I might get fired for Gross Misconduct and I'm scared what will happen

ScottishGuy1122

So I have a 95% chance of this not being gross misconduct. I know they said they can't see anything to warrant gross misconduct after hearing everything but I don't think they make the decision, do they recommend or what, what if they recommend something more lenient but HR decide to go with gross misconduct?
Anyway, I'm 95% certain it won't be gross misconduct or job loss.

Probably looking at a written warning or maybe even a small suspension to appear like they are taking a tough stance.

Either way it sounds like I'm not getting fired atleast.

Grumpy_chap

Well done Adam, just keep a low profile and be a proper little Angel for a while.  No social media of any kind.
Report back next week with the good news.  Sounds like this will all be blown over and forgotten by the time lock-down is over and back to normal.

nicechap

ScottishGuy1122 said:

Hi all

Just got off the investigatory meeting. The only comment which was a screen shot was the following "im all go, I just love pointing out hypocrisy, blacks (should have said black people but was challenging the previous poster who said blacks) make up 13% of population and 52% of the murderers, the rioters are spray painting "pigs" and you defend them?"

Whilst it's not the most eloquent way of putting it, it's not that bad. I told them the context of how I was just trying to put across the other side of the statistic as to why certain races may be killed by police at a higher rate if they have more interaction. I said this as I like debates, but hate when someone uses one sided stats, so I was adding counter balance. They basically said they can see I was having a debate and that I didn't intend anything and that I hit the nail on the head when I said comments online are emotionless and it's easy to interpret someone said in one context and take it as meaning something else.


They concluded and said they would pass the info to HR and thay HR would get back to me by end of next week but that they can't see any grounds for gross misconduct if I was worried about losing my job

So that sounds like a bit of good news.

And where did you get that statistic from?

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1352-1390

Maybe factcheck stuff before posting, or as others have suggested, just not post again.

JReacher1

Good news!
Must be a weight off your shoulders :-)

ScottishGuy1122

nicechap said:

ScottishGuy1122 said:

Hi all

Just got off the investigatory meeting. The only comment which was a screen shot was the following "im all go, I just love pointing out hypocrisy, blacks (should have said black people but was challenging the previous poster who said blacks) make up 13% of population and 52% of the murderers, the rioters are spray painting "pigs" and you defend them?"

Whilst it's not the most eloquent way of putting it, it's not that bad. I told them the context of how I was just trying to put across the other side of the statistic as to why certain races may be killed by police at a higher rate if they have more interaction. I said this as I like debates, but hate when someone uses one sided stats, so I was adding counter balance. They basically said they can see I was having a debate and that I didn't intend anything and that I hit the nail on the head when I said comments online are emotionless and it's easy to interpret someone said in one context and take it as meaning something else.


They concluded and said they would pass the info to HR and thay HR would get back to me by end of next week but that they can't see any grounds for gross misconduct if I was worried about losing my job

So that sounds like a bit of good news.

And where did you get that statistic from?

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1352-1390

Maybe factcheck stuff before posting, or as others have suggested, just not post again.

Hi, I pulled it from the FBI report for 2017 breakdown murder by ethnicity and of the 9 to 10 thousand they had reported just over have were in the black/African community.

But that's besides the point. I think it will blow over with not much else.

ScottishGuy1122

nicechap said:

ScottishGuy1122 said:

Hi all

Just got off the investigatory meeting. The only comment which was a screen shot was the following "im all go, I just love pointing out hypocrisy, blacks (should have said black people but was challenging the previous poster who said blacks) make up 13% of population and 52% of the murderers, the rioters are spray painting "pigs" and you defend them?"

Whilst it's not the most eloquent way of putting it, it's not that bad. I told them the context of how I was just trying to put across the other side of the statistic as to why certain races may be killed by police at a higher rate if they have more interaction. I said this as I like debates, but hate when someone uses one sided stats, so I was adding counter balance. They basically said they can see I was having a debate and that I didn't intend anything and that I hit the nail on the head when I said comments online are emotionless and it's easy to interpret someone said in one context and take it as meaning something else.


They concluded and said they would pass the info to HR and thay HR would get back to me by end of next week but that they can't see any grounds for gross misconduct if I was worried about losing my job

So that sounds like a bit of good news.

And where did you get that statistic from?

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1352-1390

Maybe factcheck stuff before posting, or as others have suggested, just not post again.

Jesus, I had no idea that existed and simply pulled it from the FBI database to add context. No harm intended.

IrishSean

Keep your head down

Stay off social media; like, forever!!

It's easy to be wise after the event but it simply isn't a debate you should have been in when you were so easily identified.

That aside if it were me i'd need substantive evidence that something like a warning or a suspension was justified (a la written company policy) in the context of your 'debate'. I simply cannot see how it is your employers business until the complainant made it so.

Sage advice from them yes; but suspension from your job? Potentially impacting on pay rises and promotion, never mind references and career progression with another company?
Stuff that, i'd be forthright in my opposition to any sanctions or punishments.

Your company hasn't been harmed; what right would they have to put you on a naughty step for something you said in your private life that clearly isn't defamatory or illegal?!

If they wish they could feed back to the complainant that you've been spoken to, your social media accounts closed and the company feels the matter has been dealt with: otherwise it smacks of them 'policing' your behaviour. Remember employment rights in the UK (&EU as it stands) are stronger than most of the world. 

nicechap

ScottishGuy1122 said:

nicechap said:

ScottishGuy1122 said:

Hi all

Just got off the investigatory meeting. The only comment which was a screen shot was the following "im all go, I just love pointing out hypocrisy, blacks (should have said black people but was challenging the previous poster who said blacks) make up 13% of population and 52% of the murderers, the rioters are spray painting "pigs" and you defend them?"

Whilst it's not the most eloquent way of putting it, it's not that bad. I told them the context of how I was just trying to put across the other side of the statistic as to why certain races may be killed by police at a higher rate if they have more interaction. I said this as I like debates, but hate when someone uses one sided stats, so I was adding counter balance. They basically said they can see I was having a debate and that I didn't intend anything and that I hit the nail on the head when I said comments online are emotionless and it's easy to interpret someone said in one context and take it as meaning something else.


They concluded and said they would pass the info to HR and thay HR would get back to me by end of next week but that they can't see any grounds for gross misconduct if I was worried about losing my job

So that sounds like a bit of good news.

And where did you get that statistic from?

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1352-1390

Maybe factcheck stuff before posting, or as others have suggested, just not post again.

Jesus, I had no idea that existed and simply pulled it from the FBI database to add context. No harm intended.

That was at top of google search quoting those numbers:

If I can find it so can your HR and may be why the other party took such offence.

JReacher1

I don’t believe the statistic is actually wrong. It is just used by racists in their propaganda. 

KatrinaWaves

Honestly they’re probably not looking to sack you for being racist but being dense and ignorant. You can’t just look at crime stats without looking into the systemic racism which has skewed these stats since slavery was abolished. 

How about you stop making sweeping generalisations about groups you do not belong to.