How in the holy fuck can you be against a contract that two parties willingly agree to? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Is that what I said?
My position is that its unethical for an employee to do anything in their off hours which puts their employer at risk (or, for that matter, during their on hours). “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you” and to me - more importantly “don’t bite the hand that feeds you and all your coworkers.” If you are the sole employee of a business you own - say a food truck - and you want to mention on the internet that you spit in the food of fat people - hey, you are only hurting yourself. If you own the truck and have three employees - you are hurting your employees. If you are one of the employees - then you’ve risk the jobs of the other employees, and the guy who owns food truck could see his business go under.
Admitting you are unprofessional, when you hold a professional job, in a uncontrolled communication medium - like the internet - is biting the hand that feeds you. That includes, when writing an blog post on your job (which is listed on your site on the same page as the post - just in case people don’t know who you work for), mentioning you don’t like old people, you turn off the recorder when you get bored in an interview, and you open people’s mail.
To be fair, there are plenty of contracts that two parties might willingly agree to that most people would be against and that are illegal in the US. I can’t sell my organs to buy food for my children, for example, or agree to work for less than minimum wage, or agree to have sex with the boss in exchange for not getting fired, or the like.
I don’t see how that has anything at all to do with the type of contract we are discussing.
Sorry–I thought you were stating a general principle, not saying that this particular contract was okay.
This was in response to your ramblings about a free and open discourse trumping all consequence and rules of society. Or something. I refuse to get in your head.
So thus my confusion when this is your reply to my above “leaning reality” quote. I never said you said shit. I just think your thinking is not based in reality.
Evil Captors line of argument is so far off the field of play that he can’t see left or right from where he is. That’s what I was referring to, in context.
You know what, I have a real life example of something outside of the office getting someone fired. A real -life example!!
My company has a policy that if you are arrested and convicted of a DUI, your employment will be terminated. One of our Branch Managers (basically a sales manager) had a few too many one night, got caught, got fired. Drinking did not happen on company time, no matter, she was fired.
I usually lean way left on labor law, union issues, etc. But I will say I support this policy. Thing is we knew she was a ticking time bomb. She was a general knucklehead employee, so much so that when we heard she had been fired, we (my team and I) all thought “well, we saw that coming”.
Seems like Ms Shea Allen was a ticking time bomb as well. She wasn’t exactly a model employee before this incident.
Does the restaurant advertise on the station?
You would think its ok if they do?
You’re going to have to explain to me what this sentence means.
Just out of curiosity, how did they know?
You know, I have no idea. Hell, the dumb bimbo probably told someone in the office. She had been previously reprimanded for talking about her sex life in the office, so it’s not like she had much of a common sense filter.
I was asking because a guy I know borrowed money from me for bail/lawyer after a DUI. He told me he couldn’t approach anyone at work, because he would be fired. He repaid me and still works the same job today.
Some small town newspapers publish a Police Blotter column every day or weekly or whatever. In small towns, they might even include speeding tickets and calls about cats stuck in trees.
For example, here is the Police Blotter column from the Joliet (Illinois) Herald-News. Joliet is a medium-sized suburb of Chicago with a major state prison.
Regional editions of the Chicago Tribune feature local Crime Blotters like this one that covers several Northwest suburbs.
You still don’t get it do you. With regards to actual physical administrative actions he could still be excellent at his job, but there are numerous other ways in which his outside actions have now adversely affected the SDMB.
If Ed publicly stated in his own blog that all members of the SMDB were complete idiots, then it is very possible that many members would leave the board due to bad feeling. It is very possible that new members would be discouraged from joining by the public knowledge that the board administrator thinks they are an idiot. It is also very possible that existing members will be encouraged to troll the message board due to a new dislike of the board administrator.
Is he still able to fairly adminster this place? Sure. Has he hurt the reputation and future prospects of the SMDB? Without question. And so, of course it affects his job.
Actually, if a manager disciplined an employee under such circumstances because of advertising on the station, the manager would likely come under fire. Most news organizations try to draw a very bright line between news and advertising departments. To do otherwise is to undermine the news reporting’s reputation.
There might be a general policy against personally blogging about local businesses, but that shouldn’t be affected by whether a business advertises on the station.
Your question seems to beg a response: “If the restaurant did advertise on their station in the example, and the reporter criticized them, then got fired, it would be ok because the station is simply protecting its revenue by protecting its advertisers”
I didn’t want to assume you thought that way but, to me, the question would only be asked by someone who felt that way.
To get the debate out of the way now, my personal believe is that, in the example, the reporter had every right to criticize the restaurant and her TV bosses should not fire her despite her upsetting an advertiser. If it was a crappy meal then it was a crappy meal and the restaurant should be blamed, not someone who ate there. So what do you think? Is it ok to you had the restaurant been an advertiser?
I get it perfectly. You hold the job above any consideration of the privacy and personal lives of its employees
So what? Let them leave
So what? Let them be discouraged
So what? We have mods and existing rules to deal with trolls. Let them try, plenty of users have been banned before. They weren’t the first and they won’t be the last
It affects his job in the sense that other people wants it to. What could very well also result from Zotti’s tirade is that the board members don’t care. In this case, it wouldn’t affect his job in the way you describe. Ultimately, it is how people choose to react to him that will determine how it affects his job, and in that instance, the blame and responsibility falls on those people, not Ed. Just like the TV station reporter, if old people stop watching the station or advertisers pull out, its their choice, but the reporter’s private life is her own.
What I don’t care for is giving the employer the power to control their employees personal lives through something akin to blackmail or extortion. “Do this and don’t do that in your personal life or else you’ll be fired!” is too much power to give to the employer
Suppose that, instead of a personal blog, she writes it in her diary. And then the diary is lost and somehow ends up in the employer’s hands. What if they fire her fearing that her views will get out? It would NOT be a different situation and is absolutely comparable, to head off the criticisms now, because she didn’t do it as the station’s representative and didn’t think it would get back to them, despite putting it on the internet. There are millions of private blogs online, how many can you name? Most are surprisingly banal and get no publicity. She has no reason to expect this whole chain of events
So, if an employee is actively causing a business to lose customers, the business should just say, “so what, let them go”.
Your business sense amuses me.
Yeah, somehow I doubt that if he ran across an abusive or completely incompetent employee, that he would continue to patronize the business and not think at all less of it because of it.
Or maybe he would. Or maybe he thinks the first duty of employers should be to their employees over their customers. Or that people who would not patronize a business based on its employees’ behavior are bad people who’re not worth the custom.
I dunno. But I’d hope that even he wouldn’t think he’d be typical in that regard.
YogSothoth, I wonder if you could address this.