How did they get away with this? (Firing workers for things done on free time)

[Doc Sarvis]

I was recently talking to a friend of mine who works at a Miller Beer distribution center. One of the rules they have there is that you can only drink Miller products. My friend proceeded to tell me that one of his co-workers was recently fired because the boss caught him drinking Budweiser in a bar after work.

How can a company fire you for engaging in a legal activity off the clock and off of company property? I used to work at an Amoco station but got my smokes from the Mobile station down the street(they had better prices). When I worked at a Papa John's Pizza one of our drivers prefered Pizza Hut and would have them deliver to him while he was at the Papa John's store and nobody seemed to mind.

So does a company have a right to regulate what an employee does/drink/smoke/eat , while they are not at work?

[Rucksinator]

I want to know how people get away with making vague, nondescriptive thread titles.


But I've heard the same thing about automobile companies. Nothing else to add.

[Mangetout]

I would imagine that certain types of this would represent unfair or coercive contract terms, but can't they just fire you at will anyway?

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

Changed thread title so people know what it's about.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[cerberus]

In Right-to-Work jurisdictions, they can hire or fire pretty much as they please, 'cept for Race/Religion/National Origin, and maybe Age/Sex.

If you're covered by collective bargaining agreements, the agreements may well cover some these issues.

Many contracts actually build in the fire-able issues up front. A big one involves not sullying the company reputation, or moral terpitude/legal standards.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Doc Sarvis

How can a company fire you for engaging in a legal activity off the clock and off of company property?
<snip>
So does a company have a right to regulate what an employee does/drink/smoke/eat , while they are not at work?

Like cerberus said, if you're living in an 'at will' jurisdiction (which is most if not all of the U.S.), then unless you're protected by a collective bargaining agreement, they can fire you for any reason, or no reason at all - except the handful of categories for which discrimination is legally proscribed.

For instance, if your state doesn't outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, your boss can walk into your office, see your pic of your wife on your desk, and fire you because you're straight. Legal as church on Sunday. Doesn't matter if he's straight too - nothing in the law demands consistency on his part, either.

Nice handle, btw.

[Shodan]

Did you have a link to show that this kind of firing really happened?

Is Miller unionized? I am wondering if a union would accept this in their collective bargaining contract.

Regards,
Shodan

[Little Nemo]

I read of an occasion when a workplace scheduled a Dallas Cowboys Appreciation Day. One employee showed up wearing a Green Bay Packer jacket and was fired. The firing was perfectly legal.

[rjung]

Related thread: Coca-Cola worker fired for drinking a Pepsi

[Mr2001]

Originally Posted by Doc Sarvis

How can a company fire you for engaging in a legal activity off the clock and off of company property?

This is really the same situation as firing an employee for smoking pot in his free time. The fact that the act is legal is irrelevant; it isn't your boss's job to enforce the law (unless you work at a police station).

[MLS]

Presumably, the rule was known when the person was hired, and he/she agreed to it as a condition of employment. Don't like the restriction, don't take the job.

Brokerage houses, for example, often require that their employees do business only with the employer and not with a competitor. In fact, my former employer required annual disclosure of all investment accounts, and neither I nor any of my immediate family could have such an account with any other company without getting special permission from On High.

[Little Nemo]

Presumably, the rule was known when the person was hired, and he/she agreed to it as a condition of employment. Don't like the restriction, don't take the job.

It doesn't have to be a rule that existed at the time of the hiring. In fact, there doesn't have to be a rule violation at all. Many states allow employers to fire employees at will - no reason is required.

[ed]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

It doesn't have to be a rule that existed at the time of the hiring. In fact, there doesn't have to be a rule violation at all. Many states allow employers to fire employees at will - no reason is required.

Many places change or add rules on the fly, without any real recourse to the employee, and I haven't seen any evidence that it would be illegal (slimy? maybe). I was forced to sign a rather draconian intellectual property agreement despite having worked at the company for over a year previously. I could have not signed it, but then I'd probably have been fired.

