HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Erika Casher: Cigna 'Quie...

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:13 AM

Erika Casher: Cigna 'Quietly Fires' Employee Mocking Teen Over Grandmother's Death Due to Covid-19

Source: International Bussiness Times

Erika Casher, a white woman who was seen laughing at a student as he spoke about his grandmother's death due to Covid-19, has been fired from her job. The incident took place during a Tennessee school board meeting about implementing mask mandate.

The debate was organized after multiple schools in Tennessee announced that they would be closing in the wake of the rising COVID-19 cases.

The video, which has gone viral on the social media, shows a masked boy, Grady Knox, from Rutherford County speaking about why he feels that masks should be worn in the school by both the students and teachers.




Read more: https://www.ibtimes.sg/erika-casher-cigna-quietly-fires-employee-mocking-teen-over-grandmothers-death-due-covid-19-60169



BTW - She was a NURSE working for Cigna -A NURSE!!

158 replies, 17952 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 158 replies Author Time Post
Reply Erika Casher: Cigna 'Quietly Fires' Employee Mocking Teen Over Grandmother's Death Due to Covid-19 (Original post)
packman Sep 11 OP
ashredux Sep 11 #1
Dustlawyer Sep 11 #56
Prof. Toru Tanaka Sep 11 #60
ashredux Sep 11 #77
dflprincess Sep 11 #91
RVN VET71 Sep 11 #123
malthaussen Sep 11 #2
BlueStater Sep 11 #6
malthaussen Sep 11 #12
not fooled Sep 11 #34
malthaussen Sep 11 #37
Pluvious Sep 11 #101
druidity33 Sep 11 #140
TexasBushwhacker Sep 12 #150
Chin music Sep 11 #51
Marthe48 Sep 11 #38
malthaussen Sep 11 #45
ShazzieB Sep 11 #100
spooky3 Sep 11 #103
malthaussen Sep 11 #129
reACTIONary Sep 11 #142
malthaussen Sep 11 #128
PatSeg Sep 11 #50
malthaussen Sep 11 #55
PatSeg Sep 11 #86
plimsoll Sep 11 #104
spooky3 Sep 11 #110
plimsoll Sep 11 #119
spooky3 Sep 11 #124
plimsoll Sep 11 #126
Chin music Sep 11 #57
PatSeg Sep 11 #87
Chin music Sep 11 #88
PatSeg Sep 11 #115
LiberalFighter Sep 11 #80
malthaussen Sep 11 #84
Dream Girl Sep 11 #102
malthaussen Sep 11 #127
Fiendish Thingy Sep 11 #85
spooky3 Sep 11 #111
qazplm135 Sep 11 #113
LisaM Sep 11 #7
wnylib Sep 11 #81
The Magistrate Sep 11 #8
malthaussen Sep 11 #22
eggplant Sep 11 #32
malthaussen Sep 11 #42
jaxexpat Sep 11 #73
qazplm135 Sep 11 #114
The Magistrate Sep 11 #52
malthaussen Sep 11 #61
AngryOldDem Sep 11 #75
malthaussen Sep 11 #78
spooky3 Sep 11 #108
malthaussen Sep 11 #131
stopdiggin Sep 11 #98
malthaussen Sep 11 #133
Backseat Driver Sep 11 #109
irisblue Sep 11 #9
llmart Sep 11 #16
malthaussen Sep 11 #26
BidenRocks Sep 11 #41
Traildogbob Sep 11 #48
malthaussen Sep 11 #53
Traildogbob Sep 11 #59
radical noodle Sep 11 #13
Backseat Driver Sep 11 #112
radical noodle Sep 11 #121
blm Sep 11 #15
NH Ethylene Sep 11 #19
Wingus Dingus Sep 11 #39
NH Ethylene Sep 11 #94
Wingus Dingus Sep 11 #99
stopdiggin Sep 11 #144
spooky3 Sep 13 #154
Mysterian Sep 11 #130
malthaussen Sep 11 #132
Mysterian Sep 11 #135
malthaussen Sep 12 #151
Skittles Sep 11 #141
Wingus Dingus Sep 11 #35
Bristlecone Sep 11 #36
AngryOldDem Sep 11 #65
malthaussen Sep 11 #70
PSPS Sep 11 #76
malthaussen Sep 11 #83
Hekate Sep 11 #107
NJCher Sep 11 #118
Skittles Sep 11 #125
soldierant Sep 11 #145
Random Boomer Sep 12 #149
Luciferous Sep 12 #153
Midnight Writer Sep 11 #3
malthaussen Sep 11 #31
Wingus Dingus Sep 11 #89
Anon-C Sep 11 #4
lapfog_1 Sep 11 #11
TimeToGo Sep 11 #21
irisblue Sep 11 #14
Anon-C Sep 11 #18
irisblue Sep 11 #25
Anon-C Sep 11 #28
irisblue Sep 11 #68
hadEnuf Sep 11 #5
hlthe2b Sep 11 #10
modrepub Sep 11 #17
marybourg Sep 11 #40
modrepub Sep 11 #134
llmart Sep 11 #20
Snackshack Sep 11 #23
Wingus Dingus Sep 11 #27
Snackshack Sep 11 #47
Wingus Dingus Sep 11 #64
malthaussen Sep 11 #71
malthaussen Sep 11 #49
Wingus Dingus Sep 11 #67
Prof. Toru Tanaka Sep 11 #69
Major Nikon Sep 11 #105
spooky3 Sep 13 #155
Major Nikon Sep 15 #156
spooky3 Sep 15 #157
tenderfoot Sep 11 #24
packman Sep 11 #29
tenderfoot Sep 11 #43
PatSeg Sep 11 #30
BidenRocks Sep 11 #33
Jon King Sep 11 #44
FoxNewsSucks Sep 11 #46
lark Sep 11 #54
Ziggysmom Sep 11 #58
Wingus Dingus Sep 11 #72
AngryOldDem Sep 11 #62
GB_RN Sep 11 #63
BradBo Sep 11 #66
calimary Sep 11 #74
NNadir Sep 11 #79
lambchopp59 Sep 11 #82
Owl Sep 11 #90
packman Sep 11 #92
Owl Sep 11 #97
AllaN01Bear Sep 11 #93
Lovie777 Sep 11 #95
Hekate Sep 11 #96
33taw Sep 11 #106
LudwigPastorius Sep 11 #116
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Sep 11 #117
The Jungle 1 Sep 11 #120
SuperCoder Sep 11 #122
keithbvadu2 Sep 11 #136
ExTex Sep 11 #137
Evolve Dammit Sep 11 #138
MissMillie Sep 11 #139
PatrickforB Sep 11 #143
Demovictory9 Sep 12 #146
Sherman A1 Sep 12 #147
twodogsbarking Sep 12 #148
SKKY Sep 12 #152
Aristus Sep 15 #158

Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:16 AM

1. Instant Karma....gotta love it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashredux (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:26 AM

56. I don't think all of her Karma was instant.

The story says she was a case manager for Cigna. These are usually the employees who deny treatment to injured worker’s compensation victims. They review what your doctor is doing and suggest cheaper treatments, deny some treatments outright as not medically necessary, and are quick to say the injured employee is ready to return to work.

