WebFire;1532091 wrote:No one did either of those things? A picture taken in a public place was posted on a private website. How is that the same as putting a bikini picture on your desk?

gut;1532097 wrote:That doesn't change the reality that such people exist. You can choose to fight a losing battle, or simply avoid it with a little common sense.

I find it difficult to even be sympathetic for this girl - do people still not know to exercise extreme caution with what they put on FB and other places? Who are we talking about being sheltered now?

Raw Dawgin' it;1532114 wrote:Anyone here think she would've been fired if his hand was on her waist?

gut;1532103 wrote:It's not clear of her photo album was public or private. The article says the school AD advised her to take the photo down, so somehow he became aware of it on the day it was posted.

Anyone with half a brain knows that photo could present a problem for her. And anyone who doesn't needs to wisen up. It's not about whether she should have been fired, but the reality that she COULD be fired and the need to take steps to insulate herself from such an incident.

Raw Dawgin' it;1531985 wrote:Because my personal life shouldn't have an bearing on my job. So if his hand was on her waist it's fine? What about that picture says "I might get fired for this"

WebFire;1532062 wrote:If you are not happy of a picture of it, then why are you letting you daughter wear a bikini? Did she insist that anyone who actually saw it with her eyes have some kind of magical surgery to remove it from memory? C'mon, this is ridiculous.

jmog;1532171 wrote:I can see his point, its a little different to allow a daughter to wear a bikini than to allow a picture of said daughter in a bikini on the internet.

queencitybuckeye;1532100 wrote:
Take a different scenario. Let's say my largest customer is headed by someone who has a hard line religious stance against drinking. You are the manager of the account. You post a Facebook picture of yourself clearly drunk off your ass, and the client sees it. When I get the phone call, am I supposed to say "Sorry, but it's none of my business what RDI does on his own time, so stick the millions you pay us"? Not going to happen. You work when you work, but you are an employee of my company (hated term alert) 24x7.

Manhattan Buckeye;1532172 wrote:50 reps.

There isn't anything wrong with a young lady wearing a bikini on the beach, or a dude hanging out shirtless. A person can control what they are doing and if they are feeling uncomfortable can deal with it. That is a bit different than memorializing that in a photo that is viewable to God knows who.

Raw Dawgin' it;1532114 wrote:Anyone here think she would've been fired if his hand was on her waist?

WebFire;1532157 wrote:What I disagree with, is that they can't live normally because if it.

WebFire;1532175 wrote:I'll give that to you. I just think if someone was that uptight about it, they wouldn't let them wear one to a school function at all.

gut;1532179 wrote:Again, we act differently or do things differently in private vs. work. There's a difference between "living normally" and producing a documented record of it for everyone to see.

The "public record" is partly why it's ok to be drunk but not ok to be arrested for it. A very simple, and good, rule of thumb to follow is if you wouldn't be doing that or wearing it at work, then you probably shouldn't post pictures of it on the public internet. It's not rocket science - it is no longer private when it goes on the internet.

Manhattan Buckeye;1532181 wrote:No one would confuse me for Mr. Universe but I attended my high school's senior trip at Myrtle and I went shirtless at the pool and the beach. That doesn't mean I would want anyone posting pictures of me on the internet - which thankfully didn't exist back then!

jmog;1532167 wrote:If you think one's personal life has no bearing on a job you are severely naive.

I don't agree with the firing UNLESS she had her students as friends on her page, then I can see the logic/reasoning behind it.

With that said, there are MANY jobs out there where your personal life has a definite impact on your job.

Politicians and celebrities are the biggest ones of course, but like it or not, school teachers are also scrutinized.

I am sorry, but there are MANY parents that wouldn't want let's say a high school gym teacher or girls basketball coach that posts pictures of himself at strip clubs where the girls there are only a year older than the girls he's coaching.

Even if his visits to strip clubs is on his own time, the stigma is there that he might be seeing their daughters in the same way.

You most certainly have a higher 'moral' standard to comply to in your personal life as a teacher/coach of minor students than most professions.

jmog;1532174 wrote:Best way to put it right there.

I don't think any of us are saying they SHOULD have fired her or that they were right to be offended. We are all just saying that what you do on your own time, in a professional environment (we are not talking McDonald's here) most definitely can have an affect on your job.

For instance, if I ever decide to get a tattoo, it would have to be in a place that is hidden by a normal shirt and/or pants. Why? that is on my personal time?

The last thing a client wants to see is a guy with a face tattoo coming into their office to design a combustion system.

Raw Dawgin' it;1532188 wrote:So you discriminate?

jmog;1532251 wrote:You can't be serious, you have stopped using logical reason and just jumped off the deep end.

Where, in the post you quoted, could you possibly make the connection that I "discriminate"?

Also, you keep acting like the reason she was fired was because she was in a bikini. It wasn't that, you know it was because of where his hand was.

I still don't agree with the firing but she has to have more common sense about what to post in a public forum when she handles children.