celeb news Try Guy, Ned Fulmer cheats on wife with employee, fired: Try Guys release statement

[Vin]

A few things.

 

 

1. I don't know these people.

 

2. Since when is it LEGAL to FIRE an employee for cheating on their partner? He should sue. Was that in the "Try Guys Mission Statement"? To always be faithful to your partner... or else? An employees personal business has nothing to do with work.

 

3. People in this thread are being oddly sexist with statements like, "Well, he's the one that used his wife and marriage as part of his brand." What? You do know that his wife... is a person? And can make her own decisions? She's not a prop. She decided to be part of the business with him. In any case, after this, her income has also been affected.

 

 

This reminds me of when Shonda Rhymes fired Patrick Dempsey from "Grey's Anatomy" for cheating on his wife (because apparently his wife was friends with Ellen Pompeo). And Dempsey is still with his wife and they are both out of a steady paycheck. People in relationships need to keep their cheating scandals to themselves and try to work it out (with therapy) or move on from each other and should not be discussed with nosey friends and family who gossip and blow things up.

 

In conclusion, keep it private, losers.

 

 

...Vin

Edited September 28, 2022 by Vin

[CandleGuy]

6 hours ago, Communion said:

A boss can't have a consensual relationship, legally, with their employee. 

Yes, they can, and it's very common 

 

Many workplaces have policies against it - and in recent times it has become considered an abuse of power dynamics for a boss to enter into a relationship with a subordinate - but it is absolutely not illegal, anywhere, to my knowledge.

[PlERRE]

This reminds me of the dark days of Bon appetit, the way a whole company/digital media business can go down in less than 3 hours is crazy. 

[Konril]

I haven't followed them in years... But not Ned! He has always been the family man of the group and how he has a wife. 

[Mark!]

just because yall tolerate cheating, it doesn't mean this gets a free pass. for all we know, the partner in crime was a subordinate. that is grounds for firing. yall should separate your personal preferences over what is actually company policy

 

now im curious who the other girlie is, why tf would ned cheat on ha beautiful wife like that.

[mercurialworld]

44 minutes ago, Vin said:

 

2. Since when is it LEGAL to FIRE an employee for cheating on their partner? He should sue. Was that in the "Try Guys Mission Statement"? To always be faithful to your partner... or else? An employees personal business has nothing to do with work.

 

The person he cheated on his wife with is a subordinate in the company, so yeah, completely appropriate to fire him. HR would have a field day if he didn’t.

Edited September 28, 2022 by mercurialworld

[Selenasworld]

He's not even hot come on well he's trash but there's way more hotter guys at Buzzfeed 

[MonsterJohn]

6 hours ago, icy said:

i didn't care that much about this until i saw someone say alex was with her fiancé for 10+ years  my jaw dropped, all that time down the drain for ned?...

Damn imagine wasting 10 years of your life for a cheater, poor guy

[Delirious]

2 hours ago, Vin said:

A few things.

 

 

1. I don't know these people.

 

2. Since when is it LEGAL to FIRE an employee for cheating on their partner? He should sue. Was that in the "Try Guys Mission Statement"? To always be faithful to your partner... or else? An employees personal business has nothing to do with work.

 

3. People in this thread are being oddly sexist with statements like, "Well, he's the one that used his wife and marriage as part of his brand." What? You do know that his wife... is a person? And can make her own decisions? She's not a prop. She decided to be part of the business with him. In any case, after this, her income has also been affected.

 

 

This reminds me of when Shonda Rhymes fired Patrick Dempsey from "Grey's Anatomy" for cheating on his wife (because apparently his wife was friends with Ellen Pompeo). And Dempsey is still with his wife and they are both out of a steady paycheck. People in relationships need to keep their cheating scandals to themselves and try to work it out (with therapy) or move on from each other and should not be discussed with nosey friends and family who gossip and blow things up.

 

In conclusion, keep it private, losers.

 

 

...Vin

Theyre allowed to. Youre allowed to fire anyone who risks the reputation of your company etc.

 

its like the same thing as firing someone who was publicly racist or caused a scene in public......

Edited September 28, 2022 by Delirious

[Khal]

Y'all don't know any of these people other than the scripted and edited videos you watch and their social media presence i.e. what they want you to see and know. Idk why people impose some kind of vicarious morality on them, talking about "omg I expected better from him"

 

He's not your friend, family, or even work colleague, what gives you the idea that you know him enough to know what he is or isn't capable of?

[iamanearthling]

Scum

[Konril]

Ned taking his mistress to a Harry Styles concert, and they were seen there and also caught kissing in a club. 