She could be someone who reviews your health insurance claims rather than WC and denies the coverage etc.

Takes a really unempathetic person to do that job for sure.
Either way it is great she is gone!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #56)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:33 AM

60. Well, her lack of empathy was right there for all to see.



I like how it says she was "quietly fired." Another nasty person outed by video,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #56)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:55 AM

77. I was using the term as it is commonly used in the current vernacular

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #56)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 11:36 AM

91. She could do that

Or she could be in a department that deals directly with patients to help them manage their conditions and don't deal with claims at all. Most insurance companies have sonething like that now.

Either way she's a lousy nurse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #91)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 03:20 PM

123. And a worse human being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:18 AM

2. On the one hand, yay.

On the other... I am puzzled by the willingness of some companies to fire people over conduct unrelated to the workplace. Since when are employers in the business of dictating the behavior of people when they are not on the job? This is only one of several such incidents. I don't think I like it.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:22 AM

6. They have the right to protect their image.

If they don’t want despicable assholes like this representing their business, that’s completely their right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStater (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:30 AM

12. By all means, on the job.

This woman was not "representing Cigna" at the board meeting, she was acting in her capacity as a private citizen. I do not think that companies should have a right to regulate conduct of private citizens. It would be absurd for them to claim that an employee is always "representing" them. I do know that this happens, I don't approve. What happens if they demand to be "represented" in something reprehensible?

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:56 AM

34. I agree with you in general

but there's something about this case that makes Cigna's actions more defensible--her private conduct overlapped with her job...a nurse mocking public health measures...directly reflects on Cigna's mission to protect health (=pay as few claims as possible).

Anti-vax nurses shouldn't even be in that profession, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to not fooled (Reply #34)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:00 AM

37. I mislike the principle.

If she shows such an anti-health attitude at work, then she should get another job. This I can agree with. As I ask upthread, though, how many people who watched that video knew she worked for Cigna before they fired her? I suspect very few, probably only her friends and neighbors. So it makes the claim that she was "representing Cigna" absurd.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #37)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 12:27 PM

101. My take

I agree with your reaction to this, and the feeling of wrongness.

If she'd been USPS mail carrier, or say worked for the Department of Water and Power, it'd be totally wrong to fire her.

But working for an enterprise dependent upon goodwill of their customers, their reputation for the kind of people they employ impacts that goodwill. It's highly likely that she signed an employment contract spelling this out, as well as consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #37)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 06:35 PM

140. no but maybe...

they knew she was a NURSE. Often parents know what other parents do for a living but don't know where they work. If she was known as a nurse, maybe Cigna thought they would be branded by association. After all, a Nurse should know better.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to druidity33 (Reply #140)

Sun Sep 12, 2021, 08:20 AM

150. A nurse should also have empathy

I don't know if she had it at one time and burned out (that certainly happens) but she's certainly in the wrong profession now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to not fooled (Reply #34)


Response to malthaussen (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:01 AM

38. I volunteer for an organization

One of the things I agree to when I anually renew my volunteer status is that I represent the organization no matter what I'm doing. That means for me that I live the mission of the organization. When I run errands, I change from my house clothes to my public clothes and behave as a representative of AFS. I've volunteered for over 20 years, and I'm glad to comply with their standards. When I was in grade school, we would go on field trips. Our teachers would remind us to behave because we were representing our school. I took it to heart.

Maybe Cigna expects more from its employees than someone callously ridiculing loss, in their job or in a public situation. I wouldn't want her tending to my health needs and if Cigna hadn't punished her behavior, I'd question using them for my insurance needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marthe48 (Reply #38)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:11 AM

45. Sure, that's a contractual obligation.

If the woman made an explicit contract to "represent" the company even in her private life, then she can be fired under that obligation. But not if it is implicit, IMO. That would establish the principle that the company (or organization) can hire and fire for arbitrary reasons unless one falls into a protected class. Suppose the company decides that using birth control represents them poorly? Users of birth control are not a protected class.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #45)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 12:18 PM

100. Companies CAN and DO "hire and fire for arbitrary reasons."

At least in the U.S. they can. Every state in the U.S. except Montana has what is called "at-will" employment. This means that, with certain exceptions,, employers can fire an employee at any time for any reason (or no reason).

You may not agree with this (I don't care for it myself), but that is the law here in the good old USA.

The following quotes are from this source: https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-overview.aspx

Employment relationships are presumed to be “at-will” in all U.S. states except Montana. The U.S. is one of a handful of countries where employment is predominantly at-will. Most countries throughout the world allow employers to dismiss employees only for cause. Some reasons given for our retention of the at-will presumption include respect for freedom of contract, employer deference, and the belief that both employers and employees favor an at-will employment relationship over job security.

A. At-Will Defined

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

At-will also means that an employer can change the terms of the employment relationship with no notice and no consequences. For example, an employer can alter wages, terminate benefits, or reduce paid time off. In its unadulterated form, the U.S. at-will rule leaves employees vulnerable to arbitrary and sudden dismissal, a limited or on-call work schedule depending on the employer’s needs, and unannounced cuts in pay and benefits.


The only way to change this is to get the labor laws changed. There are movements to do that in some states, but since it has to be done on the state level, it's going to take a long time. Especially since employers are like being able to hire and fire (especially the latter) at will and will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. In the meantime, this is how things are.


That said, I fully support this woman's firing for completely different reasons. As a nurse, she's a member of a profession that is bound by a code of ethics. I believe she violated that code in multiple ways by mocking someone who was talking about the death of a loved one and by working against scientifically based public health measures (i.e., masking to prevent the spread of covid). No, she wasn't on the job at the time, but I don't think that matters. Nursing is a profession, not just a job, and her behavior was a disgrace to that profession. She fully deserved to lose her job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ShazzieB (Reply #100)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 12:28 PM

103. Exactly right. Plus, with the web, bad behavior becomes widely

Known quickly, and often the employer’s name is “outed.” So whether employees like it or not, their off duty conduct often DOES reflect on the company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #103)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 04:27 PM

129. This is true. It is also illogical.

There is really no Earthly reason why an employee's conduct off the job should in any way be ascribed to their employer. Since I am discussing a principle, and not a matter of fact, this should have no bearing on the question. Or I should say, since it is my intention to discuss a principle. Clearly, many respondents do not separate "ought" and "is."

