The SHIELD -Major screw up by me- 2 people fired

[kent11202]

Not if it is an employ at will state.
You can get fired for just showing up to work. No excuse needed and MA does not have an implied Contract Law either, so they can fire at will for no reason.

They screwed up, violated company trust, they go. Period.

While I agree they screwed up big time (if all the facts are correct) a right to work state does not necessarily insure the employer can terminate for ANY cause.

It used to be that way across the board, and generally remains so, but it wouldn't take much for an attorney to start mucking around. The cost of litigation often presses people into settling regardless of the facts and/or laws - just saying.

 

[kent11202]

The question I have, turbo38gn, is did the two employees know that you were taking a photo? If they did, then I'm not feeling real sorry for them. Had a really good customer only been allowed to "sneek a peek," none of this would have happen. If you took the photo without them knowing . . . well . . . that's something else . . .

Exactly the type of thing I was talking about in my earlier post when I mentioned "jelly puzzle." Lot's of things to take into account.

 

[kent11202]

...the Smith and Wesson people obviously never peruse this site.QUOTE]

I wouldn't bet the farm on that. If I were running the company, I'd want to see what people think about my product and reading what's posted would give me a lot of insight into the good, bad and ugly.*

*Kind of sounds like something you could use for a movie title.

 

[blujax01]

A friend of mine runs a fast food joint. Each and every employee he hires is given the same talk: "You are not to text during your shift except during break and meals. If you do you will receive one warning and a second offense will get you immeditaely terminated. What I just said is on this paper. Read it and sign this paper that says you read and understood it."

Not only does he fire employees routinely for violating policy, he gets phone calls from their parents chewing him out for "making up stupid rules" and how it is his fault their kids can't keep a job!

21st Century America, gotta love it...

 

[Moonman]

Social Media is something that business pays attention to and more and more so every day.

 

[JJEH]

Social Media is something that business pays attention to and more and more so every day.

You don't share sensitive/classified information at all. Period.

 

[M29since14]

Since we don't know what the employees knew, all we can do is speculate that they acted contrary to company policy, and you can be pretty darned sure the company had sufficient justification to do what they did. The chance of turning their decision around is likely zero.

S&W undoubtedly spent a truckload of money creating their advertizing campaign, not to mention all the other factors that went into their ability to actually put a fair amount of product on the market concurrent with the release. Whether anyone thinks the product is a big deal or not - doesn't matter. Their money. They call the shots.

Loose lips really do sink ships - and many other things in life. The employees should have known better.

 

[stacy06]

I don't believe we get to choose which rules we follow, and which ones we don't. You should not have trusted the people you did, and they should not have trusted you. Simply put, you were all wrong.

 

[S&WIowegan]

This reminds me of the old truism: "Life is Tough and it's especially tough if you're stupid!"

All three of the principals in this affair made some dumb moves and are paying for it.

 

[oldman45]

I am not going to take sides on this or place blame.

What I am going to say is you likely made the photo with a cell phone camera. This is causing a lot of problems for many companies, courts and people.

A person does not have the right to take photos of things, places or people without permission. One lady I know just lost her job because a gentleman friend of hers took a photo of her in a private setting without her knowledge and posted it on an internet site where it was seen by co-workers. Others have been caught taking photos in courtrooms where cameras were banned. Many legal actions have sprang up over photos taken illegally.

The list goes on and on.

People with cell cameras are getting sued, arrested and many other things. Before taking photos, it is always best to make sure one has permission to do so.

 

[M29since14]

A person does not have the right to take photos of things, places or people without permission...

Before taking photos, it is always best to make sure one has permission to do so.

Interesting thinking - and subject. The lawyers can speak to this better than I am able (it is a bit of a "moving target" these days), but I believe you are wrong about the first point. If it appears in public view, you can photograph it - unless it is specifically prohibited by law. What you do have to do is use judgment about how you make use of your image. And that can be tricky if you use it beyond what is generally called "personal use."

For example, it is unlikely you could be successfully sued if you incidentally photograph an unknown bystander who just happens to appear along with your family in front of the Empire State Building, and then post that on your social media internet page. But if you somehow do that with the intent to cause that bystander some sort of harm, and actually cause it, and the bystander can convince a judge of that, you could have a problem. (There is another standard for public figures, but they have a really rough time in this regard.)

You are absolutely correct about the second point and that is just a matter of common decency, especially when the image contains persons who can be readily ID'd - again, unless that person is considered a "public figure." (politicians, sports stars, actors/actresses, etc.)

Permissions, such as you suggest, also can be a bit tricky. For example, minors generally cannot grant them, etc. And they better be specific, in writing, and properly witnessed. Generally, these permissions need to be written by a lawyer who understands this stuff - not something you casually scribble on a piece of scrap paper and ask the subject to sign.

The OP probably broke no laws photographing the pistol unless he was clearly advised photography was not allowed on the premises. Whether he broke any laws by allowing "publication" of his photo is a matter for the lawyers. I hope he can avoid that, since the corporation's own employees bear the overwhelming fault for showing the gun and allowing it to be photographed.

Whether it is photographed with a cellphone or the most sophistication professional equipment is irrelevant - except here on the S&W Forum.

 

[azalea]

Assuming this story is as presented (and it appears that it is; normally, only a very decent person would feel such regret and make such a post), this is a sad one.

Corporations tend to respond by using the corporate "Final Solution" of termination.

Personally, I've seen this "Final Solution" used too many times. People can and will make mistakes; and most of the time, a better solution than termination can be found.

