FHRITP

Wife's uncle was a bigwig at Walmart. When he retired, his wife said she was looking forward to finally being able to go to Target. They both said if she - not him, but his wife - had been spotted shopping at Target then he would have been in trouble.

I work for an outdoors company now. I had to dump a bunch of competitors' products when I started there.

 

And as I had said, he shouldn't have been. Unless he had a contract that prohibited such behavior, he should have sued them, like the teacher did his district.

Mere embarrassment isn't sufficient enough. I also noticed you didn't answer my question, which involves the exact same principles as the beer example.

 

I recall many, many years ago a reporter friend getting fired for appearing in print while marching at an anti-nuclear-power rally. He was off the clock, true. But when he was on the clock, one of the things he was responsible for was covering a big nuclear power plant.

Lots of times you can't separate the off-the-clock and the on-the-clock person. And the on-the-clock person's job ... and by extension, his or her compensation ... reflects that basic fact.

 

Actually, Doc was the one who brought up the beer guy. I merely shrank the employee's compensation by $195K, reduced the age down to a teenage age, and changed the business brands. Otherwise, same example.

 

Baron, Baron ... you're lost, my good man. I'm putting this as nicely as I can, but you need to move on to something else. The world doesn't work the way you think it does ... and nobody really thinks it should.

 

What if it's a sportswriter marching in the rally?

 

You know, when I first started here, I posted some stuff about college athletes and the NCAA, how they should get some compensation, how they should cover up logos since they're not getting paid for them, how they should get their own endorsements, etc. Several people told me similar things to what you were saying. Not the way the world works. It's always been this way. Won't ever happen.

Turns out, what I said is actually happening now.

 

This is not the same thing.

But I will give you this little tidbit that I know you'll find especially gratifying ... The paper that fired my friend? It became a part of the Gannett chain.

 

See, but there are papers that would consider a sportswriter marching in the rally to be a conflict of interest. I recall we had a thread here a few years ago in which I pointed out that conflicts of interest could be found in nearly everything.

 

I was marched into an editor's office in 2010 and given a stern talking-to about some Facebook posts which were very vaguely and diplomatically pro-Obamacare. Simply pointed out a few good things (IMO) the law would do.

It was made clear that the paycheck-signers might lose interest in signing paychecks of people who made Facebook posts contrary to the paper's editorial position.

Im sure I'd get the same talking-to if I had posted "FHRITP" on some woman's page.

At-Will Employment. It's not quite the same in Canada, but it's close.

They can do anything they want unless and until you have any leverage to do anything about it.

 

See, that, to me is where the overtime lawsuit, or the threat of it, comes in and gives you leverage.

Unless you're covering politics, or health care, or something else related, what you post on your own page and on your own time is not the company's business. If they want you not to post anything they disagree with, make them pay you. You are on company time then.

Take the At-Will Employment and turn it to your advantage. Oh, you consider my FB posts contrary to your paper's position and want me to stop and if I don't, I'm fired? Fine. Now I will consider myself on the clock at all times, since you insist upon regulating my private life. Have fun paying for 128 hours of overtime for each week I'm working here, since you say I'm representing the company at all times.

 

The company's response: Enjoy unemployment.