]

Depends what his job is, really, and that's part of why I don't think it has anything to do with his job.  If he was a high school teacher, I would think it does have to do with his work.  If he's a video game programmer, not so much.

Apparently he worked at a men's clothing store, which I take to mean he was a salesperson.  Now I would feel extremely like he needed to get out of his line of work if he worked at a younger person's store, but I still feel he 'represents the store to the public'.  So I am more neutral than I was because I had crossed this man and the realtor mentioned briefly.  That is were my original comment focused - a person who I would use for a major transaction where their character would impact me.

The 'stirring the pot' comment felt really wrong.  You want to make a conversation?  Do it on your pages, not on the page dedicated to mourning the dead. 

I guess if I were his boss and I had a choice, I would let him go.  But I can see why someone would make the opposite decision.

[onikenbai]

Apparently he worked at a men's clothing store, which I take to mean he was a salesperson.  Now I would feel extremely like he needed to get out of his line of work if he worked at a younger person's store, but I still feel he 'represents the store to the public'. 

He worked at the Richard's Big and Tall.  Now, I don't know if you have them in the US, but it is a store specifically targeting people who are often the target of cruelty and ridicule.  Let's just sit back and enjoy the irony...

[artk2002]

WARNING - may include emotional triggers.

Man who posted "glad girl is dead" loses job - says he's "sorry if he offended anyone". http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1272587--ontario-man-fired-from-job-over-comment-posted-on-memorial-page-to-amanda-todd

Oh, and he "feels a little regret and remorse". Just so you don't think he's a jerk or anything. I mean, he's got his feelings, right?

I don't think he should have been fired for something he did on his own Facebook page.  Please don't get me wrong, I think what he did was reprehensible, even if he was "just curious"; but I don't think it had anything to do with his job.

I think he should. He's shown he has no moral compass whatsoever. That's not somebody I want working for me. How could I possibly trust him?  There are plenty of people out there who would like the job who don't have the emotional age of a toddler. What he did was just as stupid as poking a wasps nest with a stick -- somebody got (fatally) stung. That shows an incredible lack of judgment.

People keep wanting compartmentalize their lives. That their private life has absolutely nothing to do with their work life. The world doesn't work that way. You can't be an angel at work and a demon outside -- the demon will leak through.

[Slartibartfast]

In a situation like the one linked above, I tend to agree with the employers.  Is it this person's fault that they happened to win the media lottery and get tons of attention for saying something that plenty of other people do anonymously with no repercussions?  No, that part is just bad luck.  But they did have the choice whether or not to do something so news-worthy and mind-blowingly callous that it necessarily grabbed media attention when it was brought to light - and they chose to do it anyway.  "But I didn't think I'd get caught!" isn't a valid excuse from my four-year-old and it shouldn't be a valid excuse for an adult either.

[Iris]

In the US, at least, most employees work in an "at will" environment where their employers need little actual reason to fire them provided the employees are not fired for reasons falling under federally protected classes.  That means they have a lot of latitude when it comes to determining what aspects of an employee's behavior outside the workplace they disapprove of.  Just ask Violentacrez.  Apparently his bosses didn't want their business associated with someone who posted and encouraged the posting of pictures of underage girls, unconsenting women, women being beaten, and dead girls: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/michael-brutsch-reddits-biggest-loses-job-identity-gawker_n_1967727.html

I was just coming here to post him!

Is it wrong that this makes me happy?

[gypsy77]

WARNING - may include emotional triggers.

Man who posted "glad girl is dead" loses job - says he's "sorry if he offended anyone". http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1272587--ontario-man-fired-from-job-over-comment-posted-on-memorial-page-to-amanda-todd

Oh, and he "feels a little regret and remorse". Just so you don't think he's a jerk or anything. I mean, he's got his feelings, right?

I don't think he should have been fired for something he did on his own Facebook page.  Please don't get me wrong, I think what he did was reprehensible, even if he was "just curious"; but I don't think it had anything to do with his job.

I think he should. He's shown he has no moral compass whatsoever. That's not somebody I want working for me. How could I possibly trust him?  There are plenty of people out there who would like the job who don't have the emotional age of a toddler. What he did was just as stupid as poking a wasps nest with a stick -- somebody got (fatally) stung. That shows an incredible lack of judgment.

