|
|
In 2002, a 28 year-old graduate coaching assistant named Mike McQueary went to the football locker rooms at Pennsylvania State University at around 9:30 PM, and noticed the lights and showers were on. He heard rhythmic, slapping sounds, and when he looked in the shower, he saw Gerald Sandusky anally raping a 10 year-old boy.
This man didn't report what he saw to the police, and made no move to stop the rape. Instead he went to his office, called his father, and then, on his father's advice, went home.
The next day, he told head coach Joe Paterno what he had witnessed. Paterno also didn't report the rape to the police. Instead, he invited the Penn State Athletic Director to his house the next day, and told him what had happened.
And it goes on up the ladder, for a couple of weeks, until, finally, the decision was made for what to do. The punishment: Sandusky's keys to the locker room were taken from him. Also, they sent a message to The Second Mile, which was a group dedicated to helping troubled boys, and was apparently where Sandusky got most of his victims from. The message warned The Second Mile about Sandusky. At the time, Sandusky was the head of The Second Mile, and would remain the head for the next 8 years.
Note that this was only one case out of 8 examined by a Pennsylvania grand jury, going back at least as far as 1996, as detailed here.
Now, you'd think that was the sick part, but no, we're just getting there now. Because after covering up Sandusky's crimes for at least 15 years, coach Paterno was fired (along with the university president). Students who learned of the scandal were outraged, and rioted... in support of Paterno... calling his firing unfair.
This is not a rare situation, either. It happens quite often that people lose their jobs for something they have done beyond the constraints of their job. Here are just a few examples that happened to be at the top of Google:
As usual, let me stress that i only give these examples to frame the discussion... WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY OF THESE SPECIFIC CASES, except to use them to figure out the general principles. Let me also stress that this is the philosophy forum, not a legal one, so we're not interested in what the law says in anyone's particular country.
The questions are:
- When is okay to fire an employee for something other than their performance at work?
- What parts of a person's private life should be considered important by an employer?
- What responsibilities does a person have outside of their job, that relate to their job?
__________________________________________________
Let me get the ball rolling by assessing the Paterno case. i say that firing Paterno was just, because:
- Paterno was aware that the crimes were being committed in areas he was responsible for, yet he did nothing.
Part of his job was to be responsible for overseeing the use of the facilities. Failing to report crimes that happened there that he knew about was a crime, yes, by the reason it was relevant to the job is because part of his job was to make sure the facilities he was responsible for were being properly used. Used for child raping is hardly proper use. Thus, Paterno wasn't doing his job.
- Sandusky used Penn State resources to rape, and Paterno knew it, and let it happen.
Sandusky used his reputation (apparently football is a religion there), position, and access to resources (like free tickets to games) to do his crimes. Paterno was aware that another employee was doing illegal acts at work, using work resources, and did nothing about it. (To make matters even worse, Paterno was the guy in charge of Sandusky - it was explicitly his responsibility.)
In essence, Paterno is guilty of a terrible moral offence - allowing the rapes to happen for 15 years - but that alone is not why he should be fired. The fact is, Sandusky used his position, and the facilities, for his crimes... and Paterno was responsible for allowing that to happen. It is no different from a shipping company worker knowing that an employee is using the company for human trafficking, yet allowing it to continue... make even worse because the worker in question is the employee's supervisor. Or if you'd prefer an example that doesn't involve an actual crime: it is no different from a warehouse employee who is aware that another employee is secretly using the office to run his own business on the side, yet doesn't do anything about it. The warehouse company would be fully justified in firing that employee for not reporting what he knew was going on.
Note that i'm not saying Paterno should be fired for breaking the law (or even simply for allowing a sexual predator to continue his crimes). For that he should be charged, but that's a legal question, and i'm only focusing on his rights as an employee. i'm saying that he should be fired because a) as part of his job he was responsible for doing something about any crimes that occurred in relation to the football program, and b) as an employee in general he was responsible for informing supervisors about any malfeasance that happened in relation to the workplace and job. He failed in both those duties.
Paterno's failures were clearly work-related (in part), so work-related punishment is just.
Wow... haven't seen a thread like this since Philosopher Princess was around!
Anyway, I'll try to get started here...
As for the Penn State case, I don't think that is a useful example here at all, as I would call that firing due to on the job actions.
Now, for the main questions,
| Quote: |
* When is okay to fire an employee for something other than their performance at work?
* What parts of a person's private life should be considered important by an employer?
* What responsibilities does a person have outside of their job, that relate to their job?
|
First of all, for all three, it's going to depend heavily on what kind of job it is.
Things like, does the person deal with customers? would 'bad' behavior of a person in that position get a lot of publicity? would that publicity reflect badly on the employer? would that employer be damaged by the bad publicity?
I can envision a few scenarios where it would be justifiable:
- Bad behavior outside of work gives evidence to suppose that the person will continue the bad behavior in work. -- Things like drug abuse, frequent sexual harassment, or habitual lying...
- Bad behavior that attracts public attention, and then associates that bad publicity with the employer or career as a whole. -- Would be especially important for jobs like teacher, soldier, political aide, clergy...
- Bad-mouthing the employer in public could be justified in that if they dislike the employer so much, why would they want to work there anyway... And if an employee hates the employer, then the employee is likely to do sub-par work anyway. -- Just think back to the job interview process... would you hire someone who talked about how horrible the employer was? Of course not; it would imply that they don't want to work there to begin with.
...There may be some others I haven't thought of, but I'd say at least most of the justifiable firings for off-job behavior would fit into one of those categories.
And, of course, there are non-justifiable ones as well. Moderate alcohol consumption on the weekends isn't likely to carry over into the work days. The off-duty behavior of a factory worker isn't likely to reflect badly on his employer or career. Complaining about not being able to get enough hours doesn't mean an employee no longer wants their job.
