HGVC employee fired

[FamilyEsq]

Put aside the tweet.

How was the author of the tweet connected to HGVC? If the author of the tweet was dumb enough to say he/she was a HGVC employee, there is the answer. But no media outlet (at least any that I have read) have covered the story from that angle.

How far do you want your employer to drill into your personal life?

Florida officials are investigating a racist social media post that shows the face of Willie Taggart, the first black head coach at Florida State University, superimposed over the body of a black man hanging from a tree.

I don't understand the concern about whether HGVC went too far "drilling into the personal life" of this lowlife. Florida is an “at-will” employment state, meaning that either employee or employer can terminate employment at any time and without any advance warning. Other employees would not want to work with someone superimposing the head of black man on the body of a black man hanging from a tree. I would not patronize a business that employs such a person.

I guess I just don't understand the concern that a company went too far in terminating an employee for a heinous act. Is it concern for the fired employee's privacy? No one drilled into his life.

 

[billymach4]

In this day and age, you should assume that anything you put online is seen by everyone and it never goes away. Freedom of speech only extends to the effect that the government can't impose limits on free speech. It doesn't extend to private enterprises. If you post something online, there is no expectation of privacy.

 

[bbodb1]

Florida officials are investigating a racist social media post that shows the face of Willie Taggart, the first black head coach at Florida State University, superimposed over the body of a black man hanging from a tree.

I don't understand the concern about whether HGVC went too far "drilling into the personal life" of this lowlife. Florida is an “at-will” employment state, meaning that either employee or employer can terminate employment at any time and without any advance warning. Other employees would not want to work with someone superimposing the head of black man on the body of a black man hanging from a tree. I would not patronize a business that employs such a person.

I guess I just don't understand the concern that a company went too far in terminating an employee for a heinous act. Is it concern for the fired employee's privacy? No one drilled into his life.

I'd suggest you reread this thread.

 

[FamilyEsq]

I'd suggest you reread this thread.

I read the whole thread. I understood the contents of the thread after one reading. Your response is what I expected. Defensive and dismissive.

 

[bbodb1]

I read the whole thread. I understood the contents of the thread after one reading. Your response is what I expected. Defensive and dismissive.

Of what exactly?

 

[FamilyEsq]

You started your post with the premise to ignore the tweet and to focus on HGVC's action in terminating their employee.

I am arguing that you cannot reasonably consider HGVC's action without considering the egregiously offensive tweet.

It seems that you are attempting to make the argument that HGVC engaged in employer overreach because the tweet was not sent when the employee was working or utilizing company resources.

 

[dayooper]

We don’t have personal lives anymore. Everything we do online, we are tracked by someone. Internet providers have where we go, what we do and for how long we are there. They can sell that data to advertisers to send us specific ads. Websites track how, when and where we go when we are on their sites. It’s how we get specific ads to show up on our browsers. That’s more of an invasion of privacy than a company or organization keeping track of my social media. I don’t like it as much as anybody else. That being said, I don’t partake in social media stupidity, but that reflects my daily life.

 

[bbodb1]

You started your post …utilizing company resources.

Okay, thanks for the elaboration and let’s pick up from there.

You started your post with the premise to ignore the tweet and to focus on HGVC's action in terminating their employee…

Pretty much true - although I said put the tweet aside - the end result is the same. I really don’t care about the tweet because as offensive tweets go, spend some time on social media these days and you’ll see far, far worse (and many, many more). But this is the TUG - Timeshare Users Group website and the common theme that brings us here is how things relate to our timeshares. How HGVC handled this issue is far more important here because we all share one common interest here - timesharing. If this website were dedicated to some other purpose, the focus on that story would likely be different as would the conversation about the tweet.

… I am arguing that you cannot reasonably consider HGVC's action without considering the egregiously offensive tweet.…

Okay, I understand your position on this but I respectfully disagree.

… It seems that you are attempting to make the argument that HGVC engaged in employer overreach because the tweet was not sent when the employee was working or utilizing company resources.

I am saying that was a possibility until all the facts were known / published. In this case, HGVC was drug into this mess because people outside of HGVC began to investigate the author of the tweet, and as a result of connecting past Tweets connected the author to HGVC. From what I have read, HGVC did NOT take any action on their own until the connection of the tweeter to HGVC was published by others. That HGVC took the action they did (terminating the employee) was a sensible step for HGVC to take and at no time throughout this process did HGVC overreach - something we can now discuss with more facts known. HGVC defended the reputation of the company and that has value to all of us here.

 

[klpca]

HGVC probably didn't take action at an early stage because they are *not* actively monitoring the social media posts of their employees. Once it was brought to their attention, they really had no choice but to act on it. And I agree that the nature of the tweet really affected the outcome. He didn't post "I hate the coach" (which would probably result in no action against the employee), he chose particularly offensive, graphic imagery.

Everything on social media is most likely visible to the world. So like it or not, your personal online presence is easily connected to your place of work unless you take great care to keep them separate.

