See above.
When a company fires you, it isn’t exactly violating your rights except as noted above. In other words, no right exists. However, companies Wal-mart couldn’t “send its goons after you” if that means taking you to a warehouse on the outskirts of town and working you over with a lead pipe. If it means hiring private detectives to investigate you and potentially come up with dirt, then they have a right to do so subject to certain regulations (they can’t break into your house, for example). Companies also cannot withhold pay (not sure if they can dock it), nor can they force you to work (except by threat of termination of employment).
Rob
Yes. In any contract, “legality of object” is a required element. Can you enforce a contract for the sale of illicit drugs? No, drugs are illegal. Can you enforce a contract for the sale of a car? Yes, it is legal to own a car. Can you enforce a contract for the sale of one’s labour? Yes–this is an employment contract. Note, however, that in my jurisdiction (and indeed in all provinces of Canada) employment contracts can be subject to legislative limitations on what they can contain.
No, not here. This would violate a right granted to you through human rights legislation.
No, not here. Assuming, of course, that you do it in your own time, and don’t do it on time for which the company is paying you. Precedents establish that what you do on your own time is no business of your employer’s, subject to certain job requirements that both parties are aware of (i.e. no drinking yourself silly an hour before you punch in for your job as an airline pilot).
No, not here. Again, what you do on your own time is no business of your employer’s.
ETA: To Ogre–I’m not sure what you mean by “See above.” Can you elaborate?
In a broad sense, no they cannot, but you can give them away. No corporation can legally curtail any of your civil liberties if you have not signed an agreement to let them. Even if Wal-Mart requires their employees to work all day Sunday, that does not prevent anyone from attending Mass. It just means they could not both attend Mass and work at Wal-Mart. Corporations are limited by statute on what demands and restrictions they can put on their employees, but that is besides the point.
Put in another context, my wife would not be violating my freedom of association by not letting me pick up chicks at a club, I chose to curtail that type of behavior in exchange for being married to her. If I change my mind about that, I can seek a divorce. My rights are not in question.
Just that I’m aware it’s dependent on jurisdiction. My reply before yours included the phrase, “…I am guessing that the drug-testing clause has not been found illegal or coercive, at least in US courts.”
IANAL, but yes, or at least the element of the contract relating to something illegal.
If prostitution is illegal, then no, you can’t fire someone for not performing oral sex on you. If it is, then I guess you could (again, with jurisdictional qualifiers).
I am not sure of the status of Scientology, but if it is recognized as a religion, then no, the contract cannot state that (or rather, that clause is not enforceable). Around here (Texas), sure, you could be fired for those things (and you can bet the newspapers would hear about it if I was).
Referring to writing books and attending rallies, I think there are exceptions depending on who you work for and their relation to the subject of the book/rally. If you work for the RNC (in any capacity) and write a book critical of their policies and agenda, they would have legitimate grounds to terminate you. Just as I suspect the Chinese embassy would terminate you if you were seen participating in a Free Tibet event.
Ah, thank you. It has been found to be illegal here; although that reasoning has to do with human rights legislation. I should add that in spite of that, drug-testing is perfectly legal if non-impairment is a requirement of the job: examples would include a driving job (truck, taxi, bus), a heavy equipment operator’s job, or an airline pilot’s job–basically anything where you could put the lives and health of others at risk if you try to do your job in an impaired state. Even then, though, there are restrictions.
Assuming you don’t work for Microsoft, Bill Gates has far, far, far less power over you than the lowest GS7 auditor at the IRS.
Some good points, and illustrative of the difficulty of coming up with a “one size fits all” answer to the OP’s questions. Since there is no RNC in my jurisdiction, I wouldn’t be working for it, and so I wouldn’t have to worry about repurcussions. In jurisdictions where there is an RNC, things might be different. And, since embassies generally aren’t subject to local employment law, we would have to look at what the contract of employment states, and how it is affected by the embassy’s home country law.
True, but I doubt if there is any jurisdiction anywhere that would force a company to keep someone employed who is actively working against that companies interests outside the workplace. I know I could be fired for setting up a side business that directly competes with my employer, or if I publish a book that tries to hurt their interests or join a group that is trying to shut them down.
That’s when we have to go back to the original employment contract. What does it say about working against the company’s interests? Non-compete and non-solicitation clauses are very common, and depending on how broad or narrow they are (in my jurisdiction anyway) can work well for the employer and against the employee. And, in your latter two examples, I would imagine that the company would fear that you could use inside information that you learn as an employee against it–a perfectly logical reason to terminate you. Confidentiality agreements are also common, and upheld if they are reasonable.
This is just going to be yet another thread devolving into the definition of the term “right”. If we’re talking about Natural Rights in the way Locke defined them, no. Corporations only have leverage over you in so much as you take a job from them. You are free not to take said job.
