Employer/Employee Rights

[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.

[markem]

Let me get this right.

There was a situation that you 'read about' but which you won't reveal here.

A person was fired.

You want to know if the company did something inappropriate or over the line.

You say that the company didn't do anything inappropriate such as ... and you go one to make a list.

But you seem to be fishing for a blanket condemnation of the company. Further, you seem to want validation of your own personal beliefs without disclosing what they are.

What am I missing here?

[forgop]

Originally Posted by markem

Let me get this right.

There was a situation that you 'read about' but which you won't reveal here.

A person was fired.

You want to know if the company did something inappropriate or over the line.

You say that the company didn't do anything inappropriate such as ... and you go one to make a list.

But you seem to be fishing for a blanket condemnation of the company. Further, you seem to want validation of your own personal beliefs without disclosing what they are.

What am I missing here?

The subject of the story itself is controversial and I promised the ToE that we'd try to keep those issues out of the story. I'm just speaking of "what if" here.

[bobarian]

The "facts" provided do not allow us to give a cogent answer. If it's a news story why not provide a link? Otherwise we're just pretty much blowing wind.

Is it unfortunate? Yes
Is it wrong? Who knows
Is it illegal? Doubtful

A code of ethics denotes a specific pattern of behavior that an employee must uphold. I see nothing in the OP that suggests the employer was "meddling" in the employee's personal life. He was free to do whatever he did. But behavior has consequences.

The Constitution was written to protect the individual from government, not to protect employees from employers.

[forgop]

Originally Posted by bobarian

The "facts" provided do not allow us to give a cogent answer. If it's a news story why not provide a link? Otherwise we're just pretty much blowing wind.


The Constitution was written to protect the individual from government, not to protect employees from employers.

The ToE wanted me to keep the specifics out of the discussion because it could turn things south quite easily.

I understand the context of protection from government, but the question lies in what constitutional rights you think are fair to give up under the guideline of being employed by said company.

[forgop]

Originally Posted by kelmac07

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.

It's just a scary thing to me with the information age the way it is. Things could be taken completely out of context because a single photograph of a situation doesn't really tell the whole story. I'd like to think how many of us would have lost a previous or current job for a company who implements a code of ethics on this level if they're pursing after our personal interests outside of the workplace.