Terminated from DISH
- Thread starter MattJ2124
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 90
- Views 13K
Matt
I just spent some time reading all you previous post and I am not sure which one pissed them off enough to fire you but I could see how some might have irked them. I can not say I saw anything that warranted firing you but you could have used some better judgment. Example: In one of your post where you said you had Direct TV you said how much your wife liked the TIVO.
Hey if I worked for GM I would not go buy my wife a Ford Explorer and then make post on the net in a manner I could be identified suggesting that my wife found the Ford Explorer superior to the Chevy Blazer.
I work in the Printing business and post regularly to a couple of printing forums around the net. I made some rules for myself when I stared posting as frequently my personal opinion would differ from the official position of my company. Among the rules I made for myself;
1) I use a user name that can not indicate it was me making the post.
2) I have never identified my employer in any post I have ever made.
3) I have never said anything that would make a potential customer choose a competitor over my company or reflect badly on my company.
I just spent some time reading all you previous post and I am not sure which one pissed them off enough to fire you but I could see how some might have irked them. I can not say I saw anything that warranted firing you but you could have used some better judgment. Example: In one of your post where you said you had Direct TV you said how much your wife liked the TIVO.
Hey if I worked for GM I would not go buy my wife a Ford Explorer and then make post on the net in a manner I could be identified suggesting that my wife found the Ford Explorer superior to the Chevy Blazer.
I work in the Printing business and post regularly to a couple of printing forums around the net. I made some rules for myself when I stared posting as frequently my personal opinion would differ from the official position of my company. Among the rules I made for myself;
1) I use a user name that can not indicate it was me making the post.
2) I have never identified my employer in any post I have ever made.
3) I have never said anything that would make a potential customer choose a competitor over my company or reflect badly on my company.
gredneck said:
:clap
Excuse me! I believe you have my stapeler! And I still haven't received my paycheck.
AlaJoe said:
He should be able to go anywhere and say anything he damn well pleases without fear of firing unless he mentioned anything confidential.
I was an air force mechanic, if i tell you that C-5's are maintenance nightmares, I'm not compromising national security... but I describe how the landing gear operates then i might be looking for a knock on the door from the feds.
The same goes for Dish. If i was their employee, which I'm not, and I say that Direct Tv's better because of the NFL package, and i say so from home on my own time... it's just my opinion, and nothing else. It'd be different if I said that I saw notes reguarding the fuctionality of a satellite.. say E*8, since it gets knocked out of alignment every so often. That would be something considered confidential, not my opinion.
Anyone who has been fired and did not release confidential information has themselves a good second amendment lawsuit on their hands. Freedom of speech.
While it sucks to be fired, you're better off not working for people like that anyway. Douche Network is not the only large company to treat its workers poorly and replace them on a whim; when companies like these let you go, they're doing you a favor IMHO.
Thanks for trying to help everyone out! We appreciate it even if Charlie doesn't.
Thanks for trying to help everyone out! We appreciate it even if Charlie doesn't.
Hmm. Friendly guy who worked inside the military - I wonder if I got to know him better and let him to believe I was military and friendly if we could share some secrets. Perhaps he will mention the most vunerable spot on a C-5 and I can use that to my advantage for sabotage.bcshields said:
Always be on guard. Even letting people know where you work can open the door to more confidential converstations.
Also, although you probably wouldn't mention which screw could down a C-5, you probably wouldn't want to speak FOR the Air Force while working there. The OP's 'crime' involved speaking FOR E* and stating policy on their behalf in a public forum. He was not authorized to do that.
Freedom of speech is only granted from the government. You have no second amendment rights from your employer. Especially when you sign away similar rights when you accept their employment.bcshields said:
JL
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
FIRST Amendment
While 'true' from reading the FIRST amendment that only Congress cannot restrict speech, inferring that anyone and anything else can, I think many lawsuits, Supreme Court decisions, and else have created at least some restrictions on, say, private companies restricting speech. I don't agree, and I think companies do have the right to restrict speech in any way (just like I think companies should have the freedom to discriminate against anyone in anyway, with very few exceptions). Of course, in my little world, just because a company can do what I think they have the rights to do, doesn't meant that they should morally. Anyway, without knowing more, I am inclined to side with E* in all of this (benefit of the doubt).
FIRST Amendment
While 'true' from reading the FIRST amendment that only Congress cannot restrict speech, inferring that anyone and anything else can, I think many lawsuits, Supreme Court decisions, and else have created at least some restrictions on, say, private companies restricting speech. I don't agree, and I think companies do have the right to restrict speech in any way (just like I think companies should have the freedom to discriminate against anyone in anyway, with very few exceptions). Of course, in my little world, just because a company can do what I think they have the rights to do, doesn't meant that they should morally. Anyway, without knowing more, I am inclined to side with E* in all of this (benefit of the doubt).