Interesting topic.
I want to throw-in a something which I hope is revant and not a siderack, but which does not directly address the question.
Some research just concluded examines CEOs and other senior figures in large corporations. The conclusions are broadly in-line with similar previous studies, for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422644
The studies show that a disproportionate number of top managers are undiagnosed psychpaths.
In a way one might have predicted this in advance - the 'boss' has to be dispassionate, the argument goes, about firing people and should therefore not be emotional, but rational and 'detached'. If you take that to the ultimate then you get psychopathy.
The reason I interject this here is because I think it has something relevant to say about the relationship between corporations and social morality/ethics.
I'd be inclined to go with the blanket rule that it should only be allowed to fire somebody if their out-of-work behaviour directly impacts their work performance. If a person continues to complete their work to the best of their abilities then anything else is (or at least should be) outside of the agreement made between employee/employer and being fired for it would be a case of the employer unfairly and immorally breaking that deal.
It really pisses me off whenever I hear about eg. a teacher being fired for being also being a stripper or something, because if the teacher is still getting their lessons prepared and kids' work graded then it has nothing to do with their primary employment (teach the kids math). The obvious subjectivity of "bad behaviour" allows the employer far too much power based on their (or the public's) whims and rather screws over basic moral freedoms if the teacher then can't do what they enjoy and still find full time work.
Of course if the same teacher was trash talking students in a medium that could get back to the students, then it would have something to do with the teacher's employment because insulted kids are directly unmotivated to learn math. As for trash talking a company in general, no, because you can disapprove of an employer's practises while still following them perfectly ... your complaints outside of work are just another mouthpiece of public opinion that just happens to also work there during the day. You're not doing anything you or anyone else couldn't if you weren't employed.
Though if you use your employed status to bolster lies or give away trade secrets then it becomes work-related since you're abusing work resources (of your contract) to hurt the company / it's no longer an out-of-work situation. The same I guess would apply to the teacher/stripper only if they made a fuss over their exact workplace and stripped out the same work uniform instead of a general 'school teacher' fantasy.
The only possible legitimate exception to this is where the employee's job is explicitly one of a figurehead. If you sign up to be the 'face' of a company and run around to events and give speechs and all, then turning up in the news for drunkenly disorder is impacting your ability to be a paper doll for the company board. Even then it should only matter if you claim to represent your company's morals - if you can still pop a couple of painkillers and give a perfect explanation of why your company's Spechy Techy 3000 is more awesome than than your rival's Shiny Thingy 2kX, your out-of-work antics shouldn't affect the product you're presenting.
| Nameless wrote: |
The only possible legitimate exception to this is where the employee's job is explicitly one of a figurehead. |
But, in some jobs, nearly every employee can be a figurehead of sorts.
Take the military for example, in the military, they are very touchy about what one does off-duty, because pretty much anything one does will reflect back upon the military in one way or another.
And, being very image conscious these days, they try to keep control of that.
OK, so I presume you would be OK with a paedophile teacher (convicted previously) as long as the teacher was able to do the job? Reducto ad absurdum is useful, I think, to test this position out...
On the figurehead point - most companies would say that their staff are 'representatives' of the company (perhaps not figureheads, but is there an important distinction)?
| Bikerman wrote: | | OK, so I presume you would be OK with a paedophile teacher (convicted previously) as long as the teacher was able to do the job? |
No, but I'd consider keeping a previously convicted paedophile safely away from children a criminal matter rather than one of employment.
As for all employees representing their company, I strongly disagree with that perception largely because it results in employers gaining implicit powers over others' personal life. If there's no logical reason for an out-of-work activity to impact your work activities, then in an ideal world nobody would make the mistake of assuming it did or that an entire company was ineffective because of one employee's choice of downtime. We may not live in that ideal world but we can at least try. Firing somebody purely on the basis of what a third party happens to think about an activity that has no relevance to your employment is just wrong. What if next week the public decided that horses were filthy, disgusting creatures and being caught appreciating them would ruin the reputation of your company? 
I agree with Ocalhoun on this.
I think that if someone has a bad reputation outside of the workplace, it reflects on the workplace and the company or organization he/she works for.
Not everyone is a model citizen, but lets say you work for xyz company, and you had a bad reputation, the company would not want to have a bad image, based on what you did, because then people would judge the company as well, and probably not buy any of its products or services.
The only place I would think someone with a bad reputation could work in, is probably in the backlines, such as a call center, or behind a counter, and not trying to be unjust, or anything of the sort, but just my thoughts on it.
| Nameless wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | OK, so I presume you would be OK with a paedophile teacher (convicted previously) as long as the teacher was able to do the job? |
No, but I'd consider keeping a previously convicted paedophile safely away from children a criminal matter rather than one of employment. |
And would that just apply to paedophiles working with children or would it extend to other....for example theives working with money?
If a representative of the electricity company paid me a visit and robbed me, and I later discovered he was a convicted theif, would the electricity company be liable?