Some relevant points:
-
The Bill of Rights regulates what the (Federal) government may no do, and as extended by incorporation, what the states and their political subdivisions may not do. It does not regulate what private entities may or may not do. The Federal government may not infringe on my freedom of speech. Neither may the State of North Carolina, Franklin County, or the North Carolina Ferry Corporation. But Creative Loafing, a private corporation, has every right to set limits on what I may use their message board to say, and the First Amendment does nto apply.
-
Not every state is “at will” in its employment law. Some have specific standards governing what is an acceptable and an unaceptable reason for termination.
-
Even “at will” states may not violate civil rights laws, either Federal or state. Say, for example, I am a black man or a Catholic working for General Widgets. GW is bought out by Megalonic Industries. I cannot be fired by the new owners simply because they do not want a black man or a Catholic working for them – that’s addressed in the Civil Rights Acts. Similarly, the ADA requires that employers make reasonable accommodations to retain disabled employees. For example, say I work as an accountant in the office on the second floor of General Widgets’ factory, accessible by a stairway. I get into a car accident which leaves me unable to climb the stairs but otherwise quite able to do my work. GW is expected to see if it’s possible to set aside space I can physically get to (or install an elevator, if they choose) so I can continue working for them. They’re not obliged to keep me on at any cost, but if they can add another partition so I can work on the first floor next to the foreman’s office, they’re obliged to do so rather than terminating me simply because I cannot climb the stairs to my former work station.
These are examples – and I’m certain, though I don’t have cites, that no employer may mandate, on penalty of termination, that an employee violate the law or public policy. They may not, for example, require someone to defraud customers or engage in coercive sex, to take the examples given above.
While “at will” generally allows dismissal of an employee for any reason or no reason, it does not extend to permitting dismissal for an illegal reason.
There is probably other applicable law, but these are standards which do apply.
Correct. You cannot enter into an illegal contract. For example requiring someone to blow you once a week as a condition of employment would be prostitution which is illegal in most jurisdictions.
Threatening to fire someone because they won’t blow you is a clea rcase of sexual harassment which is also actionable.
A corporation cannot fire you for practicing your religeon, race, or any other protected category. I don’t know the law WRT if practicing that religeon affects your job performance. For example if you have to stop work five times a day to pray.
WRT to your behavior outside of work, what a corporation can and cannot enfoce varies. You have a right to free speech, however if you are publically badmouthing your company, they are within their rights (and the law of common sense) to terminate you.
Working for a public auditor, I am restricted from owning certain stocks or mutual funds that might create a conflict of interest. It’s also probably a good idea not to do or say anything that might cast the company in a disparaging light.
I probably should have made that point more clear. I think it’s obvious that if my actions are in direct conflict with my job and employer then I can be fired.
I get that there are reasonable limitations like intellectual property, non-competition, and actions involving stocks. So I’m curious about the unreasonable limitations.
So if I apply to work at Wal-mart, can the employment contract stipulate that I am NOT to participate in Free Tibet rallies, or write on the subject?
Assuming that it’s not saying, “don’t go to rallies dressed in Wal-mart clothes, or write about it on company time.”
Could an employment contract be thrown out based on violating my constitutional rights? Or does it have to fall under a specific legal code such as employment laws?
Dude, it’s not Locke anymore, it’s the Man in Black.
Don’t for a minute think I wasn’t fully aware of that as I typed that post!
But the content of the Canadian Charter and the U.S. Bill of Rights is different. For example, the US Bill protects the right to bear arms, property, and contractual rights; the Canadian Charter does not. On the other hand, the Charter protects sexual orientation and gender, which the US Bill does not. So the content of your rights and protection from government will vary depending which country you’re in. If you’re gay and working for a government in Canada, you cannot be dismissed based on your sexual orientation; that would be a breach of the Charter. It wouldn’t be a breach in the US, as I understand it, because sexual orientation is not a protected ground of equality.
You can’t make that generalization, without knowing what the law is in a particular jurisdiction. That’s the point that Spoons and others have made earlier in this thread.
If you mean that corporations are not subject to the Constitution, that’s correct, but talking about “my rights” in this context doesn’t make sense. Constitutional rights are rights that are valid against the government, not private bodies such as corporations, so corporations are not affecting your constitutional rights.
And again, this will vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. There are significant differences between the rights of employees in Canada and in the U.S. Some differences have been pointed out already in this thread: US Employment Law: can an employer give fewer than 2 work-weeks of vacation?; you may also wish to check out this thread, which discusses very specific differences.
What does this phrase mean? 
Yes, you may starve or live as an indigent if you like, and not take the job, there is no compulsion there! Who wouldn’t want to live as an indigent? Whoo-hoo!!!