Online comments

[SIXTY-NINE]

I know technically, yes it could be a violation, but where do we draw the line here? What if someone posted something about being an anarchist that advocated the violent overthrow of the police state? That could be construed as anti government, while working for the government. Is that discipline worthy or fireable?

Yes, it is because you literally swear to the flag that you're protecting the government and swear an oath of loyalty or whatever the hell it is against enemies on your first day. Hard to argue for any organization to keep a member in it that argues for it's dismantling/overthrow.

 

[James]

I take your point but to play devil's advocate, a person's views even if expressed outside of work can play a role in how they do their job. If training is a part of being a controller, let's say this individual treats trainees differently based on race in a way that is not obvious. That's a problem. Obviously we don't know the specifics of this situation, but my point is what an employee says and does outside of work can bring in to question their ability to do a job.
On another note, posting such views on Facebook COULD be a violation of the Hatch Act depending on what information this person has on their profile (for example if they have their title/job in the "About" section).

There again though, that would be acting in a certain way while performing duties and is completely separate from the point he was making. I believe he even made that point in the next post. This is the problem with the culture today. People cannot separate people's private lives from their professional ones. We don't have the kind of jobs where personal opinions affect the demand for the service we provide (i.e. entertainers, maybe lawyers). Even if we did, I don't think a person should be fired for it unless they feel emboldened enough to bring those thoughts and actions into their workplace. I am sure we all have all sorts of people on our social media pages that say all types of crap that we don't agree with. Personally, I keep them around to remind me that there are people out there that I will don't share values with and will never agree and distance myself from them in real life and occasionally post that I don't agree with them. I would never even consider contacting one of their employers even though I wouldn't feel sorry for them because it is not right. Also, if this person gets fired it just cements in their mind that are right in their opinions and are some sort of victim. At the end of the day I guess just do whatever your conscience can handle. Big difference between what you can do and what you should do. Personally, I would have a hard time living with myself being the direct cause of someone's hardship.

Also, to kshaky? I think, this is not directed at you even though i quoted you. It's more of a response to the whole thread an i realize that it is a poorly written word vomit rant.

 

[Soss]

This is why I very very rarely post anything remotely controversial/possible-to-be-misconstrued under my actual name, and reserve my venting and political conversations for a faux Facebook account.

If you have an opinion, whether based on facts or not, never under any circumstances post it on social media if it goes against the mainstream.

 

[SIXTY-NINE]

There again though, that would be acting in a certain way while performing duties and is completely separate from the point he was making. I believe he even made that point in the next post. This is the problem with the culture today. People cannot separate people's private lives from their professional ones. We don't have the kind of jobs where personal opinions affect the demand for the service we provide (i.e. entertainers, maybe lawyers). Even if we did, I don't think a person should be fired for it unless they feel emboldened enough to bring those thoughts and actions into their workplace. I am sure we all have all sorts of people on our social media pages that say all types of crap that we don't agree with. Personally, I keep them around to remind me that there are people out there that I will don't share values with and will never agree and distance myself from them in real life and occasionally post that I don't agree with them. I would never even consider contacting one of their employers even though I wouldn't feel sorry for them because it is not right. Also, if this person gets fired it just cements in their mind that are right in their opinions and are some sort of victim. At the end of the day I guess just do whatever your conscience can handle. Big difference between what you can do and what you should do. Personally, I would have a hard time living with myself being the direct cause of someone's hardship.

This is basically an argument to allow racism to exist. Yes people with different beliefs can exist but when those beliefs lead to potential violence or endangerment of others then they should have the hammer brought down on them. (I am not saying that the guy at N90 is a violent individual)
Racism isn't genetically inherited. Educating is the solution, not quarantining racists.

Should we have anti-vaxxers exist without scrutiny?
The answer is no because they literally endanger lives and the scientific method has proven that vaccines are safe if they reach the public.



If someone made comments of "I hate all (your ethnic group) here and "they should live in a separate society" would you not feel threatened?

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Yes, it is because you literally swear to the flag that you're protecting the government and swear an oath of loyalty or whatever the hell it is against enemies on your first day. Hard to argue for any organization to keep a member in it that argues for it's dismantling/overthrow.

Okay bad example on my part.... Same vein, but I'll lighten it up a bit. How about if I post an all cops are bastards meme with a pic of a fed cop on it? Should that qualify?

 

[SIXTY-NINE]

Okay bad example on my part.... Same vein, but I'll lighten it up a bit. How about if I post an all cops are bastards meme with a pic of a fed cop on it? Should that qualify?

Gray area but I'd allow it since it's not advocating violence. Increased scrutiny/accountability or defunding the police? That's fine.

If there's a meme about firebombing cops or basically lynching them that's no good.

