# HGVC employee fired



## colatown (Nov 26, 2018)

Sent a racist tweet about FSU head coach Taggart.


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 26, 2018)

There's a lot not to like about the Seminoles of FSU (Free Shoes U.).
But dissing the (who did not recruit current players) is out-of-bounds.
Doing so in a public manner is bound to bring repercussions.

.


----------



## bbodb1 (Nov 26, 2018)

On the flip side, there are a couple of points on this story I have not yet seen covered. 

Did the disparaging remarks come from the HGVC employee on a company provided email account and/or social media platform?  Were the remarks made by the individual while he was at work (or supposed to be working)?  

I've read a few stories from various outlets but these points are not covered....


----------



## dayooper (Nov 26, 2018)

bbodb1 said:


> On the flip side, there are a couple of points on this story I have not yet seen covered.
> 
> Did the disparaging remarks come from the HGVC employee on a company provided email account and/or social media platform?  Were the remarks made by the individual while he was at work (or supposed to be working)?
> 
> I've read a few stories from various outlets but these points are not covered....



I guess I’m not seeing why that’s important.


----------



## bbodb1 (Nov 26, 2018)

dayooper said:


> I guess I’m not seeing why that’s important.



If we assume for a moment that the person who made the offensive tweet was doing so on his/her own time, his/her own account, away from any association with HGVC, then you should be very concerned.  Does your employer have the right to monitor your social media use and content outside of work?


----------



## bbodb1 (Nov 26, 2018)

I'll go one to say that if the tweet came from a HGVC provided account, used HGVC provided technology or bandwidth, or in some way HGVC could be directly associated with the offensive tweet then HGVC made the right call.  But until we know more about the basis on which HGVC terminated this employee, it should raise privacy concerns.

Put the content of the tweet aside.


----------



## klpca (Nov 26, 2018)

Well, apparently HGVC sees it differently. I don't know if Florida is an at-will state, but if it is Hilton can do whatever they want. And honestly what he did was pretty egregious. I would have a tough time working with a co-worker who would post something like that.


----------



## bbodb1 (Nov 26, 2018)

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?


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 26, 2018)

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.


----------



## DaveNV (Nov 26, 2018)

dioxide45 said:


> 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.



As I've recently been informed, freedom of speech guarantees one's right to say as they wish.  But with that goes the consequences of said speech.  Say what you want, but be prepared to deal with the backlash.

I didn't see the tweet this guy posted, but somehow he was connected to HGVC.  This very thread starts with a title saying he was an HGVC employee.  So obviously the connection was made somehow.

Dave


----------



## Duanerice (Nov 26, 2018)

bbodb1 said:


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



Once something is tweeted or put on Instagram, Facebook, etc it is now public information.  It is no longer personal information.  Many people get fired over actions/comments that aren't made at work. If they don't like it don't make it public.


----------



## bbodb1 (Nov 26, 2018)

DaveNW said:


> As I've recently been informed, freedom of speech guarantees one's right to say as they wish.  But with that goes the consequences of said speech.  Say what you want, but be prepared to deal with the backlash.
> 
> I didn't see the tweet this guy posted, but somehow he was connected to HGVC.  This very thread starts with a title saying he was an HGVC employee.  *So obviously the connection was made somehow*.
> 
> Dave



Dave, 

I agree with your point here - but how this connection was made is important.  How did HGVC come to the conclusion / discover the tweet author was an employee of theirs?


----------



## bbodb1 (Nov 26, 2018)

Duanerice said:


> Once something is tweeted or put on Instagram, Facebook, etc it is now public information.  It is no longer personal information.  *Many people get fired over actions/comments that aren't made at work*. If they don't like it don't make it public.



If - emphasis on if - the action or comment somehow involves their employer or uses the employer's resources then the employer has every right defend their reputation.  
*How the tweet author was connected to HGVC is important - for those of you suggesting otherwise, are you saying you would be comfortable with your employer investigating actions and comments you make on your time using your own resources?  

*


----------



## bbodb1 (Nov 26, 2018)

If there is a media story out there about how the tweet author was connected to HGVC, would someone please post a link?  
I am looking for that info at this time.  
Thanks.


