After watching this video, I was glad that this man got fired from his job. Glen Busch's post was inappropriate and threatened his reputation along with the company's; there must be consequences for his post. It is appropriate to share your thoughts online, but when your thoughts concern politics, shootings, or religion, there is a greater risk of offending others or putting your reputation at risk. Glen's employer fired him because he posted "You can't shoot people you disagree with! She was a moderately conservative Democrat, seemed like a great person." I know he meant that this woman should not have been shot, but just because she was a "moderately conservative Democrat" is not a reason not to shoot someone. This woman's political status is seen as a logical reason not to shoot someone and can imply that people like this woman are better than others. This elitist message can spark a huge debate on Facebook and the employer did not want to "become involved in public controversy" over this issue. The firing was legal because the company has the right to monitor what Glen posts online; whatever he posts will affect the reputation of the company. If he posts anything that can be used against the company, the company has the right to fire him in order to avoid potential problems. Digital Footprint is your online image composed of every post, photo, and comment you made online. There is no such thing as privacy online; whatever you post online is accessible. I know people use privacy settings and believe that only they will see these pictures or information, but there are ways to work around that. If I was a friend of Glen and I saw the post before he decided to post it on Facebook, I would tell him not to post it. I would tell him the post is too controversial and will be more trouble than it is worth. Also, it could jeopardize your career and create a bad reputation for you online. As a solution, I would encourage him to discuss the issue verbally with someone because it will avoid conflict and is much more fulfilling to have someone respond instantly.
My initial reaction to this story was that this man should not be allowed online. His post was inappropriate, disgusting, and quite frankly stupid. He was trying to be funny in a sexual way, but there was nothing funny about this post. It made me feel bad for the company who hired him and for his wife who is now humiliated because of this post. Honestly, he should keep his comments to himself. While visiting a prison, Michael Allred posted, "Visiting the prisons, haven't been groped this much since the flight on the honeymoon... and this is just the guards!" Michael is a senior state corrections officer in Maryland. To make matters worse, Allred included his boss, Public Safety Secretary Stephen Moyer, in his post. Moyer demands that his employees have "respect for the department, their authority, and their peers." He expects the employees to act in a professional manner, and clearly Michael Allred was out of line. This firing was legal because Allred associated his boss and his department with the post. I believe publishing an inappropriate post about his job and comparing the officers' job to his sexual life is grounds for firing. He put his boss on the line and might have created drama in his department. He acted senselessly and needed to be punished for his actions.
