this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
655 points (97.1% liked)

News

35962 readers
3798 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 82 points 2 years ago (3 children)

You know this chick:

Those expressions were her reaction to taste testing some kombucha on a video or stream. Those screenshots were grabbed by the internet and used in a similar format to the Drake meme, "Nah that's bad" "actually I like that

She worked at a bank. They fired her for it.

[–] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 44 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's fucked up. There's nothing about that video that was remotely inappropriate for work. Everyone needs to join a union, holy hell.

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I heard Unions were of the devil!

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

So she was essentially fired for being a comedic actor. Imagine if the restaurant industry had the same policy.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 24 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's potentially worse, and stupider, than that.

The bank didn't fire her specifically because she posted the video where she made a couple faces after trying kombucha. They fired her because her face started to get used for the meme. Completely out of her control, because people started posting "thing I don't like, thing I like" memes with this format, often times with various political messages. Basically someone else used her face in a "this brings joy, this does not bring joy" meme and she got canned because of the bank's "image." As if it was actually her saying these things.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I mean, I hope she got a hell of a lawsuit out of that, because damn. Also its a bank so you know they have at least some money.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

At Will employment. "In a meme" is not a protected class, and a reasonable bank employee could see her meme-attachment having a detrimental effect on business (you don't have to be in your reasons for firing someone as long as those reasons aren't protected or being used to hide that you're firing them for a protected reason). I'd guess she'd have no case in almost any state in the US with their lack of employee protections.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And to be clear - she probably got unemployment. "At-Will" isn't a magic spell.

Terminating an employee without cause requires them to pay unemployment.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

She was terminated "for cause". To get unemployment, she's likely to have to fight for it. She's likely to win, but it's not a free thing.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's super duper easy. The unemployment office LOVES forcing companies to pay up.

[–] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You're not wrong, but I've also worked at companies that successfully contested unemployment claims. It can depend by state, but "it was entirely this person's fault" is a bad start. Employers win about 30% of contested claims, and then about 15-20% of appeals (#1 cause for an employer losing a contested claim or an appeal appears to be withdrawing or not showing up for it). (Some numbers)

And the main reason employers lose when they show up is lack of preparation. In a case like the above, if they can show a policy (preferably one signed by her) that directly forbids her onlyfans account, they probably have a pretty good case to shut her down.

That said, they're very unlikely to waste their time and money to fight it. Ultimately (as my current employer's HR put it) "it's just a cost of doing business" and a waste of money to pursue.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Gross. Here in Brazil the employers would be bending over backwards to beg her not to sue them for all they're worth.

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Here in Sweden this wouldn't be a problem whatsoever, and she'd have worker rights. Well, the conservatives driven by American cock sucking ideals are dismantling all that, but so far, she'd be ok.

ed: i get political when I'm drunk, sorry

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

restaurant industry

Isn't that where fired comedic actors go after they are fired?

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

Wow. TIL. That sucks.