DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Any American's serve(ed) in the military?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 48, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/06/2012 07:10:01 AM · #1
I was just reading the story "Marine Sgt. Gary Stein should go for criticizing Obama on Facebook, Board says"

From the little I know, there is some sort of military code that supersedes the laws/rights that civilians have. I'm not familiar with them all and wondered if what this Marine did was in fact against military code, and if so which part...and if not, why not?

Personally, if this Marine wants to sign up and head back into enemy fire, political views aside, I say let him. Regardless of his personal opinions, I would imagine that with the costly war on terror, the 'beggar's can't be choosers' line comes to mind and this guy must be good at what he does since he's been at it for 8yrs (I believe).

Then again, I've never served and don't know what it's like to be in that situation. I never liked Bush and could imagine that many soldiers felt the same...but I was always surprised that I never heard/saw them do anything to insult their President...at least not in a public forum.

Any comments?
04/06/2012 07:19:04 AM · #2
There is an article Here dealing with this matter.

Ray
04/06/2012 09:08:00 AM · #3
The Marines are a disciplined service and the Sgt should have known better. The Sgt has taken a ver public swipe at what is the leader of the organisation, many many people have lost their jobs for having public digs at their bosses on Facebook.

Should he lose his job?... I don't think so but he should have a sanction brought against him for the misconduct issue.

As an ex serviceman I would imagine they will make an example out of him just to save face, and the fact that he will have risked his life and served his country will be sadly forgotten.
04/06/2012 10:10:21 AM · #4
There are a number of rights that our citizens enjoy, that our service members do not.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, is not the same as what civillians are under. In any event, the President of the United States is the commander in chief of the military forces. Which means, in short, he is the highest ranking officer in the military. When a serviceman or woman takes a public swipe at the President, it is punishable under military law. Ask Gen Douglas McArthur. He took a shot at Eisenhower in the 50's. It did not go so well for him either.
04/06/2012 10:21:40 AM · #5
Originally posted by ambaker:

There are a number of rights that our citizens enjoy, that our service members do not.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, is not the same as what civillians are under. In any event, the President of the United States is the commander in chief of the military forces. Which means, in short, he is the highest ranking officer in the military. When a serviceman or woman takes a public swipe at the President, it is punishable under military law. Ask Gen Douglas McArthur. He took a shot at Eisenhower in the 50's. It did not go so well for him either.


Actually, it was Truman that fired MacArthur. Here's an article on the subject.
04/06/2012 11:57:37 AM · #6
Originally posted by Germaine:


Actually, it was Truman that fired MacArthur. Here's an article on the subject.


By golly you are correct! I stand, er... sit corrected.
04/06/2012 12:09:35 PM · #7
I served in the Army for eight years. Under Clinton and Bush 2. Anyways, President Obama fired General Stanley McChrystal nearly two years ago for comments he had made about the president. I try not to get into politics, but I will say that the President had to fire McChrystal. Here's an article that better explains it better.Why Obama Had to Fire McChrystal
04/06/2012 02:13:00 PM · #8
The United States military is the world's largest budgetary entity. More is spent on it than the rest of the world's military combined. Yet Americans have never felt the fear of a military coup, because it is zealously non-political. The Commander in Cheif can change, and there is no need to change the military's command staff, because the military sees itself as a tool, not an actor on the political landscape.
Of course this means that the opinions of serving members of the military have very limited avenues for expressing their views, but that comes with the uniform.
The problem with posting to social media like Facebook is that it may feel like a bull session over beers, but it spreads like an opinion price in the news paper. Had the Marine written an op-ed piece ripping his Captain's competence it would be just as clear violation of protocol. You just can't go public with opinions of superior officers, and whatever your feelings are about the current president, he is your Commander in Chief.

