Best Buy employee suspended for iPhone spoof ads

man both of those were hilarious. the top one really had me rolling because that guy really captured the attitude of your average iphone user. its why i hate working for at&t because customers think that damn phone is everything and nothing else will do. my iq drops every time i have to take a call from someone who has the iphone or wants the iphone and tells me i HAVE to do this or that so they can get it, waive the upgrade fee, how they are writing my paychecks (when they aren't) and i'm a crappy agent because i won't get fired for selling them an iphone over the phone and also i better sell it for the full upgrade price even though they just upgraded 3 months ago. the iphone and anything related to the iphone makes me sick :-/

What I want to know is how they were able to pinpoint that that guy was an employee and even if they did why would they fire him. I would sue them for wrongful termination. So long as that guy was making videos on his own time and not company time they shouldn't have anything to bitch about.

Wrongful termination indeed. That is why they tried to get him to quit.

Yes, fire the smart people and keep the numbskulls.

Wrongful termination would be if they fired him because he was black or something. In most states a company can fire you just because they don't like the color of your hair. He will, however, have an easy time collecting unemployment.

if they can prove that what he did was damaging to the business then they can fire him.as for the videos the first one is hilarious saw it on my cousins facebook page.just had a look at the second one and thats pretty funny aswell.

Quote:

---

"They felt it disparaged a brand they carried (iPhone/Apple) as well as the store itself and were fearful of stockholders & customers being turned off to Best Buy Mobile," said Maupin.

---

How the hell would stockholders and customers know that a Best Buy employee posted this video?! I don't see any mention of Best Buy in the video or video description.
In fact people will be thankful that the video really shows you that iPhone is a..just another phone! and not the best phone in the world(you lose signal if you don't hold it right. lol!) but a fairly mediocre at most.And there are way better phones out there in market with much better spec sheet.

Kudos to this guy for creating those videos. Hands down the funniest thing I've heard(that's tch related)in a very long time.

i think what you post on the net long as its not at work has no grounds for suspension or a fire unless it is stated on the employee handbook if they do fire him he can sue them for something im sure

It became known that the person who made these vids worked for Best Buy, therefore became a liability to them. If he had never admitted who he was and where he worked to anyone, that would be OK. His comment that they were "intended to be comedic and hence, not taken seriously" doesn't really fly...he was still disparaging/mocking Apple, AT&T, the iPhone and potential customers no matter how funny (or not) the videos are.

No matter what your position is at a company, you can be seen as a representative of that company if you make public opinions about anything that company does. If saying anything disparaging, you had better keep yourself TOTALLY anonymous.

If I worked for the cable company and were publicly suggesting people get DirecTV instead, they would be totally right to fire my careless ass.

If he was posting videos from work, that would be one thing. If he was saying something like, "All the iPhones sold by best buy are buggy" or "Best Buy lies about the features of the device", that would all be wrong...but when someone makes a video on their own time, with their own equipment, then it has nothing to do with their company.

I have always been against drug testing at workplaces. I don't want people showing up stoned, but I also don't want the company saying, "You cannot smoke pot on a friday night, even though it will have no affect on your monday morning performance". Now they are taking it a step farther; you can't do anything that might make the company look bad in any possible way, even if it is 100% legal. Where is the limit? How long before you can be fired for making the company look bad by parking an ugly car in the parking lot? What about for wearing those dumb blue shits...those make bestbuy look terrible, I guess they will have to fire everyone who wears their dumb uniform.

I guess that is the end of my bestbuy shopping; from now on, I'll wait for the shipping from amazon. It is a sad state of affairs when the company that removed 1984 and Animal farm from their eReader seems less fascist than bestbuy.

The courts of Missouri follow an “Employment-at-Will” doctrine. This means that both the employee and employer can end the employment relationship at any time and for any reason, as long as it is not discrimination under the Civil Rights Act.

My question would be, "Why did they ask him to quit?" Why not simply fire him since they are an at-will state?

Because firing the employee would make best buy look worse, and it is a self-feeding cycle.