----------



## bbodb1 (Nov 26, 2018)

Okay, I may have found my own answer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...rage-an-investigation/?utm_term=.e0e7ad03abc5

From the article: 





> ...Social media users found other posts from the same creator, in the same vein, directed at former Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith, who is now at Illinois. The man’s Facebook account was also traced to what appeared to be his LinkedIn account, which indicated that he worked for Hilton Grand Vacations in Orlando. Florida State fans then began asking the company to take action against the man, according to the Orlando Sentinel’s report.



That is what I was looking for.  The author connected him self to HGVC.


----------



## DaveNV (Nov 26, 2018)

bbodb1 said:


> If - emphasis on if - the action or comment somehow involves their employer or uses the employer's resources then the employer has every right defend their reputation.
> *How the tweet author was connected to HGVC is important - for those of you suggesting otherwise, are you saying you would be comfortable with your employer investigating actions and comments you make on your time using your own resources?
> *



I work for a busy hospital system.  I know for a fact one of the vetting processes for any new hire is to explore their social media accounts.  If someone posts outrageous things online, there is a strong likelihood they will not be hired.  As I said earlier, say what you wish, but be prepared for the consequences of those comments.

Dave


----------



## dayooper (Nov 26, 2018)

bbodb1 said:


> If we assume for a moment that the person who made the offensive tweet was doing so on his/her own time, his/her own account, away from any association with HGVC, then you should be very concerned.  Does your employer have the right to monitor your social media use and content outside of work?



Yes, they do have the right and they do.


----------



## DeniseM (Nov 26, 2018)

If you read any of the social media sites, it's common for offensive people to be ID'd, outted, reported to their employer, and fired.


----------



## bbodb1 (Nov 26, 2018)

DeniseM said:


> If you read any of the social media sites, it's common for offensive people to be ID'd, outted, reported to their employer, and fired.



Which is precisely what I was looking for in this story Denise - how did the tweet writer get outted.  I did find an explanation of that in the link I posted earlier and I had not come across that explanation in the earlier media sources I read.

_Edit: apparently, the tweet writer was able to be identified by linking past internet activity which led back to a LinkedIn account which identified HGVC.  It appears HGVC did not perform this investigation but responded when the HGVC name/brand was associated with the tweet writer.  _


----------



## bbodb1 (Nov 26, 2018)

DaveNW said:


> I work for a busy hospital system.  I know for a fact one of the vetting processes for any new hire is to explore their social media accounts.  If someone posts outrageous things online, there is a strong likelihood they will not be hired.  As I said earlier, say what you wish, but be prepared for the consequences of those comments.
> 
> Dave



In this scenario, the applicant at least has the opportunity to point the potential employer to the correct social media accounts (meaning their own accounts).  Obviously the prospective employee would be aware their accounts would be subject to monitoring.  What happens if an employer decides to start tracking/monitoring their current employees - and the employer attributes the wrong social media accounts to the employee?  And even worse, fires the employee for social media content the employee had nothing to do with?


----------



## klpca (Nov 26, 2018)

bbodb1 said:


> 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?


LinkedIn. Easy-peasy connection.

Number one life rule: Don't be an idiot.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 26, 2018)

bbodb1 said:


> and the employer attributes the wrong social media accounts to the employee? And even worse, fires the employee for social media content the employee had nothing to do with?


The employee then could possibly have a case for wrongful termination.


----------



## bbodb1 (Nov 26, 2018)

klpca said:


> LinkedIn. Easy-peasy connection.
> 
> Number one life rule: Don't be an idiot.



I definitely agree with that.  
Good night all!


----------



## DrQ (Nov 26, 2018)

Then there is the case of Adam Smith who made himself unemployable by posting his Chick fil A protest on YouTube


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 26, 2018)

What I think is true: _"You reap what you sow."
._


----------



## DaveNV (Nov 26, 2018)

bbodb1 said:


> In this scenario, the applicant at least has the opportunity to point the potential employer to the correct social media accounts (meaning their own accounts).  Obviously the prospective employee would be aware their accounts would be subject to monitoring.  What happens if an employer decides to start tracking/monitoring their current employees - and the employer attributes the wrong social media accounts to the employee?  And even worse, fires the employee for social media content the employee had nothing to do with?