[terrorblade]

he has crazy eyes I'm not surprised
 

  

10 hours ago, Jotham said:

b-tch

[The7thStranger]

I feel bad for all of them that they have to go through this publicly. It doesn’t matter if their brand is based on their marriage. It’s still a private matter. Whatever happens in their marriage has no affect on our lives. 

Edited September 28, 2022 by The7thStranger

[ithinkheknowsoutsold]

That's why I support the superior ex-BuzzFeed creators, Safiya Nygaard and the people from BuzzFeed Unsolved 

 

These people (minus Keith) always gave me weird vibes.

[Khamis]

7 hours ago, Khal said:

Y'all don't know any of these people other than the scripted and edited videos you watch and their social media presence i.e. what they want you to see and know. Idk why people impose some kind of vicarious morality on them, talking about "omg I expected better from him"

 

He's not your friend, family, or even work colleague, what gives you the idea that you know him enough to know what he is or isn't capable of?

I mean we don’t know him or anyone in the “Youtuber” realm…. But they build their lives around us watching and investing in what they put out to the world. And people believed it, bc at the end of the day you can either choose to believe the people are who they say they are… or not watch. So yeah some people are shocked bc he seemed genuine.

 

if people kept the mentality you are talking about, there would be no “influencer” who’s whole brand is designed for you to trust and believe what they are selling.

Edited September 28, 2022 by Khamis

[Otter]

17 hours ago, yonsé said:

 

u cant **** ur employees ppl... he was her boss.

 

that opens them up to a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Errm, maybe this varies by country because its messy but I've known CEO's have relationship with employees openly. Its only a major issue if you're their direct line manager and it spills into work. Depends on the work culture too.

[Otter]

16 hours ago, Communion said:

A boss can't have a consensual relationship, legally, with their employee. 

Did you make that up? This sounds more like individual company policies versus any actual law. And a quick google only prompts individual company policies, not laws. It's just messy but not illegal.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/08/success/ceos-dating-employees/index.html
 

[Phaunzie]

The truth is this is a non-issue, nothing about this moves me and getting fired over cheating with an employee as though that isn't a common occurrence everywhere else. Unless the person he cheated with didn't consent and did feel pressured to have intercourse with him, he shouldn't have been fired. 

 

Workplace relationships are not a big deal, every store, corporations there is at least one. 

[Khal]

35 minutes ago, Khamis said:

I mean we don’t know him or anyone in the “Youtuber” realm…. But they build their lives around us watching and investing in what they put out to the world. And people believed it, bc at the end of the day you can either choose to believe the people are who they say they are… or not watch. So yeah some people are shocked bc he seemed genuine.

 

if people kept the mentality you are talking about, there would be no “influencer” who’s whole brand is designed for you to trust and believe what they are selling.

Yes. Which is why the idea of an "influencer" (especially in the age of social media) and anyone who follows them is extremely idiotic. These people are selling you scripted versions of their life and you think it's somehow not stupid to buy into this and form parasocial relationships with them

 

You can believe who people say they are if you're in close enough proximity to them that allows you to observe them and form your own conclusions: friends, family, colleagues. Believing what people tell you based on scripted content is foolish.

 

They're not telling you who they ACTUALLY are. They are selling you content you want to see. This isn't some real life documentary, it's scripted, edited content ffs

Edited September 28, 2022 by Khal

[Phaunzie]

39 minutes ago, Otter said:

Did you make that up? This sounds more like individual company policies versus any actual law. And a quick google only prompts individual company policies, not laws. It's just messy but not illegal.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/08/success/ceos-dating-employees/index.html
 

Thank you, you either have to disclose the relationship or end it. You can't be fired ove it.

 

The Try Guys are all actors, the people you see in the videos are exaggerated and scripted. As a result, you can't assume that those characters are how they will act off camera. 

[Communion]

12 hours ago, CandleGuy said:

Yes, they can, and it's very common 

 

Many workplaces have policies against it - and in recent times it has become considered an abuse of power dynamics for a boss to enter into a relationship with a subordinate - but it is absolutely not illegal, anywhere, to my knowledge.

 

2 hours ago, Otter said:

Did you make that up? This sounds more like individual company policies versus any actual law. And a quick google only prompts individual company policies, not laws. It's just messy but not illegal.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/08/success/ceos-dating-employees/index.html
 

Bragging about people doing things that make them legally liable as employers for potential harm does not change the reality of labor laws within the US, specifically California. 

 

No one is talking about consent as a concept of criminality or illegality and going to jail. 

 

We're talking about the legality of how workplaces have a legal standard to prevent foreseeable harm to employees. Which is why I said imbalanced relationships can't be "consensual" in terms of how labor laws treat relationships. 

 

Going "it's not the law, it's just individual company policy" is silly when company policy is largely shaped by what the law entails as the rights of the employee and rights of the employer. 