Message edited by author 2012-04-06 14:17:17.
04/06/2012 03:03:51 PM · #9
If that individual worked for me as my only employee, and he publicly bad mouthed me, I'd fire him.
If he worked for Boeing, and he publicly bad mouthed Boeing and or it's leadership, he'd be fired.
If he worked for RCA, and he publicly bad mouthed RCA and or its leadership, he'd be fired.
I've been in the military and it's always been the rule that you don't bad mouth the boss while you're in the military or you get in deep do-do.
And, you definitely don't bad mouth the President who is the boss as an employee whether you're in the military or some other part of the Federal government. If I remember right, it's in your agreement/contract when you signed up..
04/06/2012 04:37:49 PM · #10
Originally posted by d56ranger:

If that individual worked for me as my only employee, and he publicly bad mouthed me, I'd fire him.
If he worked for Boeing, and he publicly bad mouthed Boeing and or it's leadership, he'd be fired.
If he worked for RCA, and he publicly bad mouthed RCA and or its leadership, he'd be fired.
I've been in the military and it's always been the rule that you don't bad mouth the boss while you're in the military or you get in deep do-do.
And, you definitely don't bad mouth the President who is the boss as an employee whether you're in the military or some other part of the Federal government. If I remember right, it's in your agreement/contract when you signed up..


You might want to fire him, Boeing and RCA might want to fire him, but you can't fire someone just for saying bad things about you. Freedom of speech and all of that. They'd have a beauty of a wrongful termination lawsuit. Hopefully your legal and HR departments would stop you from doing something stupid.

The military is different.

UCMJ Article 88 makes it a crime for an officer to speak "contemptuous words" against the the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present.

Even though the Sgt is not a commissioned officer, Article 134 makes it illegal "acts of speech that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or that could bring discredit upon the Armed Forces." Pretty broad, huh? Basically, if you say something that your command thinks disruptive to military order or cast the military in a bad light...you might be in deep doo-doo.

Service members are also prohibited from influencing others to vote through their authority, holding office, participating in campaigns or political party management.

Civilians have none of those restrictions.
04/06/2012 05:39:54 PM · #11
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by d56ranger:

If that individual worked for me as my only employee, and he publicly bad mouthed me, I'd fire him.
If he worked for Boeing, and he publicly bad mouthed Boeing and or it's leadership, he'd be fired.
If he worked for RCA, and he publicly bad mouthed RCA and or its leadership, he'd be fired.
I've been in the military and it's always been the rule that you don't bad mouth the boss while you're in the military or you get in deep do-do.
And, you definitely don't bad mouth the President who is the boss as an employee whether you're in the military or some other part of the Federal government. If I remember right, it's in your agreement/contract when you signed up..


You might want to fire him, Boeing and RCA might want to fire him, but you can't fire someone just for saying bad things about you. Freedom of speech and all of that. They'd have a beauty of a wrongful termination lawsuit. Hopefully your legal and HR departments would stop you from doing something stupid.


In a right to work state, you can be fired for any non-protected reason, or no reason at all. Wrongful termination is only when you are fired for a protected reason.

Voicing your opinion is not a protected reason.

Message edited by author 2012-04-06 17:40:17.
04/06/2012 05:40:13 PM · #12
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by d56ranger:

If that individual worked for me as my only employee, and he publicly bad mouthed me, I'd fire him.
If he worked for Boeing, and he publicly bad mouthed Boeing and or it's leadership, he'd be fired.
If he worked for RCA, and he publicly bad mouthed RCA and or its leadership, he'd be fired.
I've been in the military and it's always been the rule that you don't bad mouth the boss while you're in the military or you get in deep do-do.
And, you definitely don't bad mouth the President who is the boss as an employee whether you're in the military or some other part of the Federal government. If I remember right, it's in your agreement/contract when you signed up..


You might want to fire him, Boeing and RCA might want to fire him, but you can't fire someone just for saying bad things about you. Freedom of speech and all of that. They'd have a beauty of a wrongful termination lawsuit. Hopefully your legal and HR departments would stop you from doing something stupid.

The military is different.