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #129)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 07:27 PM

142. If an employee makes important decisions...

... on behalf of an employer, decisions that affect the public and customers, and shows bad judgement in public, that is reason to ascribe bad judgement to the employer / company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ShazzieB (Reply #100)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 04:22 PM

128. Of course. I'm talking about principles. "Ought," not "is." n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:19 AM

50. Yes, I understand what you are saying

and there are times when companies do encroach on their employees' personal lives in ways that are inappropriate and sometimes illegal. In this case being she is a nurse and we are in a national emergency situation, I think I might make an exception. It is kind of a slippery slope. When she was hired, she probably signed some agreement that the company could let her go without cause. So many companies do that these days, which often works against the employee.

I am glad she has been held accountable for her cruel and uncivilized behavior, but I am afraid some companies could be setting unhealthy precedents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #50)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:24 AM

55. She works in an at-will employment state, so legally it's moot.

At-will employment being a separate issue, with which I also disagree (as do most at DU, I believe).

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #55)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 11:04 AM

86. I disagree as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #55)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 12:32 PM

104. I suspect it's also a "right to work" state,

which actually means you can be fired for any reason. Sounds like a whole bunch of policies that she probably supported caught up with her. Is it an absolutely just set of policies that allow this to happen, no. Seems like a real lack of imagination as well as empathy.

Work for a company that can fire me at will. Check.
Go to a public meeting and behave in a way that will reflect badly on that employer. Check

What could go wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plimsoll (Reply #104)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 12:50 PM

110. That is "employment at will." "right to work" means that

Unions cannot negotiate contracts with employers that would require union membership to be employed there. They can’t require the payment of the equivalent of union dues to the union. Employees have a “right to work” free from union “pressure.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #110)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 02:11 PM

119. Right, but she wouldn't have a union protection either.

Just saying these are policies that conservatives support in general. They always seem to be in favor of laws and regulations that protect, but do not bind them. This is just a case where what she supports actually did bind her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plimsoll (Reply #119)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 03:46 PM

124. My point is that you were confounding "right to work" with

“Employment at will.” They are two different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #124)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 04:06 PM

126. They are different, but strip workers of potential protection.

My point was that she's kind of screwed, and probably was OK with those kinds of rules.

Because she lacks those kinds of protections, she'll be a martyr to "political correctness" or some other BS outrage source for the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #50)


Response to Chin music (Reply #57)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 11:10 AM

87. Yes, I've worked for companies like that

and it is very unsettling. They can let you go because they want to hire someone younger or cheaper. That said, this woman certainly shouldn't be involved in healthcare, it is just hard to reconcile firing her over something she did off the job. Of course, I am glad she got what she deserved. Maybe it will cause her to reevaluate her behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #87)


Response to Chin music (Reply #88)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 01:14 PM

115. Oh yes, of course

It has become so predictable. Do something obnoxious or hateful, pay the consequences, play the victim, and start a GoFundMe page! Because the world is full of suckers more than willing to finance another person's bad choices. So much for "personal responsibility".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:58 AM

80. Tennessee has employment-at-will as many states do.

Which means an employer can fire anyone for any reason or no reason. Except for reasons of discrimination defined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #80)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 11:03 AM

84. Yeah, understood.

My objection is not that they can fire her, but if they should be allowed to fire her for this reason.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #84)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 12:27 PM

102. They are fire her for any reason or no reason ar all. You get that, right?

 

As long as she’s not a protected class and she is not be fired in a discriminatory way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dream Girl (Reply #102)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 04:21 PM

127. I'm talking about principles, not legality. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 11:04 AM

85. Tennessee is likely a right to work state, and her employment with CIGNA was likely "at will"

Meaning she could be terminated at any time, for any reason, or no reason (other than for being a member of a protected class, which is protected by federal law).

If she doesn’t like it, she should move somewhere where nurses are unionized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to malthaussen (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 01:03 PM

113. They aren't regulating her conduct

But if her conduct hurts their business they don't have to continue employing them either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:26 AM

7. I agree with you.

Obviously, there are exceptions, but I don't think it's generally okay to fire people for activities unrelated to their jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:59 AM

81. I agree in some cases, but not this one.

Her actions are directly related to her work. As a nurse, health care is her profession, regardless of what specific work she does for her company. Health care and prevention of disease and the cost of treatment is directly related to her company. When she supports actions that make more people get sick and die, she is acting at cross purposes to her company, costing thrm more money in payouts. When she is seen in public mocking a teen for grieving the loss of his grandmother, she hurts the company's image. Even if only her friends, relatives, and neighbors know that she is a nurse and where she works, in today's world, with social media, the whole world could end up knowing.

So I agree with the company on this.

I do think that firing people for non work activities is encroachment on privacy. In the runup to the Iraq war, I went to DC for a protest march. A reporter started asking me questions during the march. To protect my privacy, I did not give him my name. When his companion put a camera on me I coverrd my face and said, "No pictures, no film." i knew that if my employer saw or heard me on the news, they would make my life miserable and find an alternate excuse to fire me if I didn't quit.

But this time I agree with the company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:26 AM

8. The Reasoning Is Sound, Sir

If a person you employ becomes a prominent asshole, it can harm the company. People can and will refuse to do business with a firm that pays such a creature a salary.

It can certainly work both ways, but at present, it is working in our favor and no good point is served by complaining of. There should be consequences, serious consequences, for this sort of behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:48 AM

22. By that reasoning, Sir, it is reasonable for Hobby Lobby to fire a woman for using birth control.

Further, if a company has a right to fire someone for their conduct off the job, they have a right to not hire them in the first place, for whatever arbitrary reason they decide poorly represents the company. Example, homosexuality. What would be the response, do you think, if a company refused to hire "those people" because they didn't "represent" the company's image?

Mind you, why anyone would want to work for such a bunch of twits is also puzzling, or why anyone would choose to do business with them.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #22)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:56 AM

32. Protected classes are excepted.

So you can't fire someone because they are black, but you can fire them because they are an asshole. Assholes are not a protected class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eggplant (Reply #32)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:07 AM

42. Well, that disposes of one objection, anyway. :)

The problem, of course, is that "protection" can cease (and if the GOP gets its way, it will for many classes). How long ago was it, after all, that gays weren't a protected class? This is why, as a general principle, I think employers have no place regulating the conduct of their employees off the job. The claim that a person is "representing" the company at all times is specious, although it is certainly assumed or made explicit in many employment contracts.