 

For California, there's no law baring employers from allowing employes to date one another, but the law in the state also states that employers are *automatically liable* on claims of sexual harassment or hostile work environment (and the damage from their failure as an employer to prevent the foreseeable harm) when they knowingly place someone as subordinate to a manager that they are in a relationship with, ie: saying "its consensual" over and over wouldnt mean anything if the subordibate employee then reported hostility or intimidation from their partner at work. Employers have the legal right to alter someone's role or even fire them based on this because relationship status is not considered part of one's constitutional "right to privacy" in the context of labor laws. 

 

California has also given employees legal ground to sue for harm if they perceive a co-worker received preferential treatment that resulted in raises and promotions for the subordinate due to the fact that they are dating their manager. That's no longer "a consensual relationship". California law literally calls it "sexual favoritism".

 

If Ned stayed on and kept dating Alex, for example, and Alex got a promotion, YB (another former Buzzfeed employee who works with Alex as a fellow "Food Baby") could literally sue on claims she was harmed by sexual favoritism if she could prove Ned was responsible for Alex being promoted over her and thus she now works in an environment where, as it appears, employment advancement can only be gained through sexual favors. 

 

Saying "it's not illegal, just frowned upon by some employers" is pedantic when said employers don't allow such *because* of the legal standards they often end up in violation of and the harm they're liable for when allowing someone to date a co-worker subordinate to them. 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Communion

[truthteller]

7 hours ago, ithinkheknowsoutsold said:

Safiya Nygaard

YAS STAN MY DIY QUEEN

 

 

i mean it's not a guarantee fire over a consensual relationship as long as there's declaration on potential conflicts of interest... and it's just their private lives... i guess this will hurt the "wholesome, unproblematic content creators" brand  a pure business move from the company...

Edited September 28, 2022 by truthteller

[Otter]

2 minutes ago, Communion said:

 

Bragging about people doing things that make them legally liable as employers for potential harm does not change the reality of labor laws within the US, specifically California. 

 

No one is talking about consent as a concept of criminality or illegality and going to jail. 

 

We're talking about the legality of how workplaces have a legal standard to prevent foreseeable harm to employees. Which is why I said imbalanced relationships can't be "consensual" in terms of how labor laws treat relationships. 

 

Going "it's not the law, it's just individual company policy" is silly when company policy is largely shaped by what the law entails as the rights of the employee and rights of the employer. 

 

For California, there's no law baring employers from allowing employes to date one another, but the law in the state also states that employers are *automatically liable* on claims of sexual harassment or hostile work environment (and the damage from their failure as an employer to prevent the foreseeable harm)

when they knowingly place someone as subordinate to a manager that they are in a relationship with, ie: saying "its consensual" over and over wouldnt mean anything if the subordibate employee that reported harassment or intimidation from their partner at work. Employers have the legal right to alter someone's role or even fire them based on this because relationship status is not considered part of one's constitutional "right to privacy" in the context of labor laws. 

 

California has also given employees legal ground to sue for harm if they perceive a co-worker received preferential treatment that resulted in raises and promotions for the subordinate due to the fact that they are dating their manager. That's no longer "a consensual relationship". California law literally calls it "sexual favoritism".

 

If Ned stayed on and kept dating Alex, for example, and Alex got a promotion, YB (another former Buzzfeed employee who works with Alex as a fellow "Food Baby") could literally sue on claims she was harmed by sexual favoritism if she could prove Ned was responsible for Alex being promoted over her and thus she now works in an environment where, as it appears, employment advancement can only be gained through sexual favors. 

This was a long way of saying that your OG statement was wrong 

The boldened in particular is you just jumping from favouritism to non-consensual relationship without any bridge between the 2 statements.

[Communion]

15 minutes ago, Otter said:

This was a long way of saying that your OG statement was wrong 

Post A: Why would they fire him??? Who cares? Many co-workers date each other. 

 

Post B: Because consensual relationships are not legally a thing between a subordinate and boss in the context of labor laws. 

 

You: You can't just say it's non-consensual! It's consensual....even if the emphasized "consensual" aspect of therelationship at work still makes the employer legally liable for harm to the employees and their co-workers. 

 

I hate yall.  The desperation to defend unethical, and yes, often legally harmful behaviors. 

 

People whose employment you're responsible for are not your dating pool. This shouldn't be that hard to understand. Ned made an awful decision because his desire to sleep with a coworker means whatever value he brought to the brand does not outweigh the potential legal challenges him working over Alex could cost them. Imagine if he went back to his wife, as he likely is, but kept working. How would they then as an employer ensure Alex couldn't claim she felt retaliation against her because now her boss may resent her because his wife is angry at him for cheating on her with his employee? Like it's insanity that some of you are pretending to not understand the legal issies this all brings up. . 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Communion