Being a hospital, HIPAA is a huge thing.  Fines and other penalties happen when people post inappropriate things online.  So the security folks at my hospital (and I assume others as well) regularly troll people's social media accounts.  There was a recent email from the security people explaining they had asked family members of a comatose patient to take down the images they'd taken of their loved one, unconscious, in the hospital bed.  The reasoning was the patient had not consented to having their image put out like that.  The family members weren't employees, but the results were the same.

Whether you agree with them or not, the fact of the matter is, employers DO check. We are regularly advised to watch what we post online.  That's one of the reasons I only post jokes, recipes, and cat videos on Facebook.  I don't do Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, or anything else.  Facebook is enough for me.  I do have somewhat of a life, even if it doesn't seem like it.  

(And in other news, it was recently announced that in a cost-savings plan, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook will be merging.  The new company will be called "YouTwitFace".) 

Dave


----------



## brp (Nov 26, 2018)

DaveNW said:


> That's one of the reasons I only post jokes, recipes, and cat videos on Facebook.  I don't do Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, or anything else.  Facebook is enough for me.  I do have somewhat of a life, even if it doesn't seem like it.



For social media, I have LinkedIn. Period. No Facebook and, while I do have a twitter account, I have no followers, no one can see what I tweet and it is for contacting airlines and the TSA (surprisingly much more effective than one might think) when things go pear-shaped.

I do post on several chat boards, such as this one, but nothing that would either identify me, or get me fired even if it did 

Cheers.


----------



## am1 (Nov 26, 2018)

Regardless of how he was outed he should be fired.  More people should be fired for similar actions.  It baffles the mind why some seem to get a free pass though.


----------



## DrQ (Nov 26, 2018)

Most companies in "at will" states would not hesitate to fire an employee who brings unfavorable publicity to the company.


----------



## Tamaradarann (Nov 26, 2018)

I think it is important to put the seriousness of the offensive tweet in context.  This wasn't just a tweet to fire the coach.  It wasn't just a tweet that you don't like someone else.  This was a tweet about lynching an African American.  Many African Americans were lynched in the South.   In southern states there were laws that made it legal to hang an African American without a trial or conviction of any crime.  These laws were in effect in some southern states as late as the 1930's.  Florida is a southern state.  Suggesting hanging an African American without cause is not just a tweet, it is criminal.  The author had to go and if any violent act is perpetrated against that coach the author should be brought up on criminal charges.


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 26, 2018)

It is a crime to use electronic means to transmit a threat. The made-up photo which suggests a hanging can be interpreted as such. The State Attorney for Leon County, the Sheriff's Office and FSU police department are investigating.

FSU's President said, "I speak for the entire FSU community in expressing our disgust and extreme disappointment, and I am glad the state attorney is investigating. Coach Taggart has our full support and as true Seminoles know, he is a respected member of the FSU family."
.


----------



## Tamaradarann (Nov 26, 2018)

Tamaradarann said:


> I think it is important to put the seriousness of the offensive tweet in context.  This wasn't just a tweet to fire the coach.  It wasn't just a tweet that you don't like someone else.  This was a tweet about lynching an African American.  Many African Americans were lynched in the South.   In southern states there were laws that made it legal to hang an African American without a trial or conviction of any crime.  These laws were in effect in some southern states as late as the 1930's.  Florida is a southern state.  Suggesting hanging an African American without cause is not just a tweet, it is criminal.  The author had to go and if any violent act is perpetrated against that coach the author should be brought up on criminal charges.



I need to clarify some statement that I made about the laws making it legal to Lynch.  It was officially  illegal to lynch.  However, since the racist white people in the South controlled the police and courts no body involved with the lynching was ever convicted of a crime, therefore, it was defacto legal to lynch.


----------



## TUGBrian (Nov 27, 2018)

this was embarrassing on so many levels to any FSU fan...

not only what he posted publicly, but the fact he didnt see anything wrong with posting it in the first place...all over a college football team.