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by Doc Sarvis

I was recently talking to a friend of mine who works at a Miller Beer distribution center. One of the rules they have there is that you can only drink Miller products. My friend proceeded to tell me that one of his co-workers was recently fired because the boss caught him drinking Budweiser in a bar after work.

How can a company fire you for engaging in a legal activity off the clock and off of company property? I used to work at an Amoco station but got my smokes from the Mobile station down the street(they had better prices). When I worked at a Papa John's Pizza one of our drivers prefered Pizza Hut and would have them deliver to him while he was at the Papa John's store and nobody seemed to mind.

So does a company have a right to regulate what an employee does/drink/smoke/eat , while they are not at work?

A company cannot "regulate" what you do outside of work. Companies don't regulate at all; governments regulate.

Turn the question on its head: Why wouldn't the company have a right to fire you for any reason it chooses? When thought about this way, the answer becomes more clear. A private (non-governmental) company's behaviour is only regulated by the law of the jurisdictions within which it exists. Very few jurisdictions in the United States have legally obligated an employer to keep an employee as an employee except for cases where the employer wishes to fire the employee for reasons that violate strong public policies, such as racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc. In the absence of a specific law that says an employer cannot fire an employee for whatever reason the employer has for termination, the employer is legally free to terminate the employee. Fortunately, most states have not created a "right" to remain employed.

For governmental employers, slightly more onerus rules may apply. Such employers are also governed by the United States Constitution, specifically Amendments 5 and/or 14. This may put a burden on such an employer not yet placed by statute. For instance, state agencies may have to provide for not only a constitutionally valid reason for termination, they may have to provide a proper process for termination that protects the right of the employee to avoid loss of liberty/property without due process. But the non-governmental employer can often simply listen to innuendo, and meet you at the door and say, "You're fired!"

[stuyguy]

Originally Posted by Doc Sarvis

When I worked at a Papa John's Pizza one of our drivers prefered Pizza Hut and would have them deliver to him while he was at the Papa John's store...

I love this. Pizza Hut should have made a commercial about it, or somethin'.

[Spatial Rift 47]

Jeez. A Miller worker fired for drinking a Bud, and a Coca-Cola worker fired for drinking a Pepsi.


It's a good thing I'm going to become a physicist, where they don't fire you for also liking chemistry.

In all seriousness, yeah, this can happen. Just look at job applications (when I was looking for seasonal work), which usually if not always have a statement to the effect of "The applicant agrees that employment may be terminated at any time, with or without notice or explanation."

Can I leave the planet now? Please?

[stuyguy]

I gave my tongue-in-cheek post a little more thought and concluded that I may be on to something here after all.

If Budweiser really wanted to screw Miller in the court of public opinion, they'd hire that ex-Miller driver on the spot, put the Bud CEO in make-up and rent a camera crew ASAP.

On camera, the CEO and the driver would stand side by side. The CEO would put his arm around the driver's shoulder and say:

"This is Mozmo. He used to drive a truck for Miller Beer. I'm the CEO of another beer company, Budweiser, but what Mozmo did to make a living was just fine with me. Trouble is, Mozmo preferred to drink Bud. That wasn't fine with Miller, and they fired him because of it. We at Budweiser think that stinks and is against what America is all about. So we gave Mozmo a job driving one of our trucks. And he can keep that job whether he keeps drinking Budweiser or not. At Budweiser we believe in freedom!"

That's what I would do.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by stuyguy

I gave my tongue-in-cheek post a little more thought and concluded that I may be on to something here after all.

If Budweiser really wanted to screw Miller in the court of public opinion, they'd hire that ex-Miller driver on the spot, put the Bud CEO in make-up and rent a camera crew ASAP.

On camera, the CEO and the driver would stand side by side. The CEO would put his arm around the driver's shoulder and say:

"This is Mozmo. He used to drive a truck for Miller Beer. I'm the CEO of another beer company, Budweiser, but what Mozmo did to make a living was just fine with me. Trouble is, Mozmo preferred to drink Bud. That wasn't fine with Miller, and they fired him because of it. We at Budweiser think that stinks and is against what America is all about. So we gave Mozmo a job driving one of our trucks. And he can keep that job whether he keeps drinking Budweiser or not. At Budweiser we believe in freedom!"