Just my two cents ... and I've spent a lifetime in large corporations.

If anyone in an appropriate management position at S&W should happen to read this, and if the two individuals in question have otherwise performed quality work with solid loyalty, I encourage that management person to reconsider this matter.

 

[oldman45]

Interesting thinking - and subject. The lawyers can speak to this better than I am able (it is a bit of a "moving target" these days), but I believe you are wrong about the first point. If it appears in public view, you can photograph it - unless it is specifically prohibited by law.

There are some cites where people made photos of buildings and private homes but was later sued for copyright infringement.

I do not recall the man's name but a religious person was photographed on the streets of NY and the photo later won some type of award. The man learned of this and successfully sued the photographer because his likeness was used without his permission. Just being in public does not mean that the image would become public. This was hammered home to us while taking photography classes.

Litigation knows no bounds.

 

[BrianE]

I do contract work there and they have a policy.... NO pictures. There's a reason for it. My best friend is a mechanic there and as excited as I am to hear new things, never would I ask, due to knowing the consequences for him. Those 2 employees made a career mistake and have no one to blame but themselves... And unfortunately that the people in the store come dime a dozen... They're salesman, so they don't hold any value to the company, therefor it's an easy decision for corporate to make. They're are some nice people in there, but rules are rules! Don't blame yourself.......

 

[forresth]

So, to the OP; Why did you take the pictures if not so show them to people before the official release?

After the release, it becomes just a picture of a gun you don't own.

I'm guessing the truth is you always intended to bask in the glory of leaking out insider information.

I used to spend a great deal of time in Ford's design studio were they kept the full sized clay models and prototypes. There was some real neat stuff in there, but I knew it would be against policy and immoral to be sneaking pictures of it. I have plenty of insider information on lots of companies, but those secrets were not mine to share, so I didn't share them.

The simple fact is; you took something of value (a secret) without permission and did with it what you wanted. How is that not theft? If your 2 friends worked at a shoe store and let you swipe the latest and greatest from Nike, would it really come as a surprise that they would get canned when it was found out what happened?

 

[labworm]

A friend of mine runs a fast food joint. Each and every employee he hires is given the same talk: "You are not to text during your shift except during break and meals. If you do you will receive one warning and a second offense will get you immeditaely terminated. What I just said is on this paper. Read it and sign this paper that says you read and understood it."

Not only does he fire employees routinely for violating policy, he gets phone calls from their parents chewing him out for "making up stupid rules" and how it is his fault their kids can't keep a job!

21st Century America, gotta love it...

I like your post. In other words even though the employer owns the business, the employees should be allowed to do whatever they please.

Try that one out at your local gun club or range.

 

[SixGunHunter]

I feel your pain Turbo38. A mistake for sure, but that happens today in the Corp. World. S&W is no different than any other big Corp., just sucks that you are involved. Now move on. You said sorry.

I would like to know why such a top secret firearm is on the Sales Floor in the first place? Was the sales floor told to share as they feel fit, but a picture was a no go?
Still many questions to be answered. I was not there, but I understand how a Big S&W fan like Turbo38 would be allowed to see such a firearm before the release. I also understand the camaraderie that Turbo38 must have shared with the Corp. Store.
In a way Turbo38 got fired too, and although not a employee, he shares the same enthusiasm as any of us do when we find a favorite Firearm. Just read some of his posts. Unlike me, he Loves ALL S&W Firearms, old and new. The whole thing just sucks.

 

[SixGunHunter]

Forgot to add.....

S&W is to Turbo38, as Sig Sauer is to us, just down the road.

Yesterday, My Wife and I are in visiting as she wants to show me a Sig 250 that she likes. Only model they have is in .357 Sig.
My Wife is unsure if this is a caliber for her. Sure she can switch calibers, but that adds $$ to the package.

3 employee's are there. Travis has worked with my Wife before and he is Awesome to say the least. Showing us and letting us hold and dry fire Anything they have including the $2200.00 German Competion guns.
Travis and another leave to test fire my Wife's handgun that needed a new spring. We are talking to employee #3. Travis comes back and #3 asks Travis if he can bring my Wife and I to the armory to test fire a 250 in .357 Sig. .......How excited to do you think she and I got!!?....and Travis could see it! But he said No. "We could get in Big Trouble for bringing them down there".

My Wife nor I never said a word or showed disappointment.
After Turbo38's post, I understand even better why Travis said no.

 

[turbo38gn]

Thanks SixGun... you really did hit it on the nailhead. As painful as this is for me, my heart goes out to my 2 friends, I have done everything I could think of behind the scenes. We all made a mistake, but to answer a few questions, nothing was said when I took a picture or after I took it. I just should have known better, I've taken hundreds of pics in that store, no one ever said a word before or after.. taking pics with my phone is like muscle memory shooting my gun, I just do it. My phone and photobucket acct is full of pics I never did anything with. I actually believe the real culprit that posted the photo, back doored my photobucket acct..

Lastly, I have no experience with the corporate world or with an advertizing campaign. I have a little now and can assure you just as much as anyone invloved.... if we didn't know before, we do now. So for all the spanking posts I have received here, it's ok, you had experience and a understanding of the rules, I didn't, thanks for sharing and hopefully I am a better person with the knowledge you have shared.

 

[BrianE]

Jack as many said.... You said sorry, it's nothing you did wrong, bottom line. It's an unfortunate situation. You don't know what the uppers said to those employees if anything while receiving that gun. It's totally on those employees and the S&W company.