Every time someone gets fired over this, best buy looks worse. It is policy to fire anyone who makes the company look bad, so every time someone fires someone for making the company look bad, they then get fired themselves for making the company look bad, and so on...before you know it, the CEO gets fired for letting the whole thing get out of hand (and thus making best buy look bad).

[edit]
up'd my own video; the next one will be about Best Buy's corporate policies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fIGGW11Bh8

Quote:

---

I have always been against drug testing at workplaces. I don't want people showing up stoned, but I also don't want the company saying, "You cannot smoke pot on a friday night, even though it will have no affect on your monday morning performance"

---

if a boss doesnt want drug addicts working for him its his choice.thats why drug testing is in place in some work places.If you own a business/company its up to you who you want working for you.

Originally posted by 20TONS:

---

The courts of Missouri follow an “Employment-at-Will” doctrine. This means that both the employee and employer can end the employment relationship at any time and for any reason, as long as it is not discrimination under the Civil Rights Act.

My question would be, "Why did they ask him to quit?" Why not simply fire him since they are an at-will state?

---

Probably because he qualifies for unemployment benefits.

Quote:

---

I have always been against drug testing at workplaces. I don't want people showing up stoned, but I also don't want the company saying, "You cannot smoke pot on a friday night, even though it will have no affect on your monday morning performance"

---

Employers drug test applicants because they get a discount on their workers comp insurance premiums.

Give the man a job in show business! That vid was hilarious and so right on!

OMG....some consumers are just clueless and taken by brad names. No wounder corporation$ spend million$ of $$$ on advertisement.

Originally posted by xboxdvl2:

---

if a boss doesnt want drug addicts working for him its his choice.thats why drug testing is in place in some work places.If you own a business/company its up to you who you want working for you.

---

Someone who smokes pot once a week on the weekend is not an addict. If a person really has a problem that affects their performance at work, they should be fired for poor performance. Alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug; other than legal status, Marijuana has been shown to be much safer...and it does not give you a hangover, so it does not affect work once you are sober. I would rather employ a pothead than a drunk. I can understand not wanting crackheads on the staff, but hard drugs leave the system very fast, and they can be flushed out even faster...a meth head can give a clean urine sample while still high! Really, all these tests do is to test for marijuana, and for horrible, obvious addicts who start shaking and sweating if they go a few hours without a hit...and you wouldn't want someone like that working for you, even if they were clean, and all their issues were just medical.

Originally posted by Azuran:

---

Employers drug test applicants because they get a discount on their workers comp insurance premiums.

---

They get discounts on actual insurance, but I don't think it makes a difference on workers comp, as I have worked at some extremely dangerous jobs that did not drug test unless you got the company health plan. If a company does not even offer a health plan, or if an employee does not want it, they should not have to take a test.

My friend worked at Best Buy for three years and was a manager, and then got suspended...and then fired because he was selling headphones he purchased through the Beats by Dre employee discount. They are pretty harsh.

Originally posted by KillerBug:

---

Originally posted by xboxdvl2:

---

if a boss doesnt want drug addicts working for him its his choice.thats why drug testing is in place in some work places.If you own a business/company its up to you who you want working for you.

---

Someone who smokes pot once a week on the weekend is not an addict. If a person really has a problem that affects their performance at work, they should be fired for poor performance. Alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug; other than legal status, Marijuana has been shown to be much safer...and it does not give you a hangover, so it does not affect work once you are sober. I would rather employ a pothead than a drunk. I can understand not wanting crackheads on the staff, but hard drugs leave the system very fast, and they can be flushed out even faster...a meth head can give a clean urine sample while still high! Really, all these tests do is to test for marijuana, and for horrible, obvious addicts who start shaking and sweating if they go a few hours without a hit...and you wouldn't want someone like that working for you, even if they were clean, and all their issues were just medical.

---

i had an epileptic fit when i was 18 from a fight.the doctors asked if i smoked marijuana and i was a heavy marijuana smoker but hadn't had any for a week.test revealed i didnt have epilepsy but the doctor did point out if i wasnt stressed and suffering from withdrawal i wouldnt of had a seizure.

edit: i feel like i should mention that cigarettes and alcohol kill or contribute to millions of deaths each year.the only they are still legal is the government makes millions of $$$ of them every year.