UCMJ Article 88 makes it a crime for an officer to speak "contemptuous words" against the the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present.

Even though the Sgt is not a commissioned officer, Article 134 makes it illegal "acts of speech that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or that could bring discredit upon the Armed Forces." Pretty broad, huh? Basically, if you say something that your command thinks disruptive to military order or cast the military in a bad light...you might be in deep doo-doo.

Service members are also prohibited from influencing others to vote through their authority, holding office, participating in campaigns or political party management.

Civilians have none of those restrictions.


Are you kidding? There is pretty much no such thing as wrongful termination anymore. People are fired every day for talking crap online (specifically facebook). There are employers demanding facebook passwords from prospective or current employees and either not hiring them, or firing them based on what they see. Google it.
04/06/2012 07:22:47 PM · #13
Originally posted by Kelli:

Are you kidding? There is pretty much no such thing as wrongful termination anymore. People are fired every day for talking crap online (specifically facebook). There are employers demanding facebook passwords from prospective or current employees and either not hiring them, or firing them based on what they see. Google it.


I've heard of this happening too, but I can't imagine why a company would ever do it. The turnover rate at a company that did that crap would be so high they would implode. I know I would be looking for a new job if that happened, and I don't even use facebook.
04/06/2012 07:35:43 PM · #14
Originally posted by bhuge:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Are you kidding? There is pretty much no such thing as wrongful termination anymore. People are fired every day for talking crap online (specifically facebook). There are employers demanding facebook passwords from prospective or current employees and either not hiring them, or firing them based on what they see. Google it.


I've heard of this happening too, but I can't imagine why a company would ever do it. The turnover rate at a company that did that crap would be so high they would implode. I know I would be looking for a new job if that happened, and I don't even use facebook.


It could well be that you have experience and background that are very much in demand and that this factor permits you to think this way.

The sad truth for most people is that their services (while important) can be obtained from a bevy of qualified individuals with similar qualifications who are currently seeking employment.

GE recently had 48 job openings for a plant in Kentucky and over 2000 people applied... that should provide an indication on just how expendable a lot of people are.

Just a thought,

Ray
04/06/2012 07:42:43 PM · #15
I can tell you that even in right to work states, firing people is not as easy as some would like you to think. Some companies do treat people poorly. I know managers that should not be allowed to supervise any living thing. However, a decent company does not go around firing people for no reason, no matter what the state. From the perspective of my company, firing is a last resort. The cost of hiring, and training, new personnel is not inconsequential.

Yes, people have been let go here. At the same time, it is usually a rather lengthy and involved process. Non-management personnel are entitled to a peer review process, where three hourly workers and two non-involved managers hear both sides and vote on whether the termination should stand. If the vote is to rescind the termination, that is the final word. No manager can overrule the panel.

04/06/2012 07:44:20 PM · #16
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by bhuge:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Are you kidding? There is pretty much no such thing as wrongful termination anymore. People are fired every day for talking crap online (specifically facebook). There are employers demanding facebook passwords from prospective or current employees and either not hiring them, or firing them based on what they see. Google it.


I've heard of this happening too, but I can't imagine why a company would ever do it. The turnover rate at a company that did that crap would be so high they would implode. I know I would be looking for a new job if that happened, and I don't even use facebook.


It could well be that you have experience and background that are very much in demand and that this factor permits you to think this way.

The sad truth for most people is that their services (while important) can be obtained from a bevy of qualified individuals with similar qualifications who are currently seeking employment.

GE recently had 48 job openings for a plant in Kentucky and over 2000 people applied... that should provide an indication on just how expendable a lot of people are.

Just a thought,

Ray


That's a very good point. These kind of tactics are not going to effect them nearly as much. But I think it still hurts them a little to do this stuff. I would like to think the 48 people they hired are the best or most qualified of the 2000 (granted this is very subjective). I'm sure at least a few of those lucky 48 would be so turned off when asked to hand over their account that they would keep looking else ware. The people that do turn down GE would then need to be filled with some of the less qualified 2000 applicants.

