Ummm. . .employees do not have the right to fire anybody…
The ability of employers to fire employees IS political. In some countries, there are legal restrictions on firings. At-will employment is normal in the US, I’d considerate it moderate, but overall it is slightly to the “right” politically.
Actually technically everybody that works at a corporation is an employee. So as a management employee I can fire my non-management employees who are my direct reports.
This doesn’t mean that EC should keep digging the hole he is in.
At least no one has compared the firing of this reporter to the Holocaust.
Yet.
Yes, the nurse should be fired. Medical confidentiality, in this case, is more important
I would hand you a cold beer right now if I could.
Won’t somebody think of the children?
Good point. Employers what was I meant.
So you don’t actually believe that what a person does in their off-hours should have no effect on their employment status, right? Because that’s what you’ve been saying, and the nurse’s activity would certainly fall within those parameters.
It’s all well and good to say that what you do off the clock is your business, but I think you’ve seriously underthought what that actually means. Does that mean a worker can come in when their office is closed and smash up a whole bunch of a equipment? They are off the clock, after all.
But what do you call it when the lady in question is talking about her job?
It may be her personal space and her personal time, but she was talking about her actual job and so by definition that reflects on her employers, with whom she has that job. They have every right to be an involved party when she is discussing the job they pay her money to do.
What if Ed Zotti posted a blog somewhere stating that the members of the SDMB are a bunch of smelly cunts? It would be his right to say that, but surely the SDMB would also have the right to judge that after saying it, that it would longer be appropriate for him to be in charge.
Whats the difference in this case?
I do believe a person’s business in their off hours should have no effect, with few exceptions. My first post in this thread (Post #81) clearly says “unless its illegal”, which this violation of patient confidentiality falls under.
I think that instead of trying to look for errors or loopholes in my argument so you can have a “gotcha” moment, you should focus on the spirit of what I’m trying to say. I fully realize I may not take everything into account, I don’t know everything, not even close, so there might be obvious things I would have missed. But the gist of my opposition to the firing of the news reporter is that I consider what she did to be her own personal business separate from her job, and I feel its wrong to punish an employee because of that since it gives the employer too much power over their employees. If there are some areas where you think this shouldn’t apply** taking into account** the exceptions I’ve already accepted, then say so instead of pointing at it and saying you caught me in a contradiction :dubious:
And your example is an obvious attempt at one of those “gotcha” questions. Its illegal to smash people’s shit up, so of course that would be an exception. Since you seem to believe the opposite of what I believe, maybe you can articulate why an employee should be fired if, for example, they work for some family-friendly organization and the employee’s personal life is a mish-mash of failed marriages and bastard children. As long as the employee represents themselves as employees properly, why should the employer have the power to punish them? By the way, that’s taken from real life examples. There was a case within the last year of a women who was fired from a private school because she wasn’t a practicing member of the school’s religion. That kind of shit is wrong
To me, talking about a job doesn’t mean you’re representing your job. Should a Coke employee be forever afraid that if he’s caught drinking Pepsi, he should be fired, even if that occurs on his own personal time? Don’t you think that gives way too much power to the employers? Just because the employer doesn’t like it, they shouldn’t be able to stop employees talking about them. That’s akin to those cases where managers fire employees for talking badly about their job on social media. Yes, the employees were stupid, but that doesn’t mean it should be punishable
Here’s the difference: as long as the employee is not REPRESENTING their company, then they are on their own personal time.
If Ed Zotti did that, anyone has the right to judge him morally. That doesn’t mean I think this company should have the power to fire him. So what if he thinks that? We’re adults, deal with it. As long as it doesn’t affect his job here, it shouldn’t be actionable.
Please don’t tell me you seriously believe a person’s membership in NAMBLA wouldn’t affect his job at a daycare center? Unless you think NAMBLA stands for “North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes”?
There really is a huge disconnect here. Of course it affects his job! It would colour every single thing he tries to do with this message board.
Just as the views on old people would have affected the reporters job performance.
Forgive me for not going back through and reading every word you’ve written on this, but are you aware that it is not at all uncommon* for television personalities to sign contracts that make them answerable for practically anything they do that might reflect badly on their employer (that second link describes it in terms of being “involved in a situation that puts the station in a negative light”)?
*I am not claiming this person did. I have no idea. I’m asking a general question.
Well. . . .
Fine–what about the other examples? The bartender, for example, who brags on her blog about watering people’s drinks down in order to get them to order more? If their employer reads about this on her blog, are you saying it’s wrong to discipline her?
Because I really don’t get your thinking here. It’s not what she’s doing during her off-hours that’s leading to the discipline: it’s what she’s doing during her on-hours that’s leading to the discipline, and it so happens that the employer found out about it via something she said off-hours.
Let’s zero in on this:
Amanda, while at work, tweets something about watering someone’s drink down. Her employer reads the tweet and fires her.
Jennifer, after her shift ends, tweets something about watering someone’s drink down. Her employer reads the tweet and fires her.
Do you see an ethical difference between these two scenarios?
I don’t. In both cases, the employee has done a crappy job at work, and her employer found out, and fired her for the crappy job. The means of finding out about the crappy job she did isn’t relevant.
I’m not trying to find a gotcha moment. I’m genuinely trying to figure out the parameters of what you’re saying, because it makes no sense at all to me. As I suggested, there are plenty of times when you ought not fire an employee for her private life. But when she’s spending part of her private life bragging about what a shitty job she does at work, and that makes it back to you, firing her is fair game.
NAMBLA is an extreme example, I really don’t think that will happen. But much more common would be, for example, if he’s in the NRA. I hate those people. But I wouldn’t want the legal ability to fire someone like that just as I don’t want someone at the NRA to be able to fire someone who is a pacifist in his personal life.
There is no “of course” here. If he personally thinks we’re all cunts, but is still able to fairly administer this place, then he should not be fired. Only if he’s shown to have some bias that stems from his hatred of us should it be actionable
I believe it is common, yes, and I really really hate that it is. As for those types of contracts, I’m aware of them and am 100% against them.
OP - do you have a crush on her? 
Which, as a politically left leaning former corporate drone, isn’t all bad. My last job we let go of the entire team in Europe and rehired them in either the U.S. or Bangalore (which is one of the reasons I left, they did do that in violation of the law those employees were under) because they wanted to have more flexibility in staffing that European law let them have. The company before that laid off 90% of its European team, it was too expensive to keep any functions there that weren’t needed so they shut the site down - which they could do. They had people “working” in the site that hadn’t put in a full day of work for years - but they couldn’t be fired. Those jobs went to Asia or the U.S. too. Additional worker protections would be nice, but its a double edged sword in a global economy where employers can hire in places where its much easier to restructure or fire someone if you need to.
“6. I’m frightened of old people and I refuse to do stories involving them or the places they reside.”
She’ll be absolutely frightening…when she’s “old!” :eek: