I'd say that the main difference is that
people filming their boss are presumably catching him doing it in the workplace on work time and are themselves directly effected by his behaviour.
I imagine the girl in the video just thought "he's a bit of a tool" and forgot about it 5 minutes later, as people should really have done when watching the video.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Fri 3 Aug 2012, 20:01,
Reply)
Not really, ones I can remember off the top of my head were a skiing trip (cocaine), having a fight after a night out on the town, assaulting a waitress (grabbing her bum) - none of which happened at work.
At the end of the day he bullied someone when he should have known better and he's being paid not to be an idiot.
If this guy did it you can put your money on it that during the day that girl had other people doing exactly the same thing and even if she didn't and did forget about it - it doesn't make what he did right.
(, Fri 3 Aug 2012, 21:40, Reply)
Both those examples
break the law, though. In which case, it's a matter for the police, not the business.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I really don't believe that an business should be allowed any say at all in how someone acts outside of work hours without strong reasons - the "not reflecting our corporate values" one is pretty meaningless.
I understand what you are saying about him being a CEO making a difference, but I think this happens on all levels of employment - there are loads of stories about people getting the sack because of bosses snooping on Facebook posts, for example.
Obviously, there are times when someone's behaviour can harm a company, but I really don't think this is one - it only seems to have become a story after he got sacked and I really don't think anyone watches that video and thinks "he must be shit at his work and his company must be shit". To be able to sack someone, surely a company should have to prove that it has harmed a business rather than back down to peer pressure from a (usually 24 hour) mob?
If it does become the norm, then such cases are going to be increasingly a problem when people's entire social media history is available to find an excuse to sack someone a company no longer wants.
I also don't like the idea that thinking "I don't like this person, I'm going to find out where they work and try and get them sacked" is becoming an acceptable thing to do.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Fri 3 Aug 2012, 22:13,
Reply)
So was his tirade - it's harassment - I admit he'd get nothing more than a caution or a fine for what he did but it is still an offence.
Here's an example where his actions could easily damage the company. His actions are bullying as a bare minimum so:
You've got an employee who's been fired. He sues the company saying that he was bullied and uses the video to show the CFO was a bully and uses it to show that the company board thinks that bullying is acceptable. On its own the video doesn't mean a lot but throw in a little evidence show the video in front of a jury who all thinks "he's a tit" and bam - you're out $100,000.
He is now a liability - a good company gets rid of liabilities.
Is it right for a mob mentality to cause this to happen? No. Is it right for social networking to be used as a weapon against people in the way it is? No. Is it right to abuse a woman at a drive-in?
You're perfectly right that this will happen more and more and that it is going to be used to get rid of people who someone doesn't like and there's going to be some really interesting court cases, assaults and deaths over it. Humanity isn't ready for social networking.
(, Fri 3 Aug 2012, 22:39, Reply)