But your point still stands. With that many applicants it's not much of a loss for GE to lose a few.
04/06/2012 09:20:04 PM · #17
Originally posted by bhuge:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by bhuge:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Are you kidding? There is pretty much no such thing as wrongful termination anymore. People are fired every day for talking crap online (specifically facebook). There are employers demanding facebook passwords from prospective or current employees and either not hiring them, or firing them based on what they see. Google it.


I've heard of this happening too, but I can't imagine why a company would ever do it. The turnover rate at a company that did that crap would be so high they would implode. I know I would be looking for a new job if that happened, and I don't even use facebook.


It could well be that you have experience and background that are very much in demand and that this factor permits you to think this way.

The sad truth for most people is that their services (while important) can be obtained from a bevy of qualified individuals with similar qualifications who are currently seeking employment.

GE recently had 48 job openings for a plant in Kentucky and over 2000 people applied... that should provide an indication on just how expendable a lot of people are.

Just a thought,

Ray


That's a very good point. These kind of tactics are not going to effect them nearly as much. But I think it still hurts them a little to do this stuff. I would like to think the 48 people they hired are the best or most qualified of the 2000 (granted this is very subjective). I'm sure at least a few of those lucky 48 would be so turned off when asked to hand over their account that they would keep looking else ware. The people that do turn down GE would then need to be filled with some of the less qualified 2000 applicants.

But your point still stands. With that many applicants it's not much of a loss for GE to lose a few.


Here's an article about this... //abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-passwords-employers-schools-demand-access-facebook-senators/story?id=16005565#.T3-VtpkePwk. It's pretty eye opening about the state of entitlement employers are feeling knowing so many are out of work.
04/06/2012 10:19:36 PM · #18
Originally posted by alohadave:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by d56ranger:

If that individual worked for me as my only employee, and he publicly bad mouthed me, I'd fire him.
If he worked for Boeing, and he publicly bad mouthed Boeing and or it's leadership, he'd be fired.
If he worked for RCA, and he publicly bad mouthed RCA and or its leadership, he'd be fired.
I've been in the military and it's always been the rule that you don't bad mouth the boss while you're in the military or you get in deep do-do.
And, you definitely don't bad mouth the President who is the boss as an employee whether you're in the military or some other part of the Federal government. If I remember right, it's in your agreement/contract when you signed up..


You might want to fire him, Boeing and RCA might want to fire him, but you can't fire someone just for saying bad things about you. Freedom of speech and all of that. They'd have a beauty of a wrongful termination lawsuit. Hopefully your legal and HR departments would stop you from doing something stupid.


In a right to work state, you can be fired for any non-protected reason, or no reason at all. Wrongful termination is only when you are fired for a protected reason.

Voicing your opinion is not a protected reason.


If only firing someone were so easy...
04/06/2012 10:27:05 PM · #19
Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by bhuge:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by bhuge:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Are you kidding? There is pretty much no such thing as wrongful termination anymore. People are fired every day for talking crap online (specifically facebook). There are employers demanding facebook passwords from prospective or current employees and either not hiring them, or firing them based on what they see. Google it.


I've heard of this happening too, but I can't imagine why a company would ever do it. The turnover rate at a company that did that crap would be so high they would implode. I know I would be looking for a new job if that happened, and I don't even use facebook.


It could well be that you have experience and background that are very much in demand and that this factor permits you to think this way.

The sad truth for most people is that their services (while important) can be obtained from a bevy of qualified individuals with similar qualifications who are currently seeking employment.

GE recently had 48 job openings for a plant in Kentucky and over 2000 people applied... that should provide an indication on just how expendable a lot of people are.

Just a thought,

Ray


That's a very good point. These kind of tactics are not going to effect them nearly as much. But I think it still hurts them a little to do this stuff. I would like to think the 48 people they hired are the best or most qualified of the 2000 (granted this is very subjective). I'm sure at least a few of those lucky 48 would be so turned off when asked to hand over their account that they would keep looking else ware. The people that do turn down GE would then need to be filled with some of the less qualified 2000 applicants.