But it is wholly arbitrary. How many women-abusing felons play in the NFL and the team and commissioner are just fine with it until the individual becomes notorious and they decide to cut him off? The issue is one of image, not substance, and I generally dislike questions of image.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #42)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:44 AM

73. Was on a construction project years ago wherein the client wrote a peculiar clause into the contract

The client was a 100 employee machine tooling manufactory that had about 40% female employees. Our project's location forced all their employees to walk adjacent to us from the parking lot to the main entrance. The client wrote in the contract that it was our (the general contractor) responsibility to enforce onto all construction personnel that there would be no cat calling toward his employees. Everybody was on their good behavior and we had no trouble until the steel erection sub-contractor began assembling the super structure. His crew were somewhat uncivilized and there were complaints almost immediately. It was incumbent upon us to tamp down the sub's behavior. This became a problem immediately since enforcement by termination was not, for practicality's sake, in our purview. They weren't our employees, we had a schedule to make, there was no other erection company which could/would perform on budget and to schedule. We had a wise old superintendent who took the entire erection crew aside and mentioned that those women could be their mothers or sisters and how would they like the catcalling on their own family. The shaming worked perfectly well and there were no further incidents.

A professional nurse that mocks the application of modern science in a public venue, for the world to see, has marched outside the realm of employability. She and people like her have no shame but I doubt that any amount of shaming has been tried on her because that might be an attempted violation of her right to free speech. Ultimately all employers are in position to be tyrants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #42)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 01:06 PM

114. Ask the QB

For Houston who the team is healthy scratching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #22)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:21 AM

52. Your Initial Gambit, Sir, Seems a Stretch

To be close enough, the person using birth control would have to have come into notoriety by public behavior. Were that the case, while I would disagree with the act, it would be within an employer's rights, under present law. I expect there are communities in which employing a person widely known as obstreperous proponent of birth control could be bad for business.

In most of these instances recently reported, while the announcement may include boilerplate about 'company values' and such, the person is not being fired because the employer disagrees with the views expressed, but for the tenor and tone of their expression. It is that which calls the company into disrepute, not the view itself. If someone were fired merely for expressing support for Trump, I would not consider that proper. If he were fired for expressing that support by hanging an effigy of Mrs. Clinton or President Biden from a tree in his front lawn, even an employer who votes Republican might see that as a problem to be solved by separation. This particular person is being fired for laughing at the grief of a youngster in public. I not only have no problem with her being fired, if she were beaten by an onlooker I would consider a public service had been performed.

It has been quite common for persons to be fired for left views, particularly in regards to union organization. It is, in fact, a novelty that people now are being fired for piggish and bullying behavior on rightist lines. It is going to continue, because the christo-fascist right has difficulty adjusting to the fact that it is no longer socially dominant. Companies with any vision wish to appeal to younger and more urban persons, as this where the future and the money is. Failure to appreciate this, by an aging group which is now a minority, but one large enough its members cannot believe they are not the majority, will continue to bring sudden unemployment to persons who fail to process the altered circumstance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #52)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:34 AM

61. Those are good points, Sir.

I, too, would have enjoyed seeing some other member of the audience feed her a knuckle sandwich for her bullyragging, although I suppose that is endorsing assault.

I disapprove of the principle, but in the real world we must often live without principles. If, in fact, it is becoming unfashionable to be publicly an asshole, then that is perhaps a good thing for society, although the hearty participation of the rest of the audience in her mockery of the young man suggests otherwise. And certainly, in the political sphere, being an asshole seems to be a recommendation in certain constituencies.

When it comes to employers regulating the conduct of employees, I have always been a radical opponent. 'Twas not that long ago when employers felt themselves justified in locking up their young female employees after work to keep them from depraved behavior. Nowadays, companies seem to feel that their employees are on duty 24/7. I knew the world was heading in a bad direction when beepers were being worn as a common habit. Perhaps I am too sensitive in fearing corporate slavery, but the conduct of corporations in general does not reassure me that I am.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #61)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:50 AM

75. Then you wouldn't last long at my job.

I can express no opinion on any issue publicly. No letters to the editor, etc. That is what I stepped up to when I accepted the position. Do I like it? Hell, no, but there are reasons for this and I have found workarounds.

This woman made an ass of herself in public. A nurse, no less. No sympathy here.

At-will employment is a bitch; this is just one aspect of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryOldDem (Reply #75)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:56 AM

78. I'm retired, it's moot.

If you signed up for a contractual obligation, then naturally you should observe it. The issue of whether such contractual obligations are/should be legal is separate. My anarchist self thinks all such regulations are wrong, but people always have "reasons" why this or that job is different.

To be clear, I have no sympathy for the woman, either. But though I strive not to be too much of an asshole, I will defend to the death someone else's right to be an asshole. Within reason. Publicly mocking a teenager pushes the envelope almost to the breaking point. If she were acting in any official category, especially if she were abusing the power/position of her job, then I would be all for hanging her.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #78)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 12:45 PM

108. A perspective that I think you are missing is this:

What if you put yourself in the role of the “anarchist” employer rather than that of the “anarchist” employee? Would you want to be told you HAD to retain an asshole employee? One who harmed members of your community and made you look bad by association? Who could in the future, for example, bring a weapon to work and harm someone due to their sense of entitlement, and their off duty conduct gave you a clue that could happen but you didn’t take steps to prevent it? Etc., etc.

There are also matters of degree rather than all or none. The law provides that some off duty conduct cannot be regulated by employers but other types cannot. For example, many employers may legally drug test you and fire you even if there is no on the job impairment.

There is also the very separate consideration of ethics rather than law. Even if something is illegal, you could consider whether an employee or employer has ethical obligations to the other and to other employees, the community, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #108)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 04:41 PM

131. Not "missing" so much as disregarding.

For the record, I also oppose random drug-testing.

As far as the "anarchistic" employer goes, I do come down on the side of the employee in that case. If it could be demonstrated that the employee has done measurable "harm" to the community, then appropriate legal action should be taken. If they have broken no laws, then the issue becomes one of community standards, and I tend to become very agitated when the community imposes its standards on non-conforming individuals. At the least, I'd need a demonstration that the conduct does visible harm to the community as a whole before considering it actionable. This does mean that people get their first murder free, but the opposite extreme is everybody being treated as a suspect. This is the direction I see our society going towards, and I don't like it a lot. But then, the assholes do seem to be multiplying, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the whole.

Ethical standards, especially for professionals, are a difference in degree. Many have argued that as a member of the health care profession, Mrs Casher should be held to a higher standard than a normal grunt. That argument is not without merit. Especially in a time of health crisis, health care workers should advocate best practice or find another job. But is that the case here, or has she been fired for making the company look bad?

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #61)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 12:01 PM

98. most posters have bent over backwards

to acknowledge your hesitation, and probably share a degree of your uneasiness. 'Corporate overlords' and big brother and all. However, your overall thesis that people (employees) have a right to act however they wish on their own time - is just fundamentally wrong. Not true now - and there's never been a time when it has been.
"If, in fact, it is becoming unfashionable to be publicly an asshole, then that is perhaps a good thing for society, .."

