Chili's server fired over Facebook rant: Fair or Foul?

by (▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪) Posted 2012/06/24 23:14:43

Related Topics: Facebook, 2012, Chili's, Rant, Fair

Read More

48 votes
Read all 51 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Fair	35 votes	73%
	Foul	13 votes	27%

Add a comment above

addie 2012/06/25 01:20:38

Fair

+4
A server, publically threatening to spit in food, using the company's name?? Yes, fire that jerk!!
As an aside...the tip is up to the tipper! and they are not owed.
Sometimes a waiter is not too good.
Some people are cheap or just do not have the money for a huge tip.

----if a person is given, very little, for a lot of work...and cannot take it, they should get another job and it should not be with the public!
>> See Replies

More polls by (▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪)

Silent Bob 2012/06/24 23:19:13

Foul

+1
Freedom of speech.

reply
Jo to Silent Bob 2012/06/24 23:29:28

thats not "freedom of speech"---freedom of speech is meant for political speech, not for people to verbalize whatever they want.

reply
Silent Bob to Jo 2012/06/24 23:36:28

Sure it is. She has the right to say what she wants when she wants however she wants. It's not just political.
She had no mention of her work at all, so how is it their business?

reply
Jo to Silent Bob 2012/06/24 23:39:36

It IS just political---freedom of speech does NOT mean you can say whatever you want however you want; you canNOT, for example, walk into a crowded building and yell "fire!"; you also cant call an establishment and joke about there a bomb planted in their building, nor can you walk into a bank and yell "this is a stick-up!"----all of these are examples of people that said "whatever they wanted" however they wanted to say it; they're also felonies:))

reply
Silent Bob to Jo 2012/06/24 23:42:45

Then what's the point of having that amendment? Sure it's not right to say those things, yet technically people should have the right to say whatever they want.
In this ladies case, she didn't do any serious damage.
If anything just write her up and carry on.

reply
Jo to Silent Bob 2012/06/25 04:15:00

the point of having that ammendment is to allow people to speak freely in speech settings concerning politics--thats why it was originally drawn up; in this case, what she did not only showed her employers that she possessed a particularly negaitve attitude that runs counter to her job, but she also posted it in a setting that could potentially permit customers---past, present, and future--to see it. They had every right to take issue with it.

reply
Silent Bob to Jo 2012/06/25 17:30:29

+1
I suppose you do have a point, thanks for this conversation Jo, :)

reply
Jo to Silent Bob 2012/06/25 18:51:10

+1
:))

reply
Helmholtz to Silent Bob 2012/06/24 23:41:51

+1
Freedom of Speech has been interpreted by the courts to mean that, except for in a handful of circumstances, governments can't limit your speech. Private institutions are a different deal. This is why you can refuse to allow a person into your home, for example, if they say things that you find offensive or why a church can kick a person out if they, say, are expressing opinions that run counter to the tenants of the church.

reply
Marcus ... to Silent Bob 2012/06/25 07:12:45

+2
This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech."
"Freedom of speech" is a term derived from the US Constitution, 1st Amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
Chili's is not Congress.

reply
Jo to Marcus ... 2012/06/25 18:51:31

+1
very well put, thank you:))

reply