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

[Slightyamusedandsilly]

Read a couple of accounts this week of racist, public supporters of the far-right being sacked for spouting race / immigrant / trans hate on their personal social media accounts.

One was a doctors receptionist.
The other a school learning support assistant.

Both roles where they are likely to work with people in the groups they're publicly trashing online. One was recorded at a far-right rally, speaking about the amount of immigrants she was forced to support in her line of work.

What is your opinion on this?

YABU - People should be able to express their opinion without fear of losing their job. Freedom of speech.

YANBU - Anyone with any kind of public facing role/a role where their employer is likely disapprove of this should not publicly post this way and needs to understand that being sacked is their own fault.

There have been cases where people have gone ferreting about to “identify” people’s anonymous social media in order to doxx them. Should they be sacked if it’s discovered by underhand tactics? It’s an interesting question.

No no no, op thinks violent threats to gender critical people is something different and not for discussion here…

@ALovelyPinkUnicorn just start a new thread. Simples.

What did the TA actually say?

That’s a logical fallacy. They might be perfectly good at their job. If they are bad at their job, then they would be fired for being bad at their job.

There’s no need to fire them for something else on the assumption that it may or may not indirectly have an impact on their job.

Well, not sure that’s consistent with the existing body of ECHR jurisprudence. The only reason the freedom needs to be protected is because of the consequences of free speech. Are you usually hard of thinking?

Actually, it falls under the scope of what you are arguing about. Either aggressive, violent threats of abuse are sackable offenses or not, surely it shouldn’t matter who they are against.

Agree. I once had a post from a private account reported to my employer (think I know who) about me whingeing about us not getting a snow day when all the other businesses in the area did.

Mea culpa. Should NOT have posted it. Totally my error. However, my supposed friend at work was an arse also. Although I was the main culprit, obviously.

So are you going to answer the question or not? Or is it that you don’t want to out yourself as a hypocrite?

Did Aberdeen uni not initially try and deflect by saying Herbert s posts were nothing to do with his job?

I think it’s been done to death on here, TBH, but start another thread to focus on that if you wish to discuss it in greater detail. See? The joys of free speech.

Ok. So I'm gender critical, openly so. In the course of my work I help people including those who identify as trans.

Because it's my job I use their preferred pronouns, even those of 4 year olds, which I openly state (not at work) is ridiculous and probably an issue with the parent not the child.

If I attend a 'let women speak' rally and talk about my opinions should I be sacked?

Some people seem to think so - clearly my hateful opinions mean that I could not possibly do my job.

I disagree.

It was a speech, can't remember all of it, just the bit about her school gradually filling up with brown and immigrant kids when it was once all British and how it wasn't right. TBH as I was watching it I couldn't believe she was daft enough to stand up and say it. She must have known she'd be in huge trouble for it.

Were you particularly rude? Can’t imagine how that would be a disciplinary offence? Unless you threatened to bomb the CEO’s house or something!

@Slightyamusedandsilly If you didn't want to include discussion about 'anti trans' in this thread, why did you put it in the thread title??

The GP receptionist had some vile stuff on her very open FB page, I have no 9dea if it’s this she was sacked for or something else. However she works in a role where she will come into contact with asylum seekers and if her attitude is as foul at work (even subconsciously) then she cannot be trusted to do that job effectively.

I think the threshold needs to be that an employer can demonstrate that what you said actually has in reality reduced customer numbers or made service users avoid that employee and providing an alternative employee for the task is impractical or costly. Potentials, maybes, etc isn’t enough for me when it comes to your employer’s mores dictating your personal life, and I really believe in free speech even when that speech disgusts me, but I think an employer needs to be able to control its business too, so it’s a balance of responsibilities.

But it isn't what you or I think about it that really matters. It's a couple of things. It's what you actually say. And what your employers stance on it is.

I'm sure you know the boundaries of what your employer will accept and what they won't and know how not to cross them.

I'm so glad I don't work anymore.

if you work with diverse groups of people. ( which is everyone)
you should not have an intense hatred of these people

No it’s not off topic it’s the whole point. You either have to punish all statements that are offensive to some members of your user group or potentially none of them.

Violent threats to trans people are unacceptable.
Violent threats to gender critical people are unacceptable.

You have to treat both as equally serious otherwise as an employer you will be subject to and probably lose unfair dismissal cases.

For example, there are 9 protected characteristics under the Equality Act on what basis would you sanction an employee for offensive postings about service users with one of those characteristics but not sanction another employee for offensive posts about another characteristic.

Is publicly slagging off old people ok but slagging off immigrants not ok?

It’s really not that complicated.

It’s not just up to employers to decide what’s proportionate and sacking is going to be considered a last resort by courts, if what is being expressed is a protected belief such as this one. Read the link I posted, Kristie Higgs won a landmark case in the Court of Appeal.

The GP receptionist stoked her own fire by posting "Poor me, I was sacked because I was too nice to people and they want receptionists to be rude". People then scrolled down. We're not talking about anything close to concern about protecting single sex spaces; this was reposting a photo of a trans person with "Fucking state of this, imagine thinking they could pass" for example. I think anyone in any job is playing a risky game with posts like that.

If you're in a role that requires people to place trust in you in any way - and those working in education, the health service and the wider public sector are definitely in that category - then there is a responsibility on you not to undermine that trust. The Nolan Principles exist for a reason and they're a good guide for how those in whom the public have placed trust should behave in public.

I was a civil servant for a number of years and the importance of not just being impartial but being perceived to be impartial in how we went about our work meant curbs on other aspects of our lives. And that's as it should be.

For those employed by private organisations, these considerations will be based more on potential commercial impacts of damage to reputation. No organisation has an obligation to employ someone who is driving away business.