Disciplinary over Tweets - I need a hand hold

[BelgianFudge]

Does anyone have any experience of facing disciplinary over getting into a twitter spat? Nothing to do with the employer, but someone has sent screenshots to them and disciplinary action has been initiated.

Sorry for scant detail but I'm understandably worried about revealing much.

Also remember this investigation is not a court of law. They don't need to forensically prove anything, just flood their policies.

If your DH feels they are not following policy, he still cannot stop them sacking him. His recourse would be an employment lawyer and an unfair dismissal case - that is the time for legal proof.

He should be hoping for a final written warning instead of dismissal. How much he reflects on his own poor judgement (And so doesn't try to justify it) can have a bearing on outcome here.

"idiot ... dickhead ... arrogant, immature twat"

Interesting language coming from people stating that those who use abusive terms and argue on social media should face disciplinary action at work.

Hey @BelgianFudge, I have no advice here but just wanted to say that I’m sorry you’re getting so much crap on here, it’s ridiculous. Of course you and your DH know he has made a mistake, you don’t need random strangers on the internet to harp on about it.

I hope the outcome from this isn’t serious and that your DH is okay. Twitter is such a nightmare place, but it does sound like they have been going out of their way to monitor your DHs online activity and keen records which is a bit odd.

Let us know how it all works out. X

OP I’m really sorry about some of the responses you’re receiving on here when you came on looking for support and advice. Think there’s possibly a bit of schadenfreude going on. I hope you and your DH are ok and can move on from this positively whatever the outcome x

I came off twitter because of the abuse I got. I have contacted a person’s employer over an extremely offensive tweet. I don’t regret it. If they identify their employer in their account and then go on to act very badly I’m afraid they deserve to be held to account. I wouldn’t tolerate being spoken to like that in real life. Twitter is an extremely toxic place thanks to posts like your husbands. He is clearly not taking Brexit well but that’s no excuse.

I have had to deal with two seperate colleagues at work who had posting things on SM (yep, twitter) that were not at all in line with works SM policy. In our case one was dismissed for gross misconduct.

I think what he needs to ask himself is “If I interviewed someone and then found the tweets etc would I give them a job?”

It can also be a matter of trust, if someone can’t be trusted to use twitter appropriately can they really be trusted to represent the company? What next, ranting to a colleague or even a client?

Is he being honest with himself, is he upset etc at himself, or is he upset that he has been found out and there are consequences?

Political views are of course fine, I personally did not support brexit and I made my views known but I said things like “I’m extremely upset that the leave campaign has won, I have genuine concerns about my future in the UK”. That comment is perfectly fine, just as someone expressing happiness about brexit is fine.

“They allege that his offensive tweets (which express strong political views against Brexit and the government) could amount to harassment of his colleagues because they might be offended if they read it.”

In no sane society could that be called harassment. Best of luck, OP. If his union can’t get him off that, it’s not fit to be called a trade union.

@BelgianFudge

Can an employer dismiss an employee for theoretical offence that could be caused to employees, even when the employees themselves have said that they haven't seen it and it is no longer there?

It can happen but without knowing full details its impossible to say in his case. His account has been linked to his employer and the content of his tweets are offensive. As you know Twitter do not suspend accounts for calling other people dickhead. It also depends on how much his company rely on its brand image.

Brexit is an inflammatory subject, just look at the pp trying to derail your thread by calling leavers thick.

You say he is 'restrained' at work, I'd make 100% sure that has always been the case.

I would wait for the Union advice you mentioned and see what their guidance is. My advice would be to shine a light on the mental health issues and for him to be truly contrite and offer public apologies if the company deem it necessary.

Your OP sounds truly and profoundly unpleasant. I shudder at the thought of being within a mile of him, let alone the poor sod who works with him.

Or you OP, that is married to him!

They allege that his offensive tweets (which express strong political views against Brexit and the government) could amount to harassment of his colleagues because they might be offended if they read it

Ha ha good luck with that.

Where I am having strong views against Brexit, the government and Trump is expected (and I work for a commercial law firm, hardly the last bastion of Labour voting wokeness).

Invest in some good legal advice.

And for everyone else reading this - remember that your posts on here are not anonymous and your ID could be obtained from MNHQ in certain circumstances. A bit less swearing and a bit more reasoned argument wouldn't go amiss from quite a few members.

The best advice I ever saw about social media was don't put anything on there you wouldn't want your grandmother to see.

And maybe stay off Twitter altogether, it's not great for the blood pressure.