But your point still stands. With that many applicants it's not much of a loss for GE to lose a few.


Here's an article about this... //abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-passwords-employers-schools-demand-access-facebook-senators/story?id=16005565#.T3-VtpkePwk. It's pretty eye opening about the state of entitlement employers are feeling knowing so many are out of work.


Would you want to work for a company that asked for your Facebook password? Maybe they'll ask for the key to your house so they can go rummage around in your dresser and desk too.

It's a huge risk for the employer too. They can't ask about age, marital status, sexual orientation etc, but they can likely learn all of those things from someone's FB account...it's just a matter of time before someone sues the pants off of a company for not hiring them because the company discovered something like that from their FB page. Doesn't matter if that's the real reason for not hiring them or not.

04/06/2012 10:51:29 PM · #20
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by alohadave:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by d56ranger:

If that individual worked for me as my only employee, and he publicly bad mouthed me, I'd fire him.
If he worked for Boeing, and he publicly bad mouthed Boeing and or it's leadership, he'd be fired.
If he worked for RCA, and he publicly bad mouthed RCA and or its leadership, he'd be fired.
I've been in the military and it's always been the rule that you don't bad mouth the boss while you're in the military or you get in deep do-do.
And, you definitely don't bad mouth the President who is the boss as an employee whether you're in the military or some other part of the Federal government. If I remember right, it's in your agreement/contract when you signed up..


You might want to fire him, Boeing and RCA might want to fire him, but you can't fire someone just for saying bad things about you. Freedom of speech and all of that. They'd have a beauty of a wrongful termination lawsuit. Hopefully your legal and HR departments would stop you from doing something stupid.


In a right to work state, you can be fired for any non-protected reason, or no reason at all. Wrongful termination is only when you are fired for a protected reason.

Voicing your opinion is not a protected reason.


If only firing someone were so easy...


Around here it is. My daughter was fired from her previous job because they found someone cheaper. They didn't pull any punches and told her that was the reason.
04/06/2012 11:00:01 PM · #21
Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by alohadave:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by d56ranger:

If that individual worked for me as my only employee, and he publicly bad mouthed me, I'd fire him.
If he worked for Boeing, and he publicly bad mouthed Boeing and or it's leadership, he'd be fired.
If he worked for RCA, and he publicly bad mouthed RCA and or its leadership, he'd be fired.
I've been in the military and it's always been the rule that you don't bad mouth the boss while you're in the military or you get in deep do-do.
And, you definitely don't bad mouth the President who is the boss as an employee whether you're in the military or some other part of the Federal government. If I remember right, it's in your agreement/contract when you signed up..


You might want to fire him, Boeing and RCA might want to fire him, but you can't fire someone just for saying bad things about you. Freedom of speech and all of that. They'd have a beauty of a wrongful termination lawsuit. Hopefully your legal and HR departments would stop you from doing something stupid.


In a right to work state, you can be fired for any non-protected reason, or no reason at all. Wrongful termination is only when you are fired for a protected reason.

Voicing your opinion is not a protected reason.


If only firing someone were so easy...


It's really not difficult. I used to work at a place that had 25% turnover annually. They do massive firings about twice a year, and employees are constantly being let go.

I lasted 1.5 years, and my wife lasted 9.5. We were both let go for pretty trivial things.
04/07/2012 10:02:29 AM · #22
Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by alohadave:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by d56ranger:

If that individual worked for me as my only employee, and he publicly bad mouthed me, I'd fire him.
If he worked for Boeing, and he publicly bad mouthed Boeing and or it's leadership, he'd be fired.
If he worked for RCA, and he publicly bad mouthed RCA and or its leadership, he'd be fired.
I've been in the military and it's always been the rule that you don't bad mouth the boss while you're in the military or you get in deep do-do.
And, you definitely don't bad mouth the President who is the boss as an employee whether you're in the military or some other part of the Federal government. If I remember right, it's in your agreement/contract when you signed up..