People keep wanting compartmentalize their lives. That their private life has absolutely nothing to do with their work life. The world doesn't work that way. You can't be an angel at work and a demon outside -- the demon will leak through.

My employer has an official policy about things that happen outside of the workplace. It's none of their business, until the consequences of an action you take on your own time effect what happens in the workplace.

So, if something I do on my own time comes to the attention of my workers, and is something they find offensive to the degree that they are unable to maintain a working relationship with me, then it is something I can be disciplined for, including termination. Factor in that chances are, as he was publicly outed, the store likely had at least  a few customers come in, just to berate him, and  the store for supporting him, and I can't really blame them for terminating him.

If he knew up front like I do that this is something his company takes seriously, then I have even less sympathy for him. I don't buy freedom of expression as anargument against this, either. I believe someone upthread already pointed out freedom of speech does not equal freedom of consequences. In any event, freedom of speech refers to the retrictoons of speech by government, not private entities.

[Twik]

Apparently he worked at a men's clothing store, which I take to mean he was a salesperson.  Now I would feel extremely like he needed to get out of his line of work if he worked at a younger person's store, but I still feel he 'represents the store to the public'. 

He worked at the Richard's Big and Tall.  Now, I don't know if you have them in the US, but it is a store specifically targeting people who are often the target of cruelty and ridicule.  Let's just sit back and enjoy the irony...

I wonder if that's one reason he was fired so quickly? As artk2002 says, the "demon will leak through". I can't imagine he would have been a great salesperson to people who may have negative body image. He may already have been on shaky ground with his employers.

[ladyknight1]

LOL! I've had managers who said "You can be replaced!"

Not too long later, Office Mgr hired a second assistant because the workload I was handling solo had greatly increased.  Office Mgr said she was hiring based on personality because anyone could be taught to do what I do but that it was hard to find a good personality.  I'm really not surprised that the brokers 2nd Admin supported were really frustrated because she didn't know how to do anything (a 20-something recent college graduate who didn't even know how to use the tab key in Word, rather than using the spacebar -- this was 2002 so not that long ago and not unreasonable that she should've known how to use a computer reasonably well).  2nd Admin didn't last very long either but, fortunately for her, she resigned of her own volition (nice girl but really had no business doing computer-based tasks).

Snip

I am responsible for training our administrative clerks. We have never been successful at hiring someone based on their personality. After multiple failures, we hire for skill set. I have now experienced two people who were incapable of learning how to use a database, even after 7 months of intense training.

[blue2000]

More than one troll has claimed to be innocent of hostile intentions.  So often, they excuse themselves with "I just wanted to stir the pot" and "It was a social experiment."  They have little or no comprehension that there are real people out there, not just pixels on a screen.  Then the trolls get upset when the pot boils over, and the experimental guinea pigs show up at their doors. 

I read somewhere (here maybe? can't recall) about a gentleman who was being harassed online. He ended up quitting most of his activities because he couldn't take it anymore. The troll started sending death threats directly to his house, and including his kids. After years of this, he finally found the jerk - it was the teenage son of one of his best friends. The kid burst into tears when confronted and said he meant it as a joke. The gentleman was very nice in his response. Too nice, I thought. He allowed the kid to clean up his act instead of being thrown in jail.

I think it showed the disconnect some people have between 'anonymous online user' and 'real life'. They cannot comprehend that just because no one will reach through the screen and throttle you doesn't mean they don't want to. Or for that matter, that you wouldn't deserve it.

[Snooks]

More than one troll has claimed to be innocent of hostile intentions.  So often, they excuse themselves with "I just wanted to stir the pot" and "It was a social experiment."  They have little or no comprehension that there are real people out there, not just pixels on a screen.  Then the trolls get upset when the pot boils over, and the experimental guinea pigs show up at their doors. 