@Lookingforwardto2021

Well, according to this academic blog, a large swathe of people who voted Brexit were thick (lesser educated) and racist.

blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/10/09/race-class-and-brexit-how-did-we-get-here/

So if Op’s DH did indeed say that, it is not inaccurate. Although I agree that cunt is a subjective assessment

Anyway, as OP said, it was in a private conversation (not in the workplace) and no one at his work felt harassed. So it is not clear how his employer incurred any loss or damage because of his private actions in his private time

I can’t claim damage if none occurred Eg, I can’t sue a store because they have a broken step. With the argument that the broken step is negligence and I could have slipped and then I may have been injured and I may not be able to work and hence I sue them for lost earnings (all based on hypotheticals)

This article doesn't quote any sources so where does any of this information come from?? When I voted brexit i didnt need to declare what i considered to be my nationality...where did they get their sample?

For the record I voted brexit have a BA in sociology same degree as the author of the piece...am studying for degree number 2 and in a professional role.

This article isnt representative of all of us brexit voters

Op i do hope your dh gets off with a slap on the writst

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

“They allege that his offensive tweets (which express strong political views against Brexit and the government) could amount to harassment of his colleagues because they might be offended if they read it.”

In no sane society could that be called harassment. Best of luck, OP. If his union can’t get him off that, it’s not fit to be called a trade union.

This.

People judge each other privately all the time. So no doubt some would judge him for his view on Brexit, perhaps how he expresses them in his private e life (just as people judge women for wearing mini dresses or getting drunk on night out). Does that mean you should have gross misconduct slapped by your employer?

Have we moved to a police state where we are policed in our private lives by our employers? And punished for being not being a “model employee” in our private lives?

I think the employer is on very dicey grounds. In a balance of Ops husband’s civil liberties and human rights Vs employer rights to punish an employer for his personal beliefs and actions in his private time, that have nothing to do with his company. They need to show a real link (eg it could somehow be co stride taht he was acting in an official capacity) and/or the company suffered real and substantial damage because of his actions.

Of course they can do whatever they like, but whether they are acting legally is another matter.

And I agree with the pp who emphasise his mental health. Make it clear that the employers know this has been an issue.

And I would also reflect on whether your DH’s mental heath problems have been caused to an extent by his employers and a somewhat hostile work environment (you mentioned a somewhat belittling email by his boss)? And many would feel a bit freaked out (and truth be said, violated). If their employers had silently being trawling their social media and taking photos.

Does he really want to continue there?

@BelgianFudge

Can an employer dismiss an employee for theoretical offence that could be caused to employees, even when the employees themselves have said that they haven't seen it and it is no longer there?

Yes.

They need to show a real link (eg it could somehow be co stride taht he was acting in an official capacity) and/or the company suffered real and substantial damage because of his actions.

No they don't.

OP, while I think the employer probably won't dismiss, they've obviously got the bit between their teeth on this so your DH probably needs to speak to a lawyer, if he's in a union then they can refer to their lawyers (though beware, they're not always very good to be honest).

Have we moved to a police state where we are policed in our private lives by our employers? And punished for being not being a “model employee” in our private lives?

This isn't a new thing.

20-odd years ago when I was a newly qualified teacher, a group of young teachers at the secondary comp I taught at went for a drink after work.

We got very, very drunk. While doing nothing illegal, we were rowdy and probably obnoxious. We all got written warnings from the Head teacher the following week. Apparently someone had contacted the Head disappointed in our behaviour and also the gossip mill within the pupil population was going into overdrive about it.

The discussion accompanying this disciplinary procedure included advice like:

• if you're going to go out as a group, don't go to a pub in the same village as the school where so many parents and pupils will see you
• definately don't roll into the pub closest to school at 3.05pm if you intend to stay for 7 hours getting shitfaced. Go somewhere else so your behaviour isn't linked to the school.
• don't sit outside of the pub on tables next to a road to get plastered. Anyone walking by can bare witness to your behaviour.

So the moral of the story is, even from the days before social media, behaviour in your personal time can and does affect the reputation if your workplace. That doesn't mean you can't behave badly in your own time, but you must make conscious and deliberate effort to ensure that your bad behaviour cannot be reasonably linked to your employer.

@FATEdestiny

Have we moved to a police state where we are policed in our private lives by our employers? And punished for being not being a “model employee” in our private lives?

This isn't a new thing.

20-odd years ago when I was a newly qualified teacher, a group of young teachers at the secondary comp I taught at went for a drink after work.