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Things like, does the person deal with customers? |
Why would that matter?
| ocalhoun wrote: | | would 'bad' behavior of a person in that position get a lot of publicity? would that publicity reflect badly on the employer? would that employer be damaged by the bad publicity? |
Why should a person's behaviour reflect on the employer? Seriously. Paul Bernardo - one of the most famous murderers and rapists in recent Canadian history - worked for Amway. So... what? Do you think Amway had something to do with Bernardo's raping? Do you think Amway condoned it? Supported it? What, then?
| ocalhoun wrote: | | - Bad behavior outside of work gives evidence to suppose that the person will continue the bad behavior in work. -- Things like drug abuse, frequent sexual harassment, or habitual lying... |
For the record, there are a lot of things i do when i'm not at work. i sleep a lot. i play video games. i walk around naked sometimes. By what logic do you think that because i do these things off the clock, that means i will continue that behaviour at work?
| ocalhoun wrote: | | - Bad behavior that attracts public attention, and then associates that bad publicity with the employer or career as a whole. -- Would be especially important for jobs like teacher, soldier, political aide, clergy... |
Wouldn't that imply that a person is their job or their career 24/7? When is a policeman not a policeman, for example? Wouldn't that imply that by taking a job with Burger King, i am no longer to have any kind of public life outside of the company? For example, working at Burger King would mean i could no longer write a controversial novel like The Satanic Verses or Catcher in the Rye?
| ocalhoun wrote: | | - Bad-mouthing the employer in public could be justified in that if they dislike the employer so much, why would they want to work there anyway... And if an employee hates the employer, then the employee is likely to do sub-par work anyway. -- Just think back to the job interview process... would you hire someone who talked about how horrible the employer was? Of course not; it would imply that they don't want to work there to begin with. |
You've never said your job, employer or coworkers sucked after a bad day? Particularly in private to your friends - in two of the cases above, a message sent privately to friends was copied and forwarded to the employer. Do you really believe that coming home and and saying "****** McDonalds, that place is run by monkeys!" to your friends means that you're going to do a shitty job at work the next day?
i mean, if we take that train of logic seriously, then isn't a person who says "America's government sucks!" a traitor? After all, if someone insults their country or its leaders... why would they want to live there anyway? Would it be logical to deport everyone that shit-talks their home country or its government?
Isn't it just as reasonable that a person fed up with policies and/or management at their job would be motivated to work harder, so they can get to the top and fix the problems?
| Bikerman wrote: | | In a way one might have predicted this in advance - the 'boss' has to be dispassionate, the argument goes, about firing people and should therefore not be emotional, but rational and 'detached'. If you take that to the ultimate then you get psychopathy. |
That's not the definition of a psychopath, though. A psychopath isn't someone who is just rational and detached. A psychopath lacks empathy (which is not the same thing as being detached), is egocentric, and a megalomaniac. In point of fact, psychopaths are very often very irrational - they think they're smarter than everyone else, despite any evidence to the contrary. And some psychopaths are anything but detached, taking great emotional pleasure - sometimes even to the point of sexual arousal - in cruelty.
What i've read about psychopathy in the workplace has to do with competition. Psychopaths thrive in the workplace because they compete ruthlessly - with no regard for the damage they're doing - just to further their own interests. The argument as i've heard it is that the psychopath thrives because they are willing to step over their own mother to further their own agenda, and increase their own status... which is behaviour that is considered ideal in the corporate world.
| ocalhoun wrote: | But, in some jobs, nearly every employee can be a figurehead of sorts.
Take the military for example, in the military, they are very touchy about what one does off-duty, because pretty much anything one does will reflect back upon the military in one way or another.
And, being very image conscious these days, they try to keep control of that. |
| Bikerman wrote: | | On the figurehead point - most companies would say that their staff are 'representatives' of the company (perhaps not figureheads, but is there an important distinction)? |
If that argument holds, then it means that the employee is an employee 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You are saying that the employer owns the employee's entire life, even on weekends and holidays.
If that is true, shouldn't the company pay for that? Why is it fair that the company can pay me for 8 hours... but own me for 24? Micheal Jordan gets paid millions of dollars to be McDonald's celebrity representative... but you're saying that part-time minimum-wage workers also have to dedicate their lives to the company?
| Quote: | | If a representative of the electricity company paid me a visit and robbed me, and I later discovered he was a convicted theif, would the electricity company be liable? |
If he or she had been convicted, he or she has already served the penalty for their crime...
However if the person is known to thieve, there is reasonable grounds to get rid of them.
Paedolphiles are different, they are treated as different and the risk of putting them near children is too high, even after they have served their penalty.
| Quote: | I think that if someone has a bad reputation outside of the workplace, it reflects on the workplace and the company or organization he/she works for.
Not everyone is a model citizen, but lets say you work for xyz company, and you had a bad reputation, the company would not want to have a bad image, based on what you did, because then people would judge the company as well, and probably not buy any of its products or services. |
It is true but not just. Even a checkout chick is the 'face' of the supermarket...
If people judge the company for the bad image of a staff member outside of work, I think people should really readjust their expectations, rather than have this idea control the behaviour of all of us outside work (which is the extreme extension of this idea.)
And a bad reputation could mean all kinds of things to different people...
| Quote: |
Bad behavior outside of work gives evidence to suppose that the person will continue the bad behavior in work. -- Things like drug abuse, frequent sexual harassment, or habitual lying... |
Possibly a reason to look out for such abuses at work, but not necessarily true that the behaviour will continue at work.
| Quote: | | Bad-mouthing the employer in public could be justified in that if they dislike the employer so much, why would they want to work there anyway... |
Yeah, bad-mouthing an boss or your company is affecting the company/boss... if it is bad enough, yeah, possibly ground for dismissal. If it is public enough to get back to your boss, it is probably public enough to get fired for.
| Quote: | | Bad behavior that attracts public attention, |
depending what it is... possibly justifyable.
My feeling overall is, there is not that much you can do outside of work that justifies dismissal.
OK, I'm not sure how paedophiles are different, or how much, but I'll not pursue that...let's take a facist teacher as an example. Belongs to several ultra-right groups, deeply racist to the point of xenophobic, believes that Hitler was OK as far as he went, but......