You might want to fire him, Boeing and RCA might want to fire him, but you can't fire someone just for saying bad things about you. Freedom of speech and all of that. They'd have a beauty of a wrongful termination lawsuit. Hopefully your legal and HR departments would stop you from doing something stupid.


In a right to work state, you can be fired for any non-protected reason, or no reason at all. Wrongful termination is only when you are fired for a protected reason.

Voicing your opinion is not a protected reason.


If only firing someone were so easy...


Around here it is. My daughter was fired from her previous job because they found someone cheaper. They didn't pull any punches and told her that was the reason.


But that's a lot different than firing someone for something they say. You still don't have a job, but "firing" implies a lack of performance or you were doing something like touching the secretaries on the butt. Here, that means you are ineligible to collect unemployment. If you get let go because they eliminated you to save money, that's not a reason to deny unemployment.

One of my previous employers laid me off to outsource my lab, it was a "cost reduction". Unfortunately for them, I'd written all of the software that ran the test equipment in the lab. It worked fine as long as you didn't need to do anything out of the ordinary. A few weeks later, I got a call from them asking about making changes to the software...basically they wanted me to come in and help them. I told them I was now a consultant and my rate was $1200/day and that the changes we were discussing would be 4 days minimum.
04/07/2012 10:29:56 AM · #23
Originally posted by Spork99:

But that's a lot different than firing someone for something they say. You still don't have a job, but "firing" implies a lack of performance or you were doing something like touching the secretaries on the butt. Here, that means you are ineligible to collect unemployment. If you get let go because they eliminated you to save money, that's not a reason to deny unemployment.


Being 'fired' implies nothing, other than you do not work there anymore. Unemployment, and what you are eligible for is a separate issue. You can be fired for cause and still collect unemployment, it depends on if the company wants to fight your claim.
04/07/2012 11:38:19 AM · #24
Originally posted by Spork99:


...One of my previous employers laid me off to outsource my lab, it was a "cost reduction". Unfortunately for them, I'd written all of the software that ran the test equipment in the lab. It worked fine as long as you didn't need to do anything out of the ordinary. A few weeks later, I got a call from them asking about making changes to the software...basically they wanted me to come in and help them. I told them I was now a consultant and my rate was $1200/day and that the changes we were discussing would be 4 days minimum.


That really doesn't say much in relation to the job you had.

Assuming that the software you designed met their previous demands to a tee, that the only reason they let you go was for cost reduction considerations and they were otherwise quite pleased with your services, then I as a manager I would have no problems paying you the per diem rate since it would in all likelihood be cheaper than keeping you on full time.

In such a scenario, both you and the company are happy. :O)

Ray
04/07/2012 11:46:34 AM · #25
Originally posted by alohadave:

Originally posted by Spork99:

But that's a lot different than firing someone for something they say. You still don't have a job, but "firing" implies a lack of performance or you were doing something like touching the secretaries on the butt. Here, that means you are ineligible to collect unemployment. If you get let go because they eliminated you to save money, that's not a reason to deny unemployment.


Being 'fired' implies nothing, other than you do not work there anymore. Unemployment, and what you are eligible for is a separate issue. You can be fired for cause and still collect unemployment, it depends on if the company wants to fight your claim.


No. Being "fired" or "terminated for cause" means something different than simply being "let go" or "laid off"

When you file a claim for unemployment, the agency will ask your employer why you no longer work there. If the answer is terminated for cause or fired, you don't get unemployment. If you're "laid off" you get unemployment. They "fight your claim" ,as you say, by saying you were "terminated for cause". They can't lay you off and then deny unemployment.

Message edited by author 2012-04-07 11:50:49.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/05/2020 04:17:59 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 04/05/2020 04:17:59 PM EDT.