Employer/Employee Rights

[forgop]

I read a recent news story about a man who lost his job for something he did away from work, on his own time, in plain clothes. His employer deemed that he had violated a company "code of ethics" policy and was immediately fired. The man broke no laws and did nothing more than exercise freedoms that I would think should be exercised as we please.

Granted, I believe employers have a right to hire/fire as they see fit, but is it reasonable for any of us to believe an employer should cross the fine line of meddling into our personal lives, providing we stay within local, state, and federal laws? Had this man done something "egregious" on company time, on company property, or wearing a company uniform that revealed who his employer was, I could understand the company's position. Had the man committed a violent crime and was arrested over the weekend, I get it. That said, what do you think about this?

Please, let's keep this civil and keep it out of the context of politics, religion, etc. per forum rules. If you know of this story, please keep the context of what happened out of it.

[markem]

Welcome to the real world. You can quit any time you want (barring a contract and some other niggling details in certain industries) and your employer can fire you any time they want (barring protected issues, contract (including union membership), etc., etc.)

The connected world makes it much easier to document behaviors that employers can feel threatened or embarrassed by and thus makes it much easier to dismiss an employee.

For this specific case, it isn't clear if this was a "last straw" or something else.

[forgop]

Originally Posted by markem

Welcome to the real world. You can quit any time you want (barring a contract and some other niggling details in certain industries) and your employer can fire you any time they want (barring protected issues, contract (including union membership), etc., etc.)

The connected world makes it much easier to document behaviors that employers can feel threatened or embarrassed by and thus makes it much easier to dismiss an employee.

For this specific case, it isn't clear if this was a "last straw" or something else.

In this case, this "code of ethics" violation was the only thing cited in his job performance. Let's say aside from a single action, he is a "model employee" of sorts. And what if something in the company's code of ethics essentially undermines freedoms granted in the US Constitution as a condition of employment?

As a non-union employee, what rights should he/she expect to have when they're not working?

[markem]

Originally Posted by forgop

As a non-union employee, what rights should he/she expect to have when they're not working?

In most states, none. They can fire you for your haircut, your smile, whatever; they just can't fire you for something that it is illegal to fire you for.

[forgop]

Originally Posted by markem

In most states, none. They can fire you for your haircut, your smile, whatever; they just can't fire you for something that it is illegal to fire you for.

I'm not talking about what an employer can legally do. I'm simply asking if it's stepping over the lines of decency and in some regard, a little bit of privacy.

I know the point can easily be made to go elsewhere if you don't think it's right, but what if all businesses started doing the same thing?

I'm not sure that I think it's right, but I can see both sides.

I'm a certified teacher (without a job beyond subbing....), and I can understand why schools wouldn't hire someone that would be deemed a poor role model to their students. heck, I bet that (in some places at least) would include smokers, if they do it publicly. And I can't say I blame them, either. I wouldn't openly tell my students I smoke a cigars or a pipe. There are lots of other things I wouldn't tell my students about my personal life, too. Not that I want them to think I'm a robot, but there is a line between students and teachers.

[massphatness]

Provided the company was legally within its right to terminate the relationship, I generally wouldn't have a problem with it. Can it and does it suck? Yes. However, as Marc stated very succinctly, absent some type of contract, neither party is beholden to the other.

[kelmac07]

This is a tough one for me...especially after serving 23+ years in the US Army. Your off duty performance goes hand in hand with your on duty performance. You may be a great worker...but if you are not a great member of the community...would you want that person representing your company/organization? I am probably thinking to the extreme here... IE, Johnny is a great worker, always meets his suspenses, puts out a great product, is a team player, etc...but Johnny has three DUIs, got arrested last weekend with cocaine, etc. But then again...just my

[forgop]

Originally Posted by kelmac07

This is a tough one for me...especially after serving 23+ years in the US Army. Your off duty performance goes hand in hand with your on duty performance. You may be a great worker...but if you are not a great member of the community...would you want that person representing your company/organization? I am probably thinking to the extreme here... IE, Johnny is a great worker, always meets his suspenses, puts out a great product, is a team player, etc...but Johnny has three DUIs, got arrested last weekend with cocaine, etc. But then again...just my

I'll just say this worker doesn't work in a position of law enforcement, military, teacher, or any other position would would put additional trust in because of their position. Like I said, he was charged with no crime as well.

What did the man do, and can I get a copy of the ethics code of the company

Something sounds wrong to me

[forgop]

Originally Posted by ChicagoWhiteSox

What did the man do, and can I get a copy of the ethics code of the company

Something sounds wrong to me

I'm not going to reveal it publicly as it may turn the thread south quite easily.

Originally Posted by forgop

I'm not going to reveal it publicly as it may turn the thread south quite easily.

No problem

[kelmac07]

Originally Posted by forgop

I'll just say this worker doesn't work in a position of law enforcement, military, teacher, or any other position would would put additional trust in because of their position. Like I said, he was charged with no crime as well.

Then it still goes back to "Does this company want "this type" of behavoir from someone representing their company?"

[forgop]

Originally Posted by kelmac07

Then it still goes back to "Does this company want "this type" of behavoir from someone representing their company?"

I don't believe this person is representing his employer at this point. He's on his personal time, off company property, and wearing no clothing that identifies him as an employee of any company. He'd be more likely to put Levis at risk for wearing his jeans than any form of communication.

[kelmac07]

Originally Posted by forgop

I don't believe this person is representing his employer at this point. He's on his personal time, off company property, and wearing no clothing that identifies him as an employee of any company. He'd be more likely to put Levis at risk for wearing his jeans than any form of communication.

This is where we differ, my friend, because if he works for company "X"...he ALWAYS represents company "X"...both on and off duty. His personal conduct is always being judged, even as unfair as that may be. Whether or not he is wearing their uniform, logo, etc. Perception in todays society is a *****...if someone from his workplace recognized him from the photo evidence (front page of New York Times, etc), then maybe a customer recognized him as well.

[BlackDog]

Given the few facts you've provided, it sounds to me like the employer acted within their rights. Employers cannot fire someone for religious, gender, or age related reasons. Or, as has been said, negotiated contractual agreements. Otherwise, the employer can terminate your employment for any reason at any time. Employment is not a guarantee, it is a priviledge, and for some reason that employer chose to revoke that priviledge from that employee. Without knowing more of the back-story, there's not much else for us to go on here.

[jledou]

search at-will employment rights, most of the time they can fire you for what ever they want unless it is specifically protected by the government be it local or state or federal.

[Samsquanch]

Google is a powerful tool

[mosesbotbol]

http://kyw.cbslocal.com/2010/09/16/n...-pages-in-nyc/

We have been walking on eggshells as a nation for a while.

[bobarian]

That may earn you a timeout Moses. We all can use Google, but it was specifically requested not to link the actual story.