Well, being convicted of criminal activities may be a fair exception to my original rule for two reasons: it's much more clear-cut than being a subjective 'bad representative' of a company, and it doesn't allow work agreements to encroach on your personal life because you should already be following the law. Because criminal activity is often secretive (or spontaneous and dangerous), I'd be much more generous in deciding whether a behaviour was related to a criminal's employment or not - a violent offender puts other employees at direct risk or in the case of a thief the onus is no longer on the company to trust the employee. Being fired for trivial crimes could still be very dubious if they weren't related to employment (eg. a speeding fine for a programmer who never leaves their desk at work), but I'd be less opinionated about it.
Of course, being fired for only being accused of a crime would be wrong - an accusation is something beyond your control and presumption of innocence should apply until a trial is over. If no charges are made (such as the 'superhero' example in the OP) then it should still comes down to whether your work productivity is impacted or not.
(And re: the facist teacher, I'd find it hard to believe someone with that extreme views would be able to caringly teach all their students according to the relevant circicumlum ... but if there were no complaints and another teacher had sat in for a lesson or two to make sure everything was okay, then firing would still be unjustified.)
| menino wrote: | | I think that if someone has a bad reputation outside of the workplace, it reflects on the workplace and the company or organization he/she works for. |
Why? No really, other than saying some others think so, why should it?
| Indi wrote: |
Why should a person's behaviour reflect on the employer? |
This generally happens in careers where the public sees that person as their job.
The general public isn't going to see a clergyman as someone who just happens to work for the church; they're not going to see a soldier as someone who just happens to work for the military; they're not going to see a policeman as someone who just happens to work for the local government, and they're not going to see a teacher as someone who just happens to work for the school system.
They see these types of people as representative of their jobs and their employers. -- all the time.
If an off-duty worker for amway is found to be a rapist, the newspapers won't make a big deal about who he works for... But if an off-duty teacher is found to be a rapist, the papers are sure to prominently say so... probably right in the headline.
Now, these public perceptions may indeed be wrong... but they exist, so the employer is forced to consider them.
| Quote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | - Bad behavior outside of work gives evidence to suppose that the person will continue the bad behavior in work. -- Things like drug abuse, frequent sexual harassment, or habitual lying... |
For the record, there are a lot of things i do when i'm not at work. i sleep a lot. i play video games. i walk around naked sometimes. By what logic do you think that because i do these things off the clock, that means i will continue that behaviour at work?
|
In this case, it's a subjective analysis of risk by the employer.
When they find out that you do a certain 'bad' activity off-duty, they need to figure out for themselves how likely it is that you'll continue to do that on-duty.
It boils down to a classic risk evaluation:
((the likelihood that you'll do this 'bad' thing on duty) x (the damage done to the employer if you do)) / (the damage done to the employer by firing you)
... And if the employer figures that this comes out to >1, then it would make sense to fire you.
The employer may judge wrongly in this sometimes, but there's really nobody else around to make the decision for them.
| Quote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | - Bad behavior that attracts public attention, and then associates that bad publicity with the employer or career as a whole. -- Would be especially important for jobs like teacher, soldier, political aide, clergy... |
Wouldn't that imply that a person is their job or their career 24/7? When is a policeman not a policeman, for example? Wouldn't that imply that by taking a job with Burger King, i am no longer to have any kind of public life outside of the company? For example, working at Burger King would mean i could no longer write a controversial novel like The Satanic Verses or Catcher in the Rye?
|
Like I said, it depends on the job. A burger king worker generally isn't seen as such 24/7...
A teacher, soldier, or clergyman though... they are seen as their job 24/7. Wrong or not, that's how it is.
--And in matters of PR (which the employer is mainly concerned about), perception is reality.
| Quote: |
You've never said your job, employer or coworkers sucked after a bad day? Particularly in private to your friends - in two of the cases above, a message sent privately to friends was copied and forwarded to the employer. Do you really believe that coming home and and saying "****** McDonalds, that place is run by monkeys!" to your friends means that you're going to do a shitty job at work the next day?
|
I do think it means you're more likely to do sub-par work than someone who enjoys working there.
| Quote: |
i mean, if we take that train of logic seriously, then isn't a person who says "America's government sucks!" a traitor? After all, if someone insults their country or its leaders... why would they want to live there anyway? Would it be logical to deport everyone that shit-talks their home country or its government?
|
The difference is you have a right to free speech, and a right to live in the country.
You don't have a right to work for any given employer though.
| Quote: |
Isn't it just as reasonable that a person fed up with policies and/or management at their job would be motivated to work harder, so they can get to the top and fix the problems?
|
A) I've never seen someone fed up with policies/management actually begin to do better at their job. My experience is limited, I suppose, but everyone I've ever seen who gets upset with their workplace tends to do a worse job.
B) What are the chances, realistically, of an average worker 'getting to the top'? In many workplaces, manager-level employees are hired from outside... and even for the ones that do promote from within the ranks, the chances of promotion for someone who bad-mouths the company would be slim.
| Quote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | But, in some jobs, nearly every employee can be a figurehead of sorts.
Take the military for example, in the military, they are very touchy about what one does off-duty, because pretty much anything one does will reflect back upon the military in one way or another.
And, being very image conscious these days, they try to keep control of that. |
| Bikerman wrote: | | On the figurehead point - most companies would say that their staff are 'representatives' of the company (perhaps not figureheads, but is there an important distinction)? |
If that argument holds, then it means that the employee is an employee 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
|
In the example I used, the military, it is true -- literally.
Military members are technically on-the-job 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
(This is how they justify long hours without overtime, being on-call without extra pay, et cetera.)
When they go home to relax, it's technically because they've been ordered to do so.
| Quote: |
You are saying that the employer owns the employee's entire life, even on weekends and holidays.
|
No employer ever owns anybody's life. Not as long as slavery is still illegal anyway.