I read somewhere (here maybe? can't recall) about a gentleman who was being harassed online. He ended up quitting most of his activities because he couldn't take it anymore. The troll started sending death threats directly to his house, and including his kids. After years of this, he finally found the jerk - it was the teenage son of one of his best friends. The kid burst into tears when confronted and said he meant it as a joke. The gentleman was very nice in his response. Too nice, I thought. He allowed the kid to clean up his act instead of being thrown in jail.

I think it showed the disconnect some people have between 'anonymous online user' and 'real life'. They cannot comprehend that just because no one will reach through the screen and throttle you doesn't mean they don't want to. Or for that matter, that you wouldn't deserve it.

There's been some doubt about how true that story is http://www.resistradio.com/news/questioning-the-trollocaust-did-leotraynor-really-suffer-vile-hate-campaign

I haven't seen a response from the guy addressing the inconsistencies/unlikely situations raised in the article.

[Ceallach]

LOL! I've had managers who said "You can be replaced!"

Not too long later, Office Mgr hired a second assistant because the workload I was handling solo had greatly increased.  Office Mgr said she was hiring based on personality because anyone could be taught to do what I do but that it was hard to find a good personality.  I'm really not surprised that the brokers 2nd Admin supported were really frustrated because she didn't know how to do anything (a 20-something recent college graduate who didn't even know how to use the tab key in Word, rather than using the spacebar -- this was 2002 so not that long ago and not unreasonable that she should've known how to use a computer reasonably well).  2nd Admin didn't last very long either but, fortunately for her, she resigned of her own volition (nice girl but really had no business doing computer-based tasks).

Snip

I am responsible for training our administrative clerks. We have never been successful at hiring someone based on their personality. After multiple failures, we hire for skill set. I have now experienced two people who were incapable of learning how to use a database, even after 7 months of intense training.

I don't hire based on personality, but I do hire based on soft skills - things like communication style, empathy, conscientiousness, attitude towards work and colleagues etc.   Those things are important to success and can't be trained, so I'd rather have somebody with the right attitude who needs a bit of training, than have somebody with the right skills but poor attitude.  They'll perform better in the long run.     

But yes they definitely need to have the basic hard skills too!   Yikes at 7 months of database training, you must be going batty trying to deal with that.   

[PastryGoddess]

On a project i worked many years ago, I had a particularly difficult supervisor to deal with.  I was working on a special assignment and did what I thought was a fine job producing an excellent deliverable.  My supervisor disagreed and we had some words over it.  He ended with "Look, I can get a chimpanzee in here to do your job by tomorrow.  Now get back to your office!"  I bit my tongue and went back.  He was gone less than a month later.

Fast forward 18 months.  I'm in a hiring position on another program and interviewing.  Guess who walks in all dressed up in his Sunday best looking for a job?  Yep!  He took one look at me as he placed his resume on my desk and said "This isn't going to go well, is it?"  I just smiled sweetly and said "Sorry, I'm full up on chimpanzees! But thanks for coming in!" as I very visibly dropped the resume into the trash can at the side of my desk. 

I know, that was entirely unfair to chimpanzees everywhere and I apologize to any I offended with my actions and re-telling of this story.

Pwnage for real!

[Morticia]

On a project i worked many years ago, I had a particularly difficult supervisor to deal with.  I was working on a special assignment and did what I thought was a fine job producing an excellent deliverable.  My supervisor disagreed and we had some words over it.  He ended with "Look, I can get a chimpanzee in here to do your job by tomorrow.  Now get back to your office!"  I bit my tongue and went back.  He was gone less than a month later.

Fast forward 18 months.  I'm in a hiring position on another program and interviewing.  Guess who walks in all dressed up in his Sunday best looking for a job?  Yep!  He took one look at me as he placed his resume on my desk and said "This isn't going to go well, is it?"  I just smiled sweetly and said "Sorry, I'm full up on chimpanzees! But thanks for coming in!" as I very visibly dropped the resume into the trash can at the side of my desk. 

I know, that was entirely unfair to chimpanzees everywhere and I apologize to any I offended with my actions and re-telling of this story.

This strikes me as retaliatory rudeness. Instead of returning his insults in kind, I like to show people like this a more graceful behaviour , in the hopes they will learn something. I am not saying you should have hired him, but I wouldn't have left him feeling the burn either.