----------



## DrQ (Nov 27, 2018)

I wonder if they will attempt to blame Ambien


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 27, 2018)

DaveNW, you are correct with your comments.  Employers now will review your social media photos & comments before they hire that new employee. Example before I retired some years ago there was this young person that this federal agency wanted to hire; this person posted on social media that show she was intoxicated, smoking weed and acting liked a wild woman dancing on tables and other things.
The offer to hire this person was withdrawn. Be careful what you post and say on social media.
Also, in today’s work environment  some employees can work at home and the employer will loan you a work computer to perform your work duties & assignments. That device belongs to the federal, state, city agencies or that employer. Plus, you probably sign a statement that is will be use only for work assignments .

Sounds liked this HGVC employee was using the company computer system and HGVC does have the legal right to monitor their action.


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 27, 2018)

Apparently, the post was also made in a Facebook group.
The group's creator posted the guy's LinkedIn page.

From the Tallahassee Democrat (FSU's hometown paper)...
"Christopher Holder, who created the 'Garnet and Great' Facebook group... said he deleted the image and blocked Shand from further access to the group, where'd he'd been a member for three years. 'He was pretty much a jerk when I contacted him, and he pretty much started cursing me out.'

"Within minutes, Holder said he was contacted by others who'd seen the image circulating on Facebook and Twitter. Holder made another post that included Shand's LinkedIn page, which included a photo and employer details. He encouraged people to alert Hilton Grand Vacations."

.


----------



## bbodb1 (Nov 27, 2018)

Tamaradarann said:


> I think it is important to put the seriousness of the offensive tweet in context. .....



For this conversation, the seriousness was acknowledged but the focus of the subsequent conversation in this thread has to do with another aspect of this story.


----------



## 1Kflyerguy (Nov 27, 2018)

With social media and internet, it pretty easy to track people, their employers and other aspects of their lives.  Even if this person made these comments on his own time and never involved his employer, once he was publicly linked back to HGV, it becomes their issue as well.


----------



## bbodb1 (Nov 27, 2018)

Out of curiosity, I just reread the internet usage agreement I signed for my place of employment.  I suspect it has many fairly standard provisions in it as it mainly states I have no expectation of privacy while using employer provided internet at work.  But what it does NOT say is interesting - no where in this document do I give permission to monitor my internet use at home.  

Now I suspect where most people run afoul of agreements like this is they access social media accounts from work, using work provided resources.  That sort of opens the gate to allowing the employer in to snoop around as they see fit. 

*Among the many lessons this story should remind us of are these:*

Read the internet usage agreement you sign with your employer.  Know and understand where an employer might be able to scrutinize your internet usage.   
Do NOT access personal accounts (email, social media, anything) from work because in doing so, you would likely give your employer the right to examine that information.
Post no identifying information about yourself ANYWHERE on the internet OR if you do post identifying information about yourself, do NOT refer to it from any other website or account. 
Accessing your work email from home might be construed in such a way to allow your employer to scrutinize data on your home computer.  *Leave work at work!*


----------



## klpca (Nov 27, 2018)

TUGBrian said:


> this was embarrassing on so many levels to any FSU fan...
> 
> not only what he posted publicly, but the fact he didnt see anything wrong with posting it in the first place...all over a college football team.


Amen. Someone is taking their football a bit too seriously.



bbodb1 said:


> Out of curiosity, I just reread the internet usage agreement I signed for my place of employment.  I suspect it has many fairly standard provisions in it as it mainly states I have no expectation of privacy while using employer provided internet at work.  But what it does NOT say is interesting - no where in this document do I give permission to monitor my internet use at home.
> 
> Now I suspect where most people run afoul of agreements like this is they access social media accounts from work, using work provided resources.  That sort of opens the gate to allowing the employer in to snoop around as they see fit.
> 
> ...



While all of that is well and good, not making threats in your online postings will go a long way towards keeping your job. In this day and age our work lives and our private lives are blended and I doubt that that will end anytime soon. Social media is a double edged sword. You connect with people online who you would have never met in real life. So you have to assume that everything that you post is out there for the world to see, at all times, even in a closed facebook group because anyone can screenshot your post. Everything is public once you post it. I'm amazed at what I see people post. It makes me pretty uncomfortable for them sometimes.

I know someone whose job was to fire people who posted stupid things on social media. The way it seemed to go was that someone would report the employee for something posted on social media, then the company would go through their social media postings and build their case, then the employee would be called in and fired. It never ended well for the employee.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 27, 2018)

Once an employer is notified (which it sounds like they were) they must take action if the comment threatens others because it is imperative to maintain a safe and productive workplace. It appears that this person had a pattern of negative behavior because he probably wouldn't have been reported if this was a one-off.