You have the right to openly talk about anything you want, but when you talk about company policies, ideas, pricing, methodology, etc, you have no rights to disseminate that information on your own. If you want to discuss it with your friends, wife and kids in private, great, but you can't record it for distribution, post or publish it. It is so simple and has ALREADY been challenged & stood up in court. They ask you to sign the HR papers so that you KNOW that you read, are aware, and understand it. Case closed. This IS NOT a free speech case. Do not push this man into filling a case that he WILL LOSE and that will cost him more money than the lost wages. If you don't believe all this call a local attorney you trust and ask them.
justalurker said:
Only if you're dumb enough to leak such information. If you go ahead and say stuff you're not supposed to, then so be it. You deserve all you get. But if you're on here helping customers in the same fashion you would help a customer if they called your desk or station, then E* has no grounds to fire you, cause all you're doing is saving them time and money.
Second amendment? Isn't that the right to bear arms? What the hell was I thinking?
Scott Greczkowski said:
This forum is why I remain a content customer with 2 522 units (paying them an extra $10/month for that). Without that I could have been tempted to jump to DTV, or to dump it all together and just keep SkyAngel.
Brad
Posting Restrictions and Ironies
Interesting issue of posting company information.
I think the advice above should be followed in posting to avoid dangerous consequences. Anonymity and caution are key to posting. Unfortunately, life can't be controlled by legal precautions--it just has a way of going on its own (which of course is the reason we need so many lawyers.)
It's an interesting idea of a lawyer who used this forum giving legal advice in exchange for advice on how to set up his satellite! That would be acceptable in a private, one-on-one exchange, but when information is public, it's meant to be free. There is no buyer or seller, there are just sharers and learners. Corporations can't provide their services for free, they say (neglecting to mention that they must also squeeze more and more profitability out of their business model to keep their stock rising.)
If the ideal world of legal perfection lawyers tell us we must follow really existed, we wouldn't need lawyers. If the tech environment and satellite installation were so easy--and could be done in a identical fashion according to a company's single, prescribed course of action--we wouldn't need this forum to straighten things out.
Life just happens. It's too bad that E* can't see the good intentions of the post, warn the employee, and fire if it continues. Ironically, the posts about firing could end up hurting E*'s image (yes, maybe I will wait for D*'s mpeg-4) more than the damage done by leaking some good-natured posts.
The 1st Amendment is under attack. Corporations and governments love laws that limit the spread of information (and punish those who share it freely), because they see info in the hands of individuals as a competing source of power.
Interesting issue of posting company information.
I think the advice above should be followed in posting to avoid dangerous consequences. Anonymity and caution are key to posting. Unfortunately, life can't be controlled by legal precautions--it just has a way of going on its own (which of course is the reason we need so many lawyers.)
It's an interesting idea of a lawyer who used this forum giving legal advice in exchange for advice on how to set up his satellite! That would be acceptable in a private, one-on-one exchange, but when information is public, it's meant to be free. There is no buyer or seller, there are just sharers and learners. Corporations can't provide their services for free, they say (neglecting to mention that they must also squeeze more and more profitability out of their business model to keep their stock rising.)
If the ideal world of legal perfection lawyers tell us we must follow really existed, we wouldn't need lawyers. If the tech environment and satellite installation were so easy--and could be done in a identical fashion according to a company's single, prescribed course of action--we wouldn't need this forum to straighten things out.
Life just happens. It's too bad that E* can't see the good intentions of the post, warn the employee, and fire if it continues. Ironically, the posts about firing could end up hurting E*'s image (yes, maybe I will wait for D*'s mpeg-4) more than the damage done by leaking some good-natured posts.
The 1st Amendment is under attack. Corporations and governments love laws that limit the spread of information (and punish those who share it freely), because they see info in the hands of individuals as a competing source of power.
I think you're being melodramatic in your last paragraph. The law has little to do with this firing; without knowing the reasoning behind E*'s move, all we have is conjecture and competing theories, if one can be so generous. The influence of populism and stick-it-to-Big-Business attitude is premature, I believe. I doubt whether we can find the truth in this matter, anyway, and I don't believe it matters. The person who was fired, Matt J., has repeatedly said he has no qualms with what happened.amateurjournalist said:
'Nuff said.
I agree entirely. The US government does not grant us many of our rights; it is completely restricted from infringing upon those rights.sateck01 said:
Not an official, legal document of the government of the United States, but the founding document of the country, nonetheless. This is an important distinction.Many truely remarkable men said:
Kindly read closer ... I said the right was granted FROM the government - I didn't say who it was granted by.sateck01 said:
Freedom of speech is only granted from the government. You have no [first] amendment rights from your employer.
If your employer says 'don't discuss work outside the company' they rule. There are a few exceptions to the case (such as whistleblowing when the employer is in violation of the law) but in most cases the employer can set any reasonable policy they like - and they can say 'don't represent us on the Internet'.Unless you are in the PR department and have an approved press release, or you have specific authorization don't speak for the company.
JL
justalurker said:
Good point and this holds for the entire Bill of Rights - which limits the state, not individuals (people or corporations). You have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. But your company may prohibit carrying weapons in the workplace, etc.
