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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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!”
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.”
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!”
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.
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.