If your off duty activities and your job conflict, choose which one you want more, and ditch the other one.
They can't own your life any more than you allow them to.
| Quote: |
but you're saying that part-time minimum-wage workers also have to dedicate their lives to the company? |
No.
A) Part-time minimum-wage workers generally aren't in the kinds of jobs where the public sees the person as their job 24/7.
B) They don't have to work there at all, so they don't have to dedicate their lives, even if the job demands that.
C) Not doing 'bad' activities off-duty =/= dedicating your life... at least not unless the employer is extremely strict about it... which would usually imply that you're employed as a figurehead.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Now, these public perceptions may indeed be wrong... but they exist, so the employer is forced to consider them. |
There are other ways a company could consider those perceptions without taking the theoretically immoral action of firing somebody for their small practical benefit. For example, they could strive to perform their job exceptionally well and actually show the public that until the public realises that the employee's ability is unaffected or simply forget about that employee after being wowed.
Look at the sporting or music industry. The 'employees' there are more public figures and often have scandals or bad reputation associated with them, but most of the public will agree that man-****** footballer X or kind-of-a-jerk singer Y can both play football or sing really well anyway.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | A) I've never seen someone fed up with policies/management actually begin to do better at their job. My experience is limited, I suppose, but everyone I've ever seen who gets upset with their workplace tends to do a worse job. |
I can think of a few examples off the top of my head where I've been agitated by somebody else's behaviour and worked harder myself to compensate or 'show them how it should be done' ... or else worked more carefully to avoid a policy coming into effect that I disagree with.
You make a good point about the military - the nature of job makes being ready 24/7 necessary so it would be fair to call a lot more of what they do out of uniform still work-related. Something similar could be said of priests since part of their job is acting as a figurehead for God and demonstrating how you should life your live - ergo, anything 'bad' they do (here being a little more strictly defined as against their religious commandments) is work-related.
'Other people happen to see it that way' is still not a morally valid excuse for breaking your agreement and causing significant suffering (ie. loss of job) to an employee. We're not talking about cases of your job and leisure conflicting, these are cases of third parties ignorantly declaring that they are. And if every employer of your profession believes that's sufficient reason to fire you then your freedom IS being impinged upon.
| Nameless wrote: | | these are cases of third parties ignorantly declaring that they are. And if every employer of your profession believes that's sufficient reason to fire you then your freedom IS being impinged upon. |
But, crucially, I think the blame for that impingement of freedom rests not with the employer, but with those ignorant masses.
| Nameless wrote: |
| menino wrote: | | I think that if someone has a bad reputation outside of the workplace, it reflects on the workplace and the company or organization he/she works for. |
Why? No really, other than saying some others think so, why should it? |
Well, in my opinion, if you were a manager / owner of a certain organization and you had employees working under you, would you stand for someone who has a bad reputation outside the workplace to work there?
If you do, would you not keep an extra watchful eye on them, thereby adding to more resources?
Its not what others also are saying as well, but my opinion. I think some people with "skills" can work in a workplace, under a controlled environment, if their skills are unique for the organization, and in the backoffice / production lines, rather than the front lines, which kind of puts a face to the organization.
The only place I can think of people hiring "bad repuation people" are the underworld, and television personalities, to get more exposure in the media.
Anyways, its up to the private organization to decide their hiring / firing policy, albeit public opinion, but on a lighter note, check this out http://dilbert.com/2011-11-06/
| ocalhoun wrote: | | But, crucially, I think the blame for that impingement of freedom rests not with the employer, but with those ignorant masses. |
Partially, but no more so than the ones doing the firing. Even less so if the employer knows full well the employee is working perfectly well but selfishly chooses to fire them anyway because it's just easier for the company.
| menino wrote: | | Nameless wrote: | | Why? No really, other than saying some others think so, why should it? |
Well, in my opinion, if you were a manager / owner of a certain organization and you had employees working under you, would you stand for someone who has a bad reputation outside the workplace to work there?
If you do, would you not keep an extra watchful eye on them, thereby adding to more resources? |
Yes, not without a work-related reason, and you didn't actually answer the question.
| menino wrote: | | Nameless wrote: | | Why? No really, other than saying some others think so, why should it? |
Well, in my opinion, if you were a manager / owner of a certain organization and you had employees working under you, would you stand for someone who has a bad reputation outside the workplace to work there?
If you do, would you not keep an extra watchful eye on them, thereby adding to more resources?Yes, not without a work-related reason, and you didn't actually answer the question. |
My answer was that on a wholistic level, reputation of the company, based on its workers, is work-related.
If you see any company's sales staff, they may not be the best looking people, but companies ensure that they portray a certain image, with professionalism, in the manner of their dress code and conduct at the work place.
To really answer the question, I suppose that "risk" is involved. A person who has a bad repuation on the outside, despite his "great" work on the inside of the company, can prove a certain risk factor when it comes down to it.
Is the company willing to take that risk or not, based on what it will affect on the company? i.e. company image, comfort environment of co-workers, fact that a bad reputation person may not be dependable at the work place, if they are arrested again or fall in trouble again?
I do hope that answers your question, if not exact, then at least an idea.
| Nameless wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | But, crucially, I think the blame for that impingement of freedom rests not with the employer, but with those ignorant masses. |
Partially, but no more so than the ones doing the firing. Even less so if the employer knows full well the employee is working perfectly well but selfishly chooses to fire them anyway because it's just easier for the company.
|
It's the employer's job to always do what's 'easier' (ie, best) for the company.
Even if an employee does good work, if their reputation causes significant PR problems for the employer, then the employee is still a liability... and the employer's responsibility is to maximize assets and minimize liabilities... which means getting rid of that employee (or fixing the PR problem).
Yes, it sucks for the employee... but I don't see the employer as having any moral obligation to keep a problematic employee on the payroll just for that employee's sake.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | It's the employer's job to always do what's 'easier' (ie, best) for the company. |
That's ... actually a reasonable point, at least for sufficiently large companies that those doing the day-to-day hiring still answer to their own employers higher in the corporate ladder. In an individual case the responsibility to the larger company (or stockholders) could be placed above the responsibility of treating the one employee fairly. But if firing people for behaviour outside of work becomes at all commonplace then there's really a greater, uh, 'dickishness' (shut up) taking place against the employees as a whole that outweighs the benefits.
What's easiest for a company is not always what's best. Firing the guy with an unrelated bad reputation might get a brief popular response from the public ("Yeah, show that guy for having different morals to me!"), but keeping him for his good work and demonstrating the company's superior products / services instead will result in more sales over a longer time period.
I have been in a position once where I could have been fired, had I been caught, for off-the-job behavior. I've worked a few hours a week in a retail job while in college. One summer, my boss (who was hot and every guy in the store wanted yet, proudly, I was the only person to succeed) and I got pretty drunk and ended up having sex outside of work. After that night, the behavior continued and we regularly had sex for the rest of the summer. If we had been caught, I probably would have been fired and she certainly would have been fired. I would have felt bad for but I personally wouldn't have cared because I can find a minimum wage retail job anywhere (despite the job market, those are a dime-a-dozen in this area). However, we did it because I didn't care about my job and the chances of us getting caught were almost zero. The only way we would have gotten caught is if one of us opened our mouths and that didn't happen until she changed jobs (and then I gloated to everyone because I wasn't fearful for my job).
Would it have been moral to fire us? Probably. If people found out then there could probably be huge favortism complaints toward the company. Every time something good happened to me, such as getting desirable days off, better hours, whatever, people would complain that Daniel only gets that because he's sleeping with the boss. Granted they would have had a good case because that stuff did happen. However, if that happened in my company I wouldn't fire the two people. I would just change one of their positions so that one isn't working for the other and that would have easily settled it. However, that company (which I won't mention because I still work there and could get fired (see below)) loved firing people for silly stuff and them browsing the internet looking for stuff like this and then trying to track down who it is (which wouldn't be hard because I've put quite a lot of personal stuff on here such as my name and interests) is something they would do.
The second case of this happening was when I was pulled into the HR office where they attempted to force me to sign onto Facebook so that they could spy on certain associates and get dirt on them so that they could fire them with cause and not have to pay unemployment. I basically gave them the finger and said no and that if they fire me for refusing they'd see me in court. I told them they didn't have a right to do that and they said they did because everyone who works there has signed an agreement saying that they'll represent the company well and that they won't put negative stuff on social network sites, etc. (basically what Indi mentioned above). So I responded by taking off my employment history on Facebook (which I never even go on anyway), removing every coworker I felt might stab in the back, and then telling my coworkers that I like to also remove that information so that they can freely post "Work f***ing sucks" and not fear retribution.
Overall, I do think there are cases where you can fire someone for off the job behavior. If you have a contract saying you'll represent your company well and then you do something to embarrass the company - which causes it to lose profit - then you should get fired. If a police officer gets arrested then they should get fired. Or if you're hired for a certain reason and then do something off the job that changes that and you can no longer fulfill that original expectation, then you should get fired.
| Nameless wrote: |
What's easiest for a company is not always what's best. Firing the guy with an unrelated bad reputation might get a brief popular response from the public ("Yeah, show that guy for having different morals to me!"), but keeping him for his good work and demonstrating the company's superior products / services instead will result in more sales over a longer time period. |
That goes back to 'it depends on the job' again though...
Some jobs are so PR-sensitive that nobody could do such a good job that it would overcome losses due to PR scandal.
Take a teacher who is a porn star in her off time... If that gets out, how could she possibly be such a good teacher to make up for that PR scandal?
(Yes, you and me both realize there's nothing essentially incompatible with those two jobs (as long as she doesn't try to do both that the same time), but there's enough people out there who do think it's completely incompatible that it would be very damaging to the school.)
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Now, these public perceptions may indeed be wrong... but they exist, so the employer is forced to consider them. |
Why? Seriously. Why?
| ocalhoun wrote: | In this case, it's a subjective analysis of risk by the employer.
When they find out that you do a certain 'bad' activity off-duty, they need to figure out for themselves how likely it is that you'll continue to do that on-duty.
It boils down to a classic risk evaluation:
((the likelihood that you'll do this 'bad' thing on duty) x (the damage done to the employer if you do)) / (the damage done to the employer by firing you)
... And if the employer figures that this comes out to >1, then it would make sense to fire you.
The employer may judge wrongly in this sometimes, but there's really nobody else around to make the decision for them. |
Let's recap. Employer hires employee. Things are going fairly well insofar as on the job performance goes. Employer finds out employee does something bad in their off time - let's say it's smoking pot or getting drunk. So you say now the employer decides the employee - who has done nothing wrong at work - is a hazard?
The calculation you're talking about makes sense if you have no information about the at-work behaviour - for example, if you're hiring them. But after they're already working there, if you want to figure out out the probability of them doing something at work, you're not dealing with hypotheticals: you've seen them perform at work. If they have done their jobs diligently and well up to this point, but you get some notion that they might, possibly, maybe at some point in the future start to do something bad, you're literally inventing problems for the employee that don't really exist. You're firing them for what's in your own imagination, when reality has no justification.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | A teacher, soldier, or clergyman though... they are seen as their job 24/7. Wrong or not, that's how it is. |
This is not a discussion of what "is", it is a discussion of what is right. This is a philosophy forum.