 

[Tamaradarann]

HGVC probably didn't take action at an early stage because they are *not* actively monitoring the social media posts of their employees. Once it was brought to their attention, they really had no choice but to act on it. And I agree that the nature of the tweet really affected the outcome. He didn't post "I hate the coach" (which would probably result in no action against the employee), he chose particularly offensive, graphic imagery.

Everything on social media is most likely visible to the world. So like it or not, your personal online presence is easily connected to your place of work unless you take great care to keep them separate.

I tried to express the same sentiment in prior posts that you are expressing in your first paragraph. Some things that people say or do can be looked at from the perspective that everyone has a right to their opinion or to do what they want in their own home or on their own time. The tweet that we are discussing here does NOT fall into that category. Whether the tweet was made off company time, on a private computer, or if HGVC got the information in violation of the employees privacy is inconsequential. The tweeter had to go! Just as how law enforcement gets the information to stop a terrorist act; who cares how they got the information it saved people lives.

 

[alwysonvac]

Sadly, HGVC had a different employee issue not too long ago involving a lynching image.

http://www.cleveland19.com/2018/09/14/hang-there-woman-says-boss-placed-lynching-image-her-desk/
https://www.ktnv.com/news/investiga...rvisor-fired-after-sending-out-lynching-image

 

[klpca]

Sadly, HGVC had a different employee issue not too long ago involving a lynching image.

http://www.cleveland19.com/2018/09/14/hang-there-woman-says-boss-placed-lynching-image-her-desk/
https://www.ktnv.com/news/investiga...rvisor-fired-after-sending-out-lynching-image

I imagine that everyone was told to watch themselves after this incident and yet the current guy still went there. What an idiot.

 

[Talent312]

Some folks think the net provides some sort of shield and allows them to throw bombs without consequences from behind their screens. It seems to have become worse in only a few years. Not long ago, when locals wanted to get rid of a coach, they started a website dedicated to his firing. Nowadays, that's not enuff, or at least this jerk thought so.

.

 

[Tamaradarann]

Sadly, HGVC had a different employee issue not too long ago involving a lynching image.

http://www.cleveland19.com/2018/09/14/hang-there-woman-says-boss-placed-lynching-image-her-desk/
https://www.ktnv.com/news/investiga...rvisor-fired-after-sending-out-lynching-image

Thank you for bringing to our attention that HGVC has had a previous lynching issue. I read Latara Darrett's description of what happened and I feel for her pain and suffering. While I agree with her demanding that Managers and Supervisors attend cultural sensitivity training it won't do any good if the Managers and Supervisors don't know their history. Many people don't give studying history enough importance. They emphasis Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science as the important subjects to study and do well in school. However, without knowing the history of African Americans in the United States that makes the hanging loose so insensitive, how can sensitivity training be applied. I know that that there are other issues that are sensitive to other groups. I had to caution a subordinate a few years ago about making comments to an Italian American Painter Contractor about slicing the salami thin. I regarded it as a stereo type of Italians being butchers and certainly this man was not a butcher.

 

[bbodb1]

HGVC does NOT have a lynching issue.
And as to the rest of your remark, warming temperatures will address that.

 

[Tamaradarann]

HGVC does NOT have a lynching issue.
And as to the rest of your remark, warming temperatures will address that.

No HGVC doesn't have a lynching issue anymore, they terminated the employees who started the lynching issue. If you know their history you know why presenting an image of a Black person being lynched or displaying the confederate flag is threatening and insensitive to African Americans. Just as if you know their history you know why displaying the swastika is threatening and insensitive to people of the Jewish faith. If you don't know their history you can't understand and have sympathy. Sometimes one needs to walk in someone's shoes or image walking in their shoes to understand and be sympathetic.

 

[brp]

No HGVC doesn't have a lynching issue anymore, they terminated the employees who started the lynching issue. If you know their history you know why presenting an image of a Black person being lynched or displaying the confederate flag is threatening and insensitive to African Americans.

No one is arguing the second point. We all know that.

The point being made is that HGVC doesn't, as an organization, have an issue with presenting these insensitive issues. A couple of unrelated individuals who both happen to work the HGVC, have/had this issue. That is very different from "HGVC has a lynching issue." If these were, in any way, tied together, then that could be the case. They are not. These are people, not their employer. Of course, the employer has to take action in these individual cases, but it is not indicative of an organizational issue.

Cheers.

 

[Tamaradarann]

No one is arguing the second point. We all know that.

The point being made is that HGVC doesn't, as an organization, have an issue with presenting these insensitive issues. A couple of unrelated individuals who both happen to work the HGVC, have/had this issue. That is very different from "HGVC has a lynching issue." If these were, in any way, tied together, then that could be the case. They are not. These are people, not their employer. Of course, the employer has to take action in these individual cases, but it is not indicative of an organizational issue.

Cheers.

I didn't mean for my statement to indicate that HGVC, the organization, had the lynching issue. The employees who worked for HGVC had the lynching issue. HGVC handled the issue appropriately. If HGVC didn't terminate the employees, they would have had a lynching issue that they didn't address appropriately.

(paragraph deleted that is off topic)