(I have some LEOs in the family so I am sympathetic to police officers, though I consider BLM to be a valid movement)

 

[Mike Kilo]

I will say that dozing is illegal, and how so many people get away with it is beyond me, but people showing what your wrote on a public site is not doxxing, and you suffer the consequences of what you say. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from people knowing you’re an ass

True and as stated originally people have already taken screen shots and shared them around. They are talking going to management to get the guy fired for his posts and that is different.

 

[Bravo Delta]

There's a big difference between "I'm proud of my culture even if celebrating it is frowned upon" (this is as mild as I can make it in case I misconstrue his words since I'm not reading it first hand) and "My ethnic group should live a different (and presumably better) life separate from other ethnic groups" (again, as mild). It's funny that so many people bring up the right to free speech especially when that speech is meant to express views that wish to hurt others. I don't think anyone invoked the right to free speech when they expressed views wanting to help others. (unless of course they talk about helping the enemies of the US lol)

If I were you I'd anonymously send as much screenshots to your manager, FAA HR and some of the officials. Also to the liberal press for good measure.


There's pretty much no more difference between "job time" and "private time" anymore. Look at that woman in Central Park who got fired from her law firm for calling the police and lying that she was being choked by a black man because he asked her to put her dog on a leash.
Tech wipes out all privacy now. You can't be a shitty person in private anymore.

You only need the freedom of speech to espouse controversial views. No protection is needed for stuff everyone agrees on.

 

[SIXTY-NINE]

You only need the freedom of speech to espouse controversial views. No protection is needed for stuff everyone agrees on.

Depends on who has authority over you.

Ultimately I think PushingTin is the best example of this. He says controversial stuff, sure, but if he posted it with his facebook account none of it would be grounds for disciplinary action because he never advocates violence or overtly threatens anyone. They just make my eyes roll into the back of my head from the sheer stupidity of some of the statements

 

[Gusher]

For ‘management’ to take action there has to be a nexus between his/her comments and the service he provides to the public. That nexus does not exist if the profile doesn’t link him to being a government employee. Now, if he/she says something to the fact he/she is employees by the FAA or the profile shows FAA, that would be even worse for that person.

 

[Phillytroll69]

 

[Soss]

So slightly different topic. Since NATCA supports BLM, and BLM donations go to ActBlue which is affiliated with the Democratic Party, am I to assume that my membership in NATCA is funding the democratic party?

 

[AB19]

So slightly different topic. Since NATCA supports BLM, and BLM donations go to ActBlue which is affiliated with the Democratic Party, am I to assume that my membership in NATCA is funding the democratic party?

You know natca has donated to both parties before right?

 

[Soss]

You know natca has donated to both parties before right?

I assumed, it only makes sense. But I thought NATCA wasn't supposed to take political stances... am I wrong?

 

[Termine]

So slightly different topic. Since NATCA supports BLM, and BLM donations go to ActBlue which is affiliated with the Democratic Party, am I to assume that my membership in NATCA is funding the democratic party?

1) why do you assume NATCA sending out an email saying "black lives matter" means NATCA financially supports the BLM movement?

2) why do you assume donations sent through ActBlue support the Democratic Party? In my experience they don't take a percentage of your donation, in fact they specifically ask for a separate donation to ActBlue if you wish. And again AB is not the Democratic Party.

3) as AB19 pointed out, the NATCA PAC (note, not NATCA itself) regularly donates to politicians from both parties.

 

[WhiskeyAndChocolate]

1) why do you assume NATCA sending out an email saying "black lives matter" means NATCA financially supports the BLM movement?

2) why do you assume donations sent through ActBlue support the Democratic Party? In my experience they don't take a percentage of your donation, in fact they specifically ask for a separate donation to ActBlue if you wish. And again AB is not the Democratic Party.

3) as AB19 pointed out, the NATCA PAC (note, not NATCA itself) regularly donates to politicians from both parties.

ActBlue takes a fee from all donations to fund themselves. But only for credit card fees. Otherwise you have to donate directly.

 

[32andBelow]

I assumed, it only makes sense. But I thought NATCA wasn't supposed to take political stances... am I wrong?

All natca does is take political stances. It’s like their entire purpose. Every congressional bill they work on is obviously political.

 

[Ad1234]

All money out of politics!! Zero, none. You run on your own dime. If I can’t accept a $30 steak from anyone why can the people who actually make decisions?

 

[Peter Gibbons]

All money out of politics!! Zero, none. You run on your own dime. If I can’t accept a $30 steak from anyone why can the people who actually make decisions?

Exactly because you aren't the one making or enforcing the rules.

Laws for thee, none for me.

 

[Shikaka]

I have disclaimers and preplanned opinions for every encounter I have with people who disagree. Gotta feed the family, can't do that if my opinion gets taken out of context or someone decides to photoshop a Facebook remark because I caught their ire.