So, is it wrong, or not?
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Quote: | | You've never said your job, employer or coworkers sucked after a bad day? Particularly in private to your friends - in two of the cases above, a message sent privately to friends was copied and forwarded to the employer. Do you really believe that coming home and and saying "****** McDonalds, that place is run by monkeys!" to your friends means that you're going to do a shitty job at work the next day? |
I do think it means you're more likely to do sub-par work than someone who enjoys working there. |
You're leaping to conclusions - the person said their job/coworkers/client sucked. That doesn't mean that they don't enjoy working there. In fact, the person who feels strongly about stuff going on at work obviously cares more about work than the person who doesn't give a crap.
| ocalhoun wrote: | The difference is you have a right to free speech, and a right to live in the country.
You don't have a right to work for any given employer though. |
No, there is no difference. You do not have a right to become a citizen of any country you want. You don't have a right to free speech in Germany, or Switzerland or Australia, because you're not a citizen (employee) there. You can become a citizen of any country that will have you, just like you can become an employee of any company that will hire you. Once a country accepts you as a citizen (ie, hires you), you have certain rights - free speech in the case of countries, various employee rights in the case of a job. Countries can revoke citizenships (ie, fire you). In fact, citizenship is very much analogous to employment - the only difference between most modern countries and most employment is that most countries are more or less democratic. Employment, then, is very much like citizenship in a dictatorship.
So if dissatisfaction with your employer, job or coworkers is grounds for firing, then, logically, dissatisfaction with your government, country or countrymen should be grounds for revoking your citizenship. And, naturally, that's the way it actually works, quite often: if you flip off the despot, you're ass is toast - you have to flee the country and hope some other country will take you in. But of course, we're not here to talk about what is, but rather what is right. So, i ask again: if someone insults the government, is it right to kick them out of the country? If not, then why is it right when a company does it?
| ocalhoun wrote: | A) I've never seen someone fed up with policies/management actually begin to do better at their job. My experience is limited, I suppose, but everyone I've ever seen who gets upset with their workplace tends to do a worse job.
B) What are the chances, realistically, of an average worker 'getting to the top'? In many workplaces, manager-level employees are hired from outside... and even for the ones that do promote from within the ranks, the chances of promotion for someone who bad-mouths the company would be slim. |
a) And yet it happens. i could point to both my father and myself as examples. He was so frustrated with the incompetence at his previous company that he worked hard to get the manager position... and then totally revamped the company into the 1980s. (He quit to start his own company after the company owner came from overseas to figure out what he had done to raise the company's fortunes so much, yet refused to give him a raise from the standard worker wage (my father had not even asked for standard manager's wages - he just wanted a shot at fixing the company). Later, my father's new company grew so far beyond the original company he bought it out.) i was so frustrated with the fact that the engineering company i worked at was still working as if it were the 1950s, that i set aside my own "mini-company" within the main company to do things the modern way. My department was so wildly successful that my boss actually created a splinter company - a fully registered company, with my paycheque split between the two companies, which wasn't great for me at tax time - for it to take advantage of the benefits without it interfering with "his way" of doing things.
b) That depends on the company. If they've stacked the deck to screw their workforce out of any chance of advancement, then should they expect their employees to be happy employees? If an employee is actually happy in such conditions... doesn't that mean they are either too stupid to understand how the deck is stacked against them, or too lazy and unmotivated to reach higher? In other words, shouldn't employers want employees who want to climb the ladder and get frustrated when they can't, because those employees are driven and intelligent?
| ocalhoun wrote: | In the example I used, the military, it is true -- literally.
Military members are technically on-the-job 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
(This is how they justify long hours without overtime, being on-call without extra pay, et cetera.)
When they go home to relax, it's technically because they've been ordered to do so. |
You know, i was a captain in the Air Force.
No, it's not true. In fact, nothing there is true. If they'd called me on a Saturday, it bloody well better have been a national emergency. Military personnel are only working 24/7 when they're on deployment. When they're not on deployment - for example, when they're on leave - they're private citizens. (The contract with the military does give them the right to call you up any time, even when on leave, if there's an emergency. But that's true or any emergency services worker, and doesn't change the argument. They can call you back to duty any time, yes, but when you're off-duty, you're off-duty, and it's easy to test the difference. Beat up someone while on-duty = court martial. Beat up someone while off-duty = standard civilian assault charges; the military doesn't get involved.)
| ocalhoun wrote: | No employer ever owns anybody's life. Not as long as slavery is still illegal anyway.
If your off duty activities and your job conflict, choose which one you want more, and ditch the other one.
They can't own your life any more than you allow them to. |
Your messages are mixed. One minute your off-duty time is your own to use as you please, the next minute employers can fire you for what you do there. The only explanation i can see so far is that it depends on whether the public figures you're on the job or not... not you or your employer, the public.
Now, i'm frankly baffled at why you think the public's input has any relevance whatsoever. The employment contract is between you and the employer. You promise to do a good job, they promise to pay you (that's a simplified statement of the employment contract, but essentially true). Where, exactly does public opinion enter into it? If i signed a contract with you for some reason, would you accept it if i backed out because some other dudes i know made me feel uncomfortable about it? i think not. i think you'd be royally pissed, and probably suing me for breach of contract. i mean, seriously, what about a marriage contract: can you imagine a husband saying to his wife, "You know, honey, you've been a wonderful wife and i'm very happy with our marriage. But Frank thinks you're a slut and that that's really making me look bad to the guys. So, if you'll just sign these divorce papers...."
