AIBU to think public racist / anti immigrant / anti trans posts can justify dismissal?

The difficulty is that you are straying into a moral judgment about private behaviour and applying it in a work context.

What does being a racist mean objectively?

Let’s take a situation based on a recent occurrence
Someone posts online complaining about organised Muslim prayers in a London park - is that racist?

Subsequently the Royal Parks publicly confirmed that all organised collective acts of religious worship are forbidden in the park.

Some people argue that the prayers were unorganised not collective, so there is a genuine public debate about whether the prayers being complained about breached park bylaws, and should not have taken place.

Does that change how the original post should be viewed? What if the employer had started disciplinary proceedings based on the first post?

The challenge is that a lot of situations are going to fall into grey areas. You would have to assess the motive of posting what they did not just the content.

Outside of very clear cut cases I think employers would have to be very careful.

The posts:

54. The posts regarded as potentially offensive by the Respondents included,
    but were not limited to, the following:

55. A link to a petition to the International Olympic Committee that male athletes
    should not compete in female sports.

56. A link to a petition that women have the right to maintain their sex-based
    protections, as set out in the EQA to include female only spaces such as
    changing rooms, hospital wards, sanitary and sleeping accommodation, refuges,
    hostels and prisons.

57. A reposting of a tweet from feminist heretics stating that it looks like JK
    Rowling is soon to be targeted by the Inquisitorial Squad for following the wrong
    people on Twitter. This included a highly contentious cartoon to include “Ah
    Crap!!” It’s “He Who Must Not Be Deadnamed!” and followed by “I identify as the
    Nero of this Tale!.
    ” For ease of reference subsequently referred to as the JK
    Rowling post.

58. Reposting a tweet from an organisation called Mayday with a cartoon
    showing two women prisoners with one asking the other “what are you in for?”
    and the other saying “for saying that Ian Huntley is a man”
    .

59. Forwarding a post from Fair Play for Women dated 8 December 2018
    entitled “meet Karen” and referring to Karen as a male prisoner who had
    committed sexual assaults against women in prison and asking to sign their
    petition to get the prison policy changed.

60. Forwarding a post from Fair Play for Women dated 3 October 2018
    containing a link to Private Eye and a satirical post stating:
    “Boys that identify as girls to go to Girl Guides.
    Girls that identify as boys to go to Boy Scouts.
    Men that identify as paedophile go to either”
    The Respondents contend that this conflated transgenderism with paedophilia.
    The Claimant says that whilst she had not given great consideration to the post
    at the time that she considered it was about predatory males seeking to take
    advantage of any available situations rather than being specific to the
    transgender community. For ease of reference subsequently referred to as the
    “Girl Guides/Boy Scouts” post.

Following a complaint, Social Work England deemed her Facebook posts to be "discriminatory in nature" and started an investigation.
The process culminated in a formal sanction, which was later withdrawn.
'Landmark victory'
Westminster City Council suspended Ms Meade on charges of gross misconduct, saying her social media posts could be deemed "transphobic".
The charge of gross misconduct was eventually dropped, but while the investigation was carried out Ms Meade was suspended from work for a year.
Ms Meade took both organisations to an employment tribunal, which was heard in July.
In the judgment, external published on Monday, the tribunal said all of her Facebook posts and other communications "fell within her protected rights for freedom of thought and freedom to manifest her beliefs".

@seanconneryseyebrow he literally got kicked off a course for that? There was nothing else?

This case involved Social Work England

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67934781

@5128gap "I think if you work for an organisation so far removed from your personal beliefs that posting your opinions would get you sacked, you're in the wrong job and should do yourself a favour and find one where you're a better fit"

but if you work with human beings, and most of us do, then there is a vast array of opinions that could be considered to be connected with them in some way.

So whether I'm an accountant or a teacher or a builder or a warehouse operative, I am going to encounter all sorts of people. It isn't the issue that the organisation necessarily has a particular set of views.

Hopefully we do our jobs professionally and politely and treat everybody well. But we might have opinions that piss them off. Does that mean we're not allowed to express them on personal social media?

That brings us back to the case @Ereshkigalangcleg has quoted. Similar facts. He would have a case.

I work for a local authority, but I’m really concerned about immigration and the impact it’s having on the UK. I would never share my opinions on this on social media. But what really annoys me is the assumption that it’s not ok to voice concern for immigration but not the opposite?