In fact, being an 'as*hole' has always had a social penalty attached to it (that's why we call them as*holes). People do not want to be around A-holes. People do not want to play and work on the same team as an A-hole. People will veer away from participating in civic activities (or going to church) because of the presence of A-holes. And smart leaders (read pastors, employers, managers, and HR) are quick to recognize that 1 or 2 A-holes - can end up costing an organization big.

The idea that people are only adjudged 'A-hole' and thereby shunned and ostracized on the basis of their actions at work or on the job - is also a huge fallacy. That's simply not the way things work. If it's widely known that an employee drives a vehicle festooned w/ Nazi symbolism, has co-ownership in an after hours bar, currently dates a 17 year old, and has 3 restraining orders regarding previous marriages and relationships - the majority of this person's 'fellow employees' are going to headed in the other direction - fast.

And that is the way it works in the real world. There's always been a social cost involved in being a loathsome individual. And employers are not so much 'setting' the rules here - as they are following through with them. If you find out that one of your employees has been shooting cats and poisoning dogs in the neighborhood, or diddling little kids - then, for the sake of the team, - Jims gotta' go!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopdiggin (Reply #98)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 05:20 PM

133. It would appear we've had different life experiences.

In my sample pool, assholes tend to prosper -- or, more to the point, those who prosper tend to be assholes.

If "nice guys finish last," then it would follow that if one wants to be first, he'd better not be nice.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #52)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 12:50 PM

109. I strongly disagree with employers not hiring or firing an experienced worker because of their

age if they meet the physical requirements of what amounts to a sedentery job that uses brain instead of brawn any more than not hiring/firing well-groomed "big" women for behind-the-counter
hospitality positions for the optics of youth and beauty that male travelers prefer.

My daughter was a dean's list BS Hospitality graduate of OSU. She is blonde, blue-eyed, and well-groomed as well. She applied to a front of house job at The Ohio State's Blackstone Hotel for which she felt she was qualified, including previous education that included internship at that hotel, and experience at other jobs in which she worked with the public in Customer Service. She received a letter that they would not even interview her and considered her ineligible for that position.

In a state that is "at-will," there is no point in litigation if fired, made redundant, nor "let go NOT for cause" from a contract position EVEN if one feels they meet a protected class such as a Viet Nam Era veteran on a Federal contract - such a position seems to only protect Federal Civil Servants where different identified processes are used for hiring and firing. In addition, the worker is never made privy to the terms of that contract. There is also no protection when being hired on a contract for the term of that federal contract the contractor happened to win; hence, no bench time, no re-training for an alternate contract that employer might be exploring, nor additional skill-training while waiting for a new gig. In fact, the contractor probably only has that single contract but, oh yeah, they always expect a renewal...hahahaha!

DH was once "recruited" and hired for a federal position with the VA that was part of the huge T4 contract. On the day before hiring paperwork was to be done, he received a call from his prospective boss/hiring manager that wanted him to travel to DC for URGENT training set up by that agency at his own expense though accommodations would be provided by the prospective employer, personally.??? Employer said, "bring the wife, too." DH asked to URGENTLY get the paperwork accomplished and only then would we travel. Once there, after one preliminary introduction day, that urgent training was canceled. Even the trainers failed to show??? We encountered unavoidable car trouble returning home (no one knows when the alternator will fail). We were lucky to find a tow and repair that very day. Two days later, on returning home at great personal expense, he was "let go." We figured federal "budget burning" on this URGENT training episode. No way to know how that job went South so suddenly. DH filed for unemployment from said employer and then received a call that ODJFS said no such employer existed--oh yeah, said his former boss - I forgot to tell you to use this name if you're filing (Here, the outfit had contracted payroll and HR to another contractor dba). ODJFS then agreed to his claim for benefits). Go figure! Also figured there was some "commission" collusion going on as this fit a scenario in which DH had "networking" knowledge of the new VP of the company involved with the "hire." SO depressing to a family that really needed a new chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:26 AM

9. Tennessee is an employment at will state

"Tennessee is an at-will employment state. That means that employers can hire or fire an employee at any time, even without reason."- google.

Every employer has a code of conduct as part of your employment, all of them have something about not damaging the employers good name in public, in particular, higher level clinical positions.

Casher fucked around and found out.
Her bullying behavior in public caught up with her. It's on her alone

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to irisblue (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:37 AM

16. I was going to say the same thing.

If you live and work in an at-will state, the employer needs no reason to fire you. I guarantee you that this person probably is all anti-union but when the consequences of it affect her kind then they say "not fair".

Glad the company did this. She deserves it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to irisblue (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:50 AM

26. Sure it is. Does that mean I should approve of at-will employment?

The company may have a legal right to fire the woman. I dislike the principle. At-will means they could hire or fire someone for accidents of nature, not for cause.

Again, the woman was acting as a private citizen. Show of hands: how many knew she worked for Cigna before they fired her?

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #26)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:05 AM

41. Cigna got in front of this

PR disaster before the media could make the link to them.
Simple preemptive damage control.
A health care worker mocking a death would make me question her professionalism and her employer.

We must agree to disagree on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #26)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:15 AM

48. So

Your saying Al Franken should not have been let go🤔?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Traildogbob (Reply #48)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:21 AM

53. Yeah, I think that was pretty absurd.

Now, if he had been engaged in current criminal (or quasi-criminal) activity while on the job as Senator, then the issue becomes more iffy. But hell, we allow felons to be elected to public office. Elected officials seem to be held to different standards from us normal grunts (and standards that differ depending upon what party they belong to!).

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #53)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:33 AM

59. It Really

Is sick, lawmakers are above the law. “With Liberty and justice for all”. Why I refuse to recite that bullshit. God Blessin MurKKKa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:30 AM

13. It's very possible that she'd already

said and done some questionable things at work and that was just the icing on the cake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to radical noodle (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 12:54 PM

112. Or maybe she had some sort of irritating "squeaky" voice that

her boss thought unsuitable at bedside; someone told my DH the timber of his voice was all wrong in the office - he had once considered a career in radio due to his "great" voice. Go figure - in an at-will state, none of that matters when your employer says "go."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Backseat Driver (Reply #112)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 02:47 PM

121. It's likely that someone who would publicly laugh

at a child talking about his grandmother's death is a joy to be around in other situations. Somehow that shows a lack of compassion (or at least control) that is necessary for a medical environment.

I do agree though, that in many states the employee is at the mercy of his/her employer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:34 AM

15. She showed depraved indifference.

And did so in a public setting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:42 AM

19. I agree that it is disturbing that one's private life would be policed this way.

And she was only fired because it was viral and thus well publicized. If it's fairness we're after, what about all the other people in that room who laughed aloud at that poor kid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NH Ethylene (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:02 AM

39. Are they health care professionals publicly fighting against masks? Would you accept

health care personnel to publicly fight against hand washing and sterile technique, as an employer? She probably barely passed her state boards, she's an idiot who doesn't deserve a license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wingus Dingus (Reply #39)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 11:53 AM

94. The knife cuts both ways.

If this is okay, then firing someone who comes out as gay to his friends on Facebook is too. Or a woman who publically 'admits' that she has had an abortion.