And then there's this notion that public opinion - even when wrong - should be taken seriously in any case. So, what, if the public doesn't believe a woman should be flying planes, that means Air Canada should fire a woman pilot? i'm sure you'd say no, but then, why is it that if the public doesn't believe a weekend prostitute should be teaching classes, that means the school should fire a teacher who moonlights as a sex worker?
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | I have been in a position once where I could have been fired, had I been caught, for off-the-job behavior. I've worked a few hours a week in a retail job while in college. One summer, my boss (who was hot and every guy in the store wanted yet, proudly, I was the only person to succeed) and I got pretty drunk and ended up having sex outside of work. After that night, the behavior continued and we regularly had sex for the rest of the summer. If we had been caught, I probably would have been fired and she certainly would have been fired. I would have felt bad for but I personally wouldn't have cared because I can find a minimum wage retail job anywhere (despite the job market, those are a dime-a-dozen in this area). However, we did it because I didn't care about my job and the chances of us getting caught were almost zero. The only way we would have gotten caught is if one of us opened our mouths and that didn't happen until she changed jobs (and then I gloated to everyone because I wasn't fearful for my job).
Would it have been moral to fire us? Probably. If people found out then there could probably be huge favortism complaints toward the company. Every time something good happened to me, such as getting desirable days off, better hours, whatever, people would complain that Daniel only gets that because he's sleeping with the boss. Granted they would have had a good case because that stuff did happen. However, if that happened in my company I wouldn't fire the two people. I would just change one of their positions so that one isn't working for the other and that would have easily settled it. However, that company (which I won't mention because I still work there and could get fired (see below)) loved firing people for silly stuff and them browsing the internet looking for stuff like this and then trying to track down who it is (which wouldn't be hard because I've put quite a lot of personal stuff on here such as my name and interests) is something they would do. |
i don't see that as a case of being fired for bad behaviour, i see it as a simply conflict of interest problem. To put it in other words, the sex itself wasn't the problem: if you two were brother and sister - rather than lovers - or if you both had some other venture (like a band or something), then it would amount to the same thing; she has strong motivation toward favouritism, which is bad.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | The second case of this happening was when I was pulled into the HR office where they attempted to force me to sign onto Facebook so that they could spy on certain associates and get dirt on them so that they could fire them with cause and not have to pay unemployment. I basically gave them the finger and said no and that if they fire me for refusing they'd see me in court. I told them they didn't have a right to do that and they said they did because everyone who works there has signed an agreement saying that they'll represent the company well and that they won't put negative stuff on social network sites, etc. (basically what Indi mentioned above). |
But do you think an employer should have the right to censor your opinions outside the workplace. If your employer required you to sign a "i will not support Occupy Wall Street" agreement to keep your job, do you think that's right? If your employer required you to only wear boxers (which will never be seen by customers and have no real relation to the job) to work at a store like WalMart, do you think that's right? Basically, do you think the employer has a right to demand things of you outside of the time they're paying you for, and beyond the limits of that job?
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Overall, I do think there are cases where you can fire someone for off the job behavior. If you have a contract saying you'll represent your company well and then you do something to embarrass the company - which causes it to lose profit - then you should get fired. |
If your employment contract is to specifically represent the company, then of course you should be fired for representing them badly. The question is whether that's a legitimate situation most of the time. Take a WalMart worker for example. While i'm sure WalMart would love to get them to sign a contract stating that they're representatives of the company 24/7 (so that they could fire anyone they wanted to if that person did something stupid/bad off-hours)... is that really what is happening? Because i don't know about you, but whenever i worked for retail stores, they would cover any accidents i had during "working hours", but not accidents i had at home... but... aren't i working for them even then, as a 24/7 representative? They say i am, right? Or how about this: i'm sure if a WalMart employee were to do something like put a WalMart logo on their car then go race in an open event, WalMart would balk. But... they're representing WalMart, aren't they? Their contract even says so. See, seems to me that this is a fairly blatant lie most of the time: a company says you're a representative, even off-hours... but you're not. They want all the benefits of having you as a representative - specifically, the ability to control your behaviour off-hours, and punish you on the job for what you do at any time day or night that they consider relevant - but don't want to give you any of the rights and privileges of actually being a full-time representative.
Obviously, in the case of actual representation deals, that's not always true... but companies pay through the nose for those representatives, don't they? Furthermore, in those situations, there is no "off-the-job" time. So this isn't a case of firing people for off-the-job behaviour.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | If a police officer gets arrested then they should get fired. |
Yes, but why.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Or if you're hired for a certain reason and then do something off the job that changes that and you can no longer fulfill that original expectation, then you should get fired. |
Again, that's not really a situation of off-the-job behaviour leading to you getting fired. It's a case of off-the-job behaviour changing your ability to actually do the job on the clock... and that leads to you getting fired. i can even give you a plausible example: a surgeon starts taking drugs, which makes their hands shake... and that is why they get fired... not for taking the drugs, but for the hand shaking.
Or, another example: an exotic dancer finds Jesus or Allah and now wants to wear modest clothing at all times... which means they can't wear the skimpy dance costumes... and that is why they get fired.
Those make sense. If your off-the-job behaviour actually affects your job, then it becomes the employer's business. But just because the employer imagines it might affect the job... or just because the public has an uninformed opinion or even just a whim that it might... that's not justification enough for firing.
I think I can give another concrete example I know. This was about a controversial sex scandal in my country two years ago between Doctor Hayden Kho, a cosmetic surgeon and actress, Katrina Halili. Hayden Kho secretly video taped Katrina and some other women while having sex. When the video tape was leaked in the public, Hayden Kho and those who leaked the video were investigated. Kho's license was suspended and after two years being found guilty of immorality and dishonorable act, he's medical license was finally revoked.
source:http://www.dailypinoyshowbiz.com/hayden-