We got very, very drunk. While doing nothing illegal, we were rowdy and probably obnoxious. We all got written warnings from the Head teacher the following week. Apparently someone had contacted the Head disappointed in our behaviour and also the gossip mill within the pupil population was going into overdrive about it.

The discussion accompanying this disciplinary procedure included advice like:

• if you're going to go out as a group, don't go to a pub in the same village as the school where so many parents and pupils will see you
• definately don't roll into the pub closest to school at 3.05pm if you intend to stay for 7 hours getting shitfaced. Go somewhere else so your behaviour isn't linked to the school.
• don't sit outside of the pub on tables next to a road to get plastered. Anyone walking by can bare witness to your behaviour.

So the moral of the story is, even from the days before social media, behaviour in your personal time can and does affect the reputation if your workplace. That doesn't mean you can't behave badly in your own time, but you must make conscious and deliberate effort to ensure that your bad behaviour cannot be reasonably linked to your employer.

Bloody hell. That was totally justified in this instance!

To all those so willing to give up civil liberties and freedom of expression...

In your view, is there any limitation to employers right to monitor an employers social activities and censor their moral, political and personal activities (even when these are perfectly legal)?
Since employers apparently don’t need to demonstrate business harm to censor private lives (according to some here) but can work on hypotheticals, there is always someone who could possibly take offence at anything seemingly innocuous (eg a meat eater could take offence at a vegan’s post and consider it judgemental.. and you know, our CEO/biggest client loves a steak and could hypothetically feel harassed by the judgemental vegan views and our meat loving clients could hypothetically withdraw their business and we could hypothetically lose money. So let’s take out a gross misconduct against the poor vegan sod)

@Lookingforwardto2021

Why don't you start your own thread to discuss your straw man hypothetical scenarios and allow the OP to have the support she needs on her thread?

@Lookingforwardto2021

To all those so willing to give up civil liberties and freedom of expression...

In your view, is there any limitation to employers right to monitor an employers social activities and censor their moral, political and personal activities (even when these are perfectly legal)?
Since employers apparently don’t need to demonstrate business harm to censor private lives (according to some here) but can work on hypotheticals, there is always someone who could possibly take offence at anything seemingly innocuous (eg a meat eater could take offence at a vegan’s post and consider it judgemental.. and you know, our CEO/biggest client loves a steak and could hypothetically feel harassed by the judgemental vegan views and our meat loving clients could hypothetically withdraw their business and we could hypothetically lose money. So let’s take out a gross misconduct against the poor vegan sod)

Irrelevant to this scenario The DH called the person directly a dick. And no unreasonable for someone to take offence at that.

Hi OP,

Hop you are ok. Wishing you and your dh all the best 🤗

To all those so willing to give up civil liberties and freedom of expression...

What a misguided perspective.

This has nothing to do with "giving up" freedom. The employment relationship is a contractual one that a person is free to either accept or decline.

Employer agrees to pay employee, provide a conducive work environment and the employee agrees to abide by company policy, including IT-related behaviour. This will all be available to the employee to scrutinise and decide whether they want to play ball. They have a choice, but if they don't agree with how they're asked to behave, they don't have a job.

The choice is theirs.

Well, most people have to work, so it’s not really a choice if employers play big brother over peoples personal lives.

I think as social media grows there will be more scrutiny of what free speech in democracy means. And employer ‘rights’ to sanction employees for legal expression of civil liberties in their private time will be scrutinised. Some states in the US have already made it illegal for employers to have any say over what people do legally in their private time. And imo, rightly so

I think if they have a government client and he is on line slagging the government off then yes they have a case op.

Ultimately what this leads to if they wish to get rid they basically habe the grounds to do so. If they don’t want to get rid, then they will just give a warning. It all depends how they view him, as he has handed them the ammunition,

The investigation was awful, the guy conducting the investigation was angry and made further allegations for which there was no evidence (alleged that being angry at tweeting affected his ability to work - when his manager had already stated it didn't; alleged DH had made the tweets from a work computer - he hadn't and never would)

DH explained that he was utterly ashamed, he'd been suffering from mental health problems for which he is under treatment. He told them he was completely unaware that he had breached their social media policy since his own boss had told him that as long as he removed any link to his employer that was acceptable. He told them he has deleted his twitter account and they can be confident he has learned his lesson and would never do anything so stupid again.

They sacked him anyway.

They had been gathering evidence against him for months, they had ample opportunity to warn him that he was breaching their policy. They chose not to do that. They were looking for a reason to get rid of him and he handed it to them.

He has since spoken to former colleagues who insist it's not against policy. They are as unaware as he is that they could get sacked at any moment.