If you argue it is acceptable to fire someone for their personal, legal choices made outside of work when it favors one side of a debate, you have to concede that the opposite scenario is also okay.

By the way, people fighting against masks or vaccines is more attributable to the community or subculture in which they are immersed than it is to a low level of intelligence. We like to think they are all just stupid because it makes it easier to categorize and demonize them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NH Ethylene (Reply #94)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 12:15 PM

99. Infection control is an absolute cornerstone of the nursing profession.

Compassion for the physically/mentally suffering, a cornerstone of the nursing profession. Upholding public health measures that are based on science, a cornerstone of the nursing profession. She is publicly advancing the SPREAD of the disease instead of fighting it. She does not deserve a nursing license, she's the OPPOSITE of a nurse, and I'm glad her stupid nasty ass was canned. She wasn't photographed in a supermarket not wearing a mask, but otherwise minding her own business. No, she was at a public forum debating against accepted public health practices for the safety of children and staff in public schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NH Ethylene (Reply #94)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 07:49 PM

144. 100% correct - it DOES run both ways -(nt)-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NH Ethylene (Reply #94)

Mon Sep 13, 2021, 10:24 PM

154. No, some actions are protected by law and are

Limitations on employment at will.

Discrimination based on sex includes discrimination against gay people. Revealing one is gay is very likely protected. It very likely also protects revealing one had an abortion because women would experience disparate impact by such a rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NH Ethylene (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 04:32 PM

130. A school board meeting is not private life

It's right there in public view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mysterian (Reply #130)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 04:50 PM

132. It's not related to work, however.

Again, no one knew she worked for Cigna until they fired her. She was acting in her capacity as a private citizen, not as an employee of the company.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #132)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 05:35 PM

135. If she robbed a bank, neither would that be "work-related"

In this case, the person acted in a disgusting and juvenile manner during a public meeting. Any private employer can fire your ass for anything that embarrasses the business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mysterian (Reply #135)

Sun Sep 12, 2021, 09:50 AM

151. If she robbed a bank, she would have a felony conviction.

States have varying restrictions on who can employ felons. Any job requiring bonding, forget it. But somehow, elected officials appear to be exempt.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NH Ethylene (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 07:23 PM

141. the irony is

she'd be OK if she had worn a mask, and we could not see what a sociopath she is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:57 AM

35. She's a nurse FIGHTING AGAINST masks and/or vaccines. That's not what good licensed health care

professionals do. This shows she is not capable of doing her job. She's a nurse mocking a boy who was describing his grandmother's death: one would expect even an off-duty nurse to show compassion and appropriate affect/demeanor. They got rid of a piece of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:00 AM

36. I guess, but she is a Cigna healthcare worker actively promoting

contrary-to-science / health safety measures in a public forum. The fact she was front row and filmed being an asshole is almost beside a the point. That just served as the medium to get her caught for being a hack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:36 AM

65. They can do that.

That’s why you watch your social media posts. What you do or say reflects on them. All they care about is their image. Like it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryOldDem (Reply #65)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:40 AM

70. Of course they can. Moreover, they did.

My objection is to the principle. I'm talking about "ought," not "is."

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:50 AM

76. One's employment is always contingent on their good public behavior

Every company I've worked for has made it clear that how you behave in public is just as important as your performance on the job as far as continued employment goes. To assume otherwise is silly.

I can see it now:

Front page story, with a picture of a crushed baby stroller under the front wheels of a car. The caption says, "Tragic toddler's death after a drunk driver ran a red light. The driver, 33-year-olf John Doe, an employee of Acme Insurance, was arrested for DUI and manslaughter."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #76)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 11:01 AM

83. So, why should the newspaper print the guy's employer?

It is not germane to the story at all.

Now, if he were driving a company car clearly labelled "Acme Insurance," then one could argue that he is "representing" the company (in fact, I had a job where this argument was explicitly made. I was enjoined not to use the company car for personal errands for exactly this reason).

"To assume otherwise is silly." That I can cheerfully concede, because I am talking about "ought," not "is." I do not think it silly to question if the principle is sound.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 12:43 PM

107. Mal: it's right there in the Employee Manual, & if it isn't, the law will still back up the employer

By all means attend a peaceful protest and yell a lot. But participate in a violent attempted overthrow of the US Government? No.

Your right to strike is a protected activity. But attempting to blow up the building over the weekend is not.

Your right to get drunk or high on your own time — sure. The DU Lounge is full of that on Friday nights. But a well-publicized DUI or three complete with name of employer is going to put your career as a county surveyor or humble local banker in doubt.

Your right to attend a public meeting of the school board and mock a youngster whose Grandma died of COVID — intact from interference by the government. And in this case, there were a lot of adults in that audience sniggering and chuckling that a young fool in a mask would request that the school board mandate masks just ‘cause his granny passed from a disease no worse than the flu, yuh-huh.

The nurse from Cigna just happened to be the one sitting right in front of the camera, making a complete ass of herself. And Cigna, a health insurance company, is well within their rights to think that’s not the face they want representing them. Especially after Olbermann outed her by name.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 02:03 PM

118. they probably don't like working with her

If she acts like that at work, who would want to be around her?

People don't understand the importance of likeability at work. In fact, when you go to an interview, you are sorta' hired on paper. The reason for the interview is to see if they want to be around you.

Do you fit in?

I wouldn't be surprised if they said, "Yay, now we have a reason to get rid of her."

Buh-bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 04:02 PM

125. a nurse who has zero empathy for a teenager talking about his dead grandma

who the fuck wants a nurse like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 08:16 PM

145. Thay can terminate you if you are charged with a crime.

That's not new by any means.

As for non-criminal behavior, I am sure many factors are considered. Being a health insurance company, empathy may not be required in her position. But if it is, I can see terminating her. If she showed that much lack of it right there in public, her showing it on the job would be a concern.

And,then. as others are saying, their image is a valuable property which is worth money. It used to be called "good will." It may not be tangible, but it definitely can be measured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 12, 2021, 08:00 AM

149. This is nothing new

Aside from the conflict of interest inherent in her anti-masking activism, companies freak when an employee engages in any activity that is both deplorable and high-profile. Most companies have an employment clause that covers in broad, vague terms, the responsibility of the employee to not bring bad publicity to the firm. It's bad PR for them, it associates bad images with their brand.