That's what I would do.

It's a great ad idea, really. Of course, it would need to be true to have any effect. How much you wanna bet Bud does the same thing?

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq

Turn the question on its head: Why wouldn't the company have a right to fire you for any reason it chooses? .... Fortunately, most states have not created a "right" to remain employed. .... But the non-governmental employer can often simply listen to innuendo, and meet you at the door and say, "You're fired!"

In the UK we have employment laws protecting employees. Once someone has worked at a place for a certain minimum time (I think it's three months) he has rights. He can only be fired for good reasons eg incompitence, or theft. Sacking someone just because you don't like them, or because they support the wrong sports team, orbecause they buy from your competitor would get the company sued.

YOU may consider it fortunate that workers have no rights where you come from. I consider it fortunate that we do. I find the situation in America very strange indeed.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by stuyguy

If Budweiser really wanted to screw Miller in the court of public opinion, they'd hire that ex-Miller driver on the spot, put the Bud CEO in make-up and rent a camera crew ASAP....
That's what I would do.

Not a bad idea, but are the Bud factory and the Miller factory in the same town? Might not be much use if he has to move halfway accross the country for the job offer.

[Doc Sarvis]

Originally Posted by stuyguy

I love this. Pizza Hut should have made a commercial about it, or somethin'.

I listened in when he was ordering one night it was pretty amusing
Pizza Hut- Thank you for calling Pizza Hut
George(Papa Johns driver)-Yeah I'd like to get a delivery please
PH-Ok where is this going to?
George- You know where the Papa Johns is down the street?
PH-yeah.
George-I want it to go there
PH-Is this a joke? We don't have time for pranks.
George-No,no its a real order. I want a pizza and some hot wings while I'm working.
Ph- But you work at a pizza place.
George-Yeah but the pizza here sucks and we don't have hot wings
PH-pause
George-So can you deliver my order please? I can't leave work right now, I might have to take a delivery.
PH-ummmm..... I guess, You're sure this isn't a joke?
George-I'm serious man, I got a craving for some hot wings. I can pay with a credit card if you want. Oh yeah when you deliver just knock on the side door.


and to Peter Morris- your username is one name off of my real full name. kind of creepy.

[Adoptamom_II]

In high school I worked for McDonald's, which was across the street from Burger King. Once on our lunch break, a couple of us counter gals made the mad dash across the highway to Burger King to grab a burger "our way". Did I mention we were still in our McDonalds uniforms? The Burger King folks were THRILLED to see us

Our manager wasn't exactly pleased with us, but didn't fire us. I think the only reason we got away with it was because we were young, cute, and drew alot of summer construction workers to the counter whenever we worked <g>.

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

In the UK we have employment laws protecting employees. Once someone has worked at a place for a certain minimum time (I think it's three months) he has rights. He can only be fired for good reasons eg incompitence, or theft. Sacking someone just because you don't like them, or because they support the wrong sports team, orbecause they buy from your competitor would get the company sued.

YOU may consider it fortunate that workers have no rights where you come from. I consider it fortunate that we do. I find the situation in America very strange indeed.

Yes, well, in England you also have the dole, so I don't think that you can exactly convince too many Americans that England's employment situation is vastly superior.

The way to deal with bad employers is to vote with your feet. You get a new job, in other words. In a country of 275 million people, with the largest economy in the world, it's pretty easy to do.

[soulmurk]

I used to work for a large, local company that did not hire smokers. They made you sign a release saying that you didn't smoke before they would hire you, and they did fire several people because it turned out they smoked outside of work and on their own time.

I always wondered at the legality of that (it stinks of discrimination to me), but I guess it's just an extension of the Right-to-Work laws.

In that, and the situation in the OP, it resonates as wrong.

[Mr2001]

Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq

The way to deal with bad employers is to vote with your feet. You get a new job, in other words. In a country of 275 million people, with the largest economy in the world, it's pretty easy to do.

Heh, have you looked for a job lately? Particularly a job that doesn't require a degree and doesn't require moving across the country? Good luck finding one that doesn't have some kooky requirement about the things you can do in your free time. A friend of mine had to pee in a cup for a telephone job, and get her mouth swabbed for a temp agency.

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by Mr2001

Heh, have you looked for a job lately? Particularly a job that doesn't require a degree and doesn't require moving across the country? Good luck finding one that doesn't have some kooky requirement about the things you can do in your free time. A friend of mine had to pee in a cup for a telephone job, and get her mouth swabbed for a temp agency.

Let me guess: Calls were charged at $3 a minute?

[neutron star]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

How much you wanna bet Bud does the same thing?

You'd win that bet:

A lawsuit filed by a man who alleged a Budweiser distributor wrongfully fired him after he drank a competitor's beer during his off-hours has been dismissed.

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by Mr2001

This is really the same situation as firing an employee for smoking pot in his free time.

There are a couple of significant differences.

First, the chemicals in marijuana can be found in your blood long after you stop smoking. You can test positive for smoking pot while on the job. If you test positive for alcohol while on the job, you will be fired, too (or at least put into a mandatory program). The difference between that and the Miller case is that no one would be able to tell what brand you drank.

Second, companies are under enormous pressure from the government to put drug-free workplace policies into action. Not doing so can cost a company tens of thousands of dollars. There is no similar pressure on Miller to ban Budweiser during an employee's off hours.

[Mr2001]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

First, the chemicals in marijuana can be found in your blood long after you stop smoking. You can test positive for smoking pot while on the job. If you test positive for alcohol while on the job, you will be fired, too (or at least put into a mandatory program).

Of course.. because if you test positive for alcohol, you're probably drunk, which is what the company really cares about. Compare that to a positive test for marijuana, which almost always indicates past use, not present intoxication.

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by Mr2001

Of course.. because if you test positive for alcohol, you're probably drunk, which is what the company really cares about. Compare that to a positive test for marijuana, which almost always indicates past use, not present intoxication.

That's very true. But that's why Miller's policy is not like a drug policy. A drug policy does not care when you imbibed, only that you test positive at the time the test is given. I can't tell you if there is an actual way to determine if someone is under the influence of marijuana, I can only say that the tests will be positive for a certain, unknown, time after use. But most drug-free workplace rules, while they do touch on certain activities (for example, if you're arrested for marijuana possession or sale then you may be going against those rules) aren't really interested in what you do outside of the workplace, only if there are traces of it when you show up to work.

This isn't like Miller saying you can't drink Bud off the job--which I consider a nasty little rule that is inappropriate (though legal).

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by Mr2001

Heh, have you looked for a job lately? Particularly a job that doesn't require a degree and doesn't require moving across the country? Good luck finding one that doesn't have some kooky requirement about the things you can do in your free time. A friend of mine had to pee in a cup for a telephone job, and get her mouth swabbed for a temp agency.

I have switched jobs recently, and I moved across the country and THEN found a new job seven years ago. Trust me that, despite the fact that they don't just lie around on street corners, well, at least not on most street corners, people who WISH to be employed can usually be employed, in a decent job, if they make the effort. But they'd much rather, on many occasions, simply hope for some rule or regulation that can force the employer they do have to keep them, despite the fact that they can resign anytime they damn please, for any reason they choose.

Fairness on the subject is rarely in their minds.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

It's a great ad idea, really. Of course, it would need to be true to have any effect.

You must be unfamiliar with advertising.

[dalej42]

Hmm, right now I'm working a temp job with Sirius Satellite Radio. I'm listening to XM radio online! Wonder if they'll fire me? Oh well, only one more week here.

[Mr2001]

Originally Posted by dalej42

Hmm, right now I'm working a temp job with Sirius Satellite Radio.

As long as you're there, could you please tell Madison to stop talking about her mouth herpes on air?