I was on a masters of social work course a few years ago, and the year before a fella had been kicked off the course because his social media said he was against homosexuality due to his religious beliefs. He was a christian and didn't believe gay marriage was acceptable.

I disagree with him entirely but it scared me hearing that. Im a die-hard terf, and i very quickly made myself anonymous. I still am and Im an independent now but I still worry because Social Work England are extremely captured so Id be buggered if anyone knew. So I do think people have to be careful. I dont know though what is right here. The problem is what constitutes hate speak depends entirely on your perspective.

As far as I'm aware, there is no such thing as 'just another left wing pile on' in employment law. The complaint will either be upheld or dismissed based on the evidence. If upheld the employer may or may not decide to take disciplinary action.
This is an interesting discussion on personal and employment rights, equally applicable to those of all shades of the political spectrum. Is it too much to ask that we could have it without the need for a cheap pop at 'the left'?

And again, the onus is on employers to make a decision whether it’s proportionate to sack someone. The decision of the CoA in Higgs was binding, and there it was found to be disproportionate precisely because she was (offensively) expressing her protected belief both in the Christian faith and that sex is more important than gender identity.

Define "ant-trans", for instance. Is it say that that men can never be woman, that a man in a dress is just that?
What's "racist" and "anti-immigrant - concern about large numbers of illegal migrants and their high rate of sexual offences?

I think if you work for an organisation so far removed from your personal beliefs that posting your opinions would get you sacked, you're in the wrong job and should do yourself a favour and find one where you're a better fit.
I accept there have been notable exceptions to this, such as when organisations have had mission creep, and adopted controversial new policies that threaten the pre existing rights of others, and i have great empathy for people who feel silenced in these situations.
But they are the exceptions. Generally speaking, if your employers values are that far from your own, you don't belong there.

That would depend on whether the complaints are valid or just another left wing pile on.

Being racist is not ' having an opinion'...

Hate speech in general is not acceptable.

These people liaised with the general public as part of their role and their employer needs to be certain that they will not discriminate against anyone because of their race, backgrounds, sexuality and so on.

Most employers also don't want to be associated with bigots or racists that could tarnish the company's brand.

@Slightyamusedandsilly “The point of the thread really is to see if others think that sacking is appropriate if the publishing of personal opinions which are inconsistent with your professional responsibilities.”

I don’t think so

As long as it doesn’t cross over into incitement to violence but I realise the lawyers will argue over that one

I do think we’ve had a couple of cases that do crossover into incitement to violence but clearly the police and the courts/juries don’t agree with me.

"Which contradicts your work and goes against the stance of your employer."

So, nobody can go against the stance of their employer? If you work for a cigarette company, you have to be pro-smoking?

I don't believe people in low-level roles should have to behave as representatives of their employers in their free time. They're allowed to be individuals outside of work.

If the posts were bad enough, they'd be illegal. If not, I don't think they should lose their jobs.

It entirely depends on the circumstances. Sometimes it will be justified, other times not.

Do you have links to these cases so we can understand them?

You’re the one who mentioned trans in your thread title, but yet you don’t want a discussion about it.

I recognise your username - you also post on the Sex and Gender boards quite a bit, and yet you’re trying to tell us to head on over there so you don’t have to listen to us. Weird.

There is a line between free speech and hate speech, yes. Where would you draw it?

Define transphobia as TRAs seem to think that everything including covid is transphobic.

Define anti immigration hate as even saying that we need to deport foreign criminals is classed as racism and hate.

Nobody should be fired for legally protected speach or holding an opinion that others disagree with.

If teachers are complaining about having to try and teach children who don't speak English i can understand why and tbh I've lived in countries where they dont speak English and the rules were if you want to go to a state school you must speak the language, if you cant you have to pay for private education. Its the same for all public services learn the language or pay for your own translator.
Let's be absolutely honest we should not have to pay for translation services for people who have lived in this country for more than 6 months as they should learn English if they want to live in the UK and it takes the average person 3 months to learn a language that they hear everyday and are submerged in. If someone has lived in the UK first more than a year and still cant speak English that is a choice they have made which is part of refusing to integrate with the native British culture and they dont belong here.

@Slightyamusedandsilly why do you believe that people should only be allowed to express views that you agree with?

Exactly.