So if a CEO is caught on tape kicking a dog, even though the company has nothing to do with animals, that guy is toast (real-life incident). If an employee screams abuse at a black man bird-watching in Central Park and the video goes viral, that employee immediately becomes a liability. If an employee of software firm goes around coughing on people in a store and harassing them for wearing a mask and that video goes viral, they employee gets fired.

It doesn't really matter what you do as an employee, if you are publically associated with some bad behavior, your employment is immediately in jeopardy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 12, 2021, 11:32 AM

153. I work for a large healthcare organization and part of orientation was warning us

that if we were caught acting in a way that directly went against the values of the company, either at work or outside of work, we could be terminated. And this woman was a nurse laughing at a child who lost their grandmother, so good for them for not wanting to be associated with such a garbage human being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:20 AM

3. That's the scary thing. I personally know nurses, nursing aides, dental hygienists,

who refuse the vaccine and have dug in on this denialism.

If we need medical, nursing or dental care, we are at their mercy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Midnight Writer (Reply #3)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:55 AM

31. If she's carrying on like this at work, then by all means fire her ass.

But if she conducts herself in a professional and competent manner on the job -- which we do not know -- then I do not believe a company should have a right to fire her for being an asshole.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 11:23 AM

89. Do you think if she showed up to a public forum advocating for no one to wash their hands

after using the bathroom, she should still be employed as a nurse making health care decisions for other people? Because the real issue here isn't JUST her inappropriate behavior toward the boy, it's that she's fighting a rational public health measure, publicly. That flies in the face of her employer's interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)


Response to Anon-C (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:29 AM

11. who printed the signs in her lap

many people in the audience had these pre-printed signs

I wonder who paid for them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapfog_1 (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:47 AM

21. Good question

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Anon-C (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:32 AM

14. Zuckerberg from Charlotte's Web or the dude who created Facemash, hot or not?

couple of interpretations here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to irisblue (Reply #14)


Response to Anon-C (Reply #18)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:50 AM

25. I had just reread Charlottes Web to with neighbor kids, that's why I remembered the phrase

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to irisblue (Reply #25)


Response to Anon-C (Reply #28)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:40 AM

68. I'm suggesting Harriet the Spy or The Egypt Game next.

There are 2 8ish yr old girls and their older brother I read with. I am planning on Encylopedia Brown books later. I want to pass on the gift of reading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:22 AM

5. A nurse for Cigna health insurance....

This is who is making decisions about your healthcare?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:27 AM

10. Thank you, Cigna. I have been upset about this since it was first reported. What a POS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:38 AM

17. Funny How Private Industry Can Deal With Assh--les

but Congress can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to modrepub (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:04 AM

40. Nothing funny about it.

Do you think the Speaker of the House should be able to fire elected Representatives?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marybourg (Reply #40)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 05:23 PM

134. If They're Asshats, Disrespectful to Other Members or Generally Out Of Line

Somebody should. Politicians seem to be the only ones who can routinely lie, obliquely threaten other members, expose law enforcement officers to public harm and other despicable things with no repercussions.

And if the districts or states keep electing folks who can't behave themselves and maintain some level of civilized decorum they deserve not to be represented in Congress (and forfeit some of the federal allotted moneys for all I care). It's a damn shame when grown adults have less self control than the standard kindergarten class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:43 AM

20. The headline...

These days no one is "quietly fired". It's all over the internet so she'll likely have a tough time getting another job. I can only imagine what her answer would be to the interview question, "Why did you leave your last job?" I'm a thirty-five year retired HR manager, and any HR person worth their salt is doing more thorough background checks than they used to including checking social media sites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:49 AM

23. What she did was...

Very disrespectful and wrong but I do not think she should have been fired for it. This was an expression she made (be it right or wrong) and nothing more. She was on her time outside of work, was not wearing anything that I saw that connected her to Cigna. I couldn’t connect to the link to see if there were other factors involved here but if firing her was do only to this then I think that is going too far IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snackshack (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:52 AM

27. Once she was connected to Cigna, the company can watch her

behavior and decide that a nurse that they employ shouldn't be anti-vaccine/anti-mask, and a nurse they employ should be able to show compassion for a teenager describing his grandmother's death. It's perfectly fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wingus Dingus (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:15 AM

47. Cigna is well...

With-in their right to terminate her employment. I don’t think she would have much success in winning a wrongful termination lawsuit but as I said I don’t think she should have been fired.

There are many “tweets” on Twitter and post all over the internet, some here on DU of people expressing a very clear lack of sympathy for people who chose not to get vaccinated and have now died. There is a post about Howard Stern saying “f*&%” them on this site today. I don’t think he should be fired nor anyone who has made such a post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snackshack (Reply #47)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:36 AM

64. Howard Stern aside, anonymously not being sympathetic online as a health care professional

is different than sitting in the front row of a public forum, jeering, rolling your eyes, and advocating for no masks. If a principal saw a middle school teacher coaching little league on the side on a Saturday, and the teacher was nasty/abusive towards those children, that principal may just decide fairly that this person shouldn't be around children. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. You do not owe someone a job if they PUBLICLY do not have the judgment and behavior for it, at least in many states where employers can fire at will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snackshack (Reply #47)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:42 AM

71. It's an at-will employment state. No legal recourse. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wingus Dingus (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:17 AM

49. For a given value of "fair."

What if the company decides something you *do* like represents them poorly, and is cause for firing? Should Hobby Lobby be allowed to fire employees for using birth control? Or, to be more in keeping with this woman's offense, publicly advocating for birth control?

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #49)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:39 AM

67. Hobby Lobby isn't a pro-life/anti-birth control organization, it's a retail business.

If it was a pro-life organization, they should have the ability to fire employees who show up at pro choice rallies if the state laws allow it. Also you are getting into issues of private health care decisions, which isn't applicable here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snackshack (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:40 AM

69. For all we know,



she may have had other issues to go along with this, such as substandard attendance. This may have been the final straw,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snackshack (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 12:34 PM

105. Pretty much every large company has rules about such things

A worker at my company was caught off-duty in a restaurant making racist comments. I happily signed his walking papers. There's not many companies that will tolerate this level of bad behavior regardless of whether it affects their own employment or not. If a company knows about employees doing such egregious things, they have an obligation to discipline them for it up to and including termination. It's just bad business to do anything else especially in the age where people can and do find out where you work. Everyone has a right to free speech. You don't have a right not to face consequences for saying and doing the wrong things.

