InsideFlyer.com [English] United States InsideFlyer.uk [English] United Kingdom InsideFlyer.de [German] Germany InsideFlyer.no [Norwegian] Norway InsideFlyer.se [Swedish] Sweden InsideFlyer.dk [Danish] Denmark InsideFlyer.nl [Dutch] Benelux
Discussion in 'Hilton | HHonors' started by uggboy, Feb 23, 2012.
| Print Topic
Unfortunately, some people are more self serving vice respectful of others...particularly celeb's, where they might be able to make a buck...
It's sad indeed and self serving, now everyone wants to profit from such tragic news! A buck here, a buck there! Hilton did the right thing IMHO.
It's an industry where discretion is important.
I once asked that a Hampton Inn employee be fired for giving my breakfast dish to a local newspaper. Noone should know I double up on eggs
To me, this is a situation where you have to judge each situation on its own merits. There is a world of difference between some stunned low-level employee mumbling "I think they said Whitney Houston died" and somebody giving a detailed, paid interview. This was a shocker, and some employees would have been disoriented, especially if they were big Houston fans. If they gave out information that was coming out very soon anyway, that's one thing. Hopefully, those who were fired were those who were cashing in.
Doesn't have to be paid, IMHO.
No, being paid puts it into the "fire me" category for sure. If not paid, I think you have to look at the whole thing to determine whether to fire someone. I don't take firing people lightly, it is serious business. I have no reason to believe that the Hilton acted improperly here. The fact that they waited to do this indicates to me that they were looking into each instance and concluded that the people fired deserved to be fired. There may well have been others whose transgressions were so minor that they did not deserve to be fired, and they were not.
For this order of magnitude of leak, it'd probably be a firing either way.
Where I work, there is a very clear-cut guideline: you don't ever talk to the press about anything work-related unless you are an official spokesperson for the company. Let's say there was a workplace shooting and a TV crew was waiting at the gates to interview people as they arrive the next day. It would be wise to not open your mouth.
That's why the press often cites sources who are not named because they are not authorized to speak for XYZ.
Yeah, I understand that. This is definitely an issue where reasonable people can disagree. If there is that kind of rule, the company certainly can apply the rule and fire anybody saying anything. They can also look at what was said in each case and apply their judgement. I don't think it would have taken this long to do the former, but perhaps it did.