I also don't like the idea of employers digging into what people do in their off-hours, however this could be construed as a threat with multiple instances and crosses the line.  As an HGVC customer, I wouldn't want this guy taking care of me or having access to my room...you just never know who he might threaten next or what will set him off.


----------



## brp (Nov 27, 2018)

CalGalTraveler said:


> I also don't like the idea of employers digging into what people do in their off-hours, however this could be construed as a threat with multiple instances and crosses the line.



Agreed. It's one thing to post a picture of having a beer (or three) in Aruba. It's another to make an open threat against another individual.

Cheers.


----------



## Tamaradarann (Nov 27, 2018)

bbodb1 said:


> For this conversation, the seriousness was acknowledged but the focus of the subsequent conversation in this thread has to do with another aspect of this story.



Your posts on this thread mention the right to privacy of an employee and what they do when they are off duty on their own time.  I totally support your thinking that what you do on your own time should NOT subject to your employer's scrutiny.  That is why my post focused on the seriousness of the tweet not withstanding whether the employer has a right to violate the employee's privacy.  

My thinking is similar about illegal wiretapping or bugging of someone's conversation by law enforcement agencies.  If they uncover that someone is using an illegal substance or is cheating on their husband it should be ignored, however, if they uncover that someone is going to commit a terrorist act then that should be acted on with the full force of the law.


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 28, 2018)

Tamaradarann said:


> I totally support your thinking that what you do on your own time should NOT [be] subject to your employer's scrutiny.



This was not merely a case of an employee doing something stupid on his own time. He did it publicly, in a manner designed to draw attention to himself, and consequently, the employer was drawn into it by complaints. Under these circumstances, for Hilton to do nothing would have brought disrepute to the company. Boycotts have started over less.

.


----------



## DrQ (Nov 28, 2018)

Tamaradarann said:


> Your posts on this thread mention the right to privacy of an employee and what they do when they are off duty on their own time.  I totally support your thinking that what you do on your own time should NOT subject to your employer's scrutiny.  That is why my post focused on the seriousness of the tweet not withstanding whether the employer has a right to violate the employee's privacy.


It does not work that way.

Again, I'll bring up the case of Adam Smith, who was a CFO of a Pharmaceutical device company. He felt strongly about the protest against Chick Fil A's owner's political statements at the time. He decided to become involved in the protest and filmed himself going through the drive through ordering a glass of water only. He engaged the woman in the window in a conversation about working for such a "hateful" company. While he did not yell or use invectives, he just kept it up and continued to the point that even though he was polite, it was uncomfortable. By the way, the woman in the window was a champ in her response which totally counterpointed his behavior.  He put the video on YouTube under his own name. Through social media it was determined where he worked and within hours his company was flooded with angry callers.  He was fired within 24-48 hours and became unemployable because the video follows him forever.

I know of another case where an individual became involved in an ugly racial incident. They were responding to taunts by another individual and did not start the altercation. Someone with a cellphone recorded the incident and it made the news. This individual was identified and removed from their job because of the incident. I don't know if the person was fired, but it was most likely a serious career disruption.


----------



## bbodb1 (Nov 28, 2018)

Tamaradarann said:


> Your posts on this thread mention the right to privacy of an employee and what they do when they are off duty on their own time.  I totally support your thinking that what you do on your own time should NOT subject to your employer's scrutiny.  That is why my post focused on the seriousness of the tweet not withstanding whether the employer has a right to violate the employee's privacy.
> 
> My thinking is similar about illegal wiretapping or bugging of someone's conversation by law enforcement agencies.  If they uncover that someone is using an illegal substance or is cheating on their husband it should be ignored, however, if they uncover that someone is going to commit a terrorist act then that should be acted on with the full force of the law.



Most definitely agree with this.  My thinking on this story was it offered many different discussion points beyond/outside the disturbing content of the tweet.  Dr Q's response just after this touches on another aspect of stories like this as well.  I think we all agree we live in a time where our actions can be recorded, dissected and analyzed ad nauseum and whether or not this is a positive development is certainly another point of discussion I would submit.  Perhaps I should have made a separate thread to discuss aspects other than the tweet in retrospect so I'll offer my apologies for that oversight on my part.    

These are not simple times we live in/with.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 28, 2018)

My takeaway is that an employer shouldn't actively snoop into an employee's personal life. However when that personal privacy becomes public via social media or video then it is not private anymore; it is in the public domain and if it can be embarrassing to the company, or it would create tensions in the workplace or with customers, or unsafe workplace, then they need to take action.

The issue arises when that information becomes public involuntarily because there are so many cameras these days.  What also may occur is with advanced video editing, innocent people could become unfairly targeted for revenge - very scary.


----------



## 1Kflyerguy (Nov 28, 2018)

CalGalTraveler said:


> My takeaway is that an employer shouldn't actively snoop into an employee's personal life. However when that personal privacy becomes public via social media or video then it is not private anymore; it is in the public domain and if it can be embarrassing to the company, or it would create tensions in the workplace or with customers, or unsafe workplace, then they need to take action.



While I agree an employer should not really snoop on their employees, employees and employers are often easily linked.  I work for a major software company, and we are encouraged share our work life on social media, the company even suggests hashtags to link the posts back to the company.  The idea is promote the company to prospective employees.  Personally I am not that big into that, but many people are. 

My Facebook profile lists my employer and position, of course that optional but many people do include that.  There might be posts and pictures of you at team or company events and parties. For me, i have an uncommon last name, and it would very easy to track me down on LinkedIn, probably less than a minute or two at most.

I have not heard what position the person held at HGV, but its possible they used a company computer or phone for some or all of the posts.  I have both a company laptop and phone, our corporate policy states that the company has the right to monitor and log everything you do from those devices, regardless of being at work, home, vacation, etc.


----------



## Tamaradarann (Nov 28, 2018)

DrQ said:


> It does not work that way.
> 
> Again, I'll bring up the case of Adam Smith, who was a CFO of a Pharmaceutical device company. He felt strongly about the protest against Chick Fil A's owner's political statements at the time. He decided to become involved in the protest and filmed himself going through the drive through ordering a glass of water only. He engaged the woman in the window in a conversation about working for such a "hateful" company. While he did not yell or use invectives, he just kept it up and continued to the point that even though he was polite, it was uncomfortable. By the way, the woman in the window was a champ in her response which totally counterpointed his behavior.  He put the video on YouTube under his own name. Through social media it was determined where he worked and within hours his company was flooded with angry callers.  He was fired within 24-48 hours and became unemployable because the video follows him forever.
> 
> I know of another case where an individual became involved in an ugly racial incident. They were responding to taunts by another individual and did not start the altercation. Someone with a cellphone recorded the incident and it made the news. This individual was identified and removed from their job because of the incident. I don't know if the person was fired, but it was most likely a serious career disruption.


----------



## Tamaradarann (Nov 28, 2018)

I must state that I wasn't even thinking about this becoming a public incident which could damage the Hilton Name when I made my comments.  From that perspective a company needs to do what it needs to do what it needs to do to save its image in the public eye no matter what the nature of the incident.    My comments were directed at the content of what this HGVC employee tweeted.  In this case the content was criminal and whether it was public or not needed to be dealt with severely.


----------



## FamilyEsq (Nov 28, 2018)

bbodb1 said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2018)

dioxide45 said:


> 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 (Nov 29, 2018)

FamilyEsq said:


> 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 (Nov 29, 2018)

bbodb1 said:


> 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 (Nov 29, 2018)

FamilyEsq said:


> 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 (Nov 29, 2018)

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 (Nov 29, 2018)

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 (Nov 29, 2018)

FamilyEsq said:


> 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 (Nov 29, 2018)

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 (Nov 29, 2018)

klpca said:


> 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 (Nov 29, 2018)

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 (Nov 29, 2018)

alwysonvac said:


> 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 (Nov 29, 2018)

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 (Nov 30, 2018)

alwysonvac said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2018)

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


----------



## Tamaradarann (Dec 1, 2018)

bbodb1 said:


> *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 (Dec 2, 2018)

Tamaradarann said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2018)

brp said:


> 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)


----------