And FWIW, the people who do these sort of things don't just put on their asshole hat when they aren't on the job. In many cases they already have one foot out the door because of their asshole behavior on the job. So in the case of where it could go either way as to whether they get fired or face an unpaid suspension, their other previous conduct often seals their fate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #105)

Mon Sep 13, 2021, 10:33 PM

155. One point that didn't come up is that public sector workers

Have more protection from employer interference with their free speech rights than do private sector employees. This is because the first amendment says nothing about private employer actions; it restricts some governmental actions. So in some sense, private sector employees may not have free speech rights if their employer decides to restrict them. If an employee doesn’t like the policy, s/he is free to work elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #155)

Wed Sep 15, 2021, 12:21 PM

156. Only in limited cases and in some cases they may have less protection

Even public sector employees have rules on what they can and can't do or say both on and off the job. Particularly in regards to political activities, federal public sector employees are limited by the Hatch Act in ways not as many private sector employees are. Free speech only goes so far when you are a public employee and you can still be fired for your speech even though you may retain certain rights every citizen has in regards to speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #156)

Wed Sep 15, 2021, 03:26 PM

157. True in some ways, but not by statute. If a private employer

Decides to allow you to engage in political speech, great. But the Constitution and federal law do not require them to do so. They could decide on a given day that they won’t allow it. Unless another legally accepted condition applies, eg, there is a state law that specifically prohibits them from restricting your speech, or you have a written legal contract that allows it, including a union contract, a private employer can restrict your political speech or actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:50 AM

24. That's not her fb page

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tenderfoot (Reply #24)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:53 AM

29. Removed the reference - certainly looked like her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Reply #29)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:07 AM

43. Someone posted a screenshot of her real one but she has since deactivated it

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:54 AM

30. AND she was a nurse???

What the hell?!?!

I'll bet she's not so smug now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 09:56 AM

33. She got her empathy

from TFG.
And her smirk from Bush!
AMF!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:08 AM

44. How do these people not know about social media???

Seriously, how many of these well educated people with good jobs are going to continue to throw it all away for nothing? The lady coughing in the grocery store had a decades long career she built. This lady had a good job.

Its like they have no clue about cell phones and social media. Geez, after the first 500 right wingers get caught, exposed, and fired, you would think some would get just a bit of common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:13 AM

46. That's what happens when you show the world

you are a despicable, heartless, useless piece of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:23 AM

54. Hope she's out of work for a long time, but that probably won't happen.

She has a highly desired skill, even if her brains are obviously mush. I feel so sorry for any and all patients that she comes in contact with and I truly hope she doesn't get a job and the people of the country are safer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:31 AM

58. Looks like she broke Cigna's code of ethics. Conflict of interest and unethical behavior?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ziggysmom (Reply #58)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:43 AM

72. The anti-mask stance is even worse, professionally speaking, than the assholery.

It goes against their code, and discouraging masks makes Cigna pay out more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:34 AM

62. Good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:35 AM

63. As A Nurse, I Can Attest To The Fact That...

There are a lot of regressive, undereducated, anti-science, anti-vaxx nurses out there. Sad, but true.


ETA: Nurses are SUPPOSED to be empathetic, caring and understanding people. Obviously, that's not always the case, either. Lots of assholes slip through. Burnout is NOT an excuse for being a dick and laughing at someone else's misfortune.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:37 AM

66. I love the internet. People are paying the price for ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:46 AM

74. Glad her name is out.

She shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind anonymity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:58 AM

79. Good. She's unqualified by demonstrating a lack of compassion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 10:59 AM

82. TFG "legitimized" brash, irresponsible behavior

I'm a healthcare traveler, currently taking some time off away from the fires and smoke.
I'm also taking time away from the COVIDIOTS. Arguing with idiots to "Please put your mask back on properly, sir" became truly draining, on top of ongoing exacerbated asthma ever since I had the COVID long before the vaccine or good intervention.
Although anti-masker, anti-vaxxer medical staff are relatively rare, I had my run-ins with some of them.
But one in particular stands out, I'm going to be intentionally vague here-- mask refusal only iced the cake of this person's horrible behavioral quirks--- this person had a tendency to slam doors in my presence, actively worked against me (taking patients back to their room even though it was clear they had other tests for me to do) and-- most notably to me-- reading the "Focus on the Family" rag, making display of it unmistakable. I'm not privy to the details of this person's dismissal, I'll just say I'm not surprised. Only fellow RWNJ's ever got any consideration from this person.
A couple weeks ago now I saw an SUV ignore a lights-and-sirens ambulance attempting to take a left turn, obviously to their destination, going the opposite direction on a four lane highway. Everyone else had pulled over, stopped. Most telling of all was a big "christian cross cowboy" sticker on the rear window and the obligatory "Trump/Pence 2020" on the bumper. They made the ambulance hit the brakes for them.
Not only disgusted me, but reminded me I need to buy a dashcam. Would have made viral video.
I'm going back to work once these obstinate fux have either lost their jobs or gotten vaccinated. I'm too old with too many risk factors to catch another variant from some ignorant anti-vaxxer dipshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 11:27 AM

90. Has this been confirmed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Owl (Reply #90)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 11:37 AM

92. Yes, site given and quick search will confirm

Don't understand your concern on confirmation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Reply #92)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 11:59 AM

97. Article refers only to rumors and some acquaintances comment. Nothing from Cigna.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 11:37 AM

93. are these people blacklisted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 11:54 AM

95. "Let our children die" . ..

there I fixed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 11:54 AM

96. Might have something to do with Keith Olbermann outing her sorry ass

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 12:37 PM

106. Maybe she can start her own hospital for unvaccinated and unmasked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 01:15 PM

116. 3...2...1...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 01:21 PM

117. Good

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 02:15 PM

120. Never thought I would be happy with something a healthcare insurance company did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 03:03 PM

122. Absolutely wonderful

When instant karma strikes. Good riddance. That nurse deserves everything she got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 05:56 PM

136. Think of the 1-6 insurrectionist who wore his company badge on his clothing for all to see.

Think of the 1-6 insurrectionist who wore his company badge on his clothing for all to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 06:12 PM

138. Great. I saw that and it was one of the most despicable public acts I've seen. She deserves it all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 06:22 PM

139. Laughing at someone else's pain...

...that's a horrible human being.

Someone earlier on said she's a nurse? That's beyond sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sat Sep 11, 2021, 07:37 PM

143. Good. She is slime.

I'm so fucking sick of these people who are willing to let others die so they won't be inconvenienced by wearing a mask or getting a shot.

Fuck them.

Mandate vaccines.

Mandate masks.

And if these whack jobs refuse to comply, send in the guard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sun Sep 12, 2021, 02:16 AM

146. she was so smug

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sun Sep 12, 2021, 05:19 AM

147. Good

Actions have consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sun Sep 12, 2021, 05:30 AM

148. Ba bye

beatch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Sun Sep 12, 2021, 10:48 AM

152. Like Rick James once said...

..."Karma. It's a hell of a drug."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Wed Sep 15, 2021, 04:03 PM

158. I love it that the GOP's much loved "at-will" employment caper is finally starting to bite them

in the ass.

I wonder what positive societal change this may inspire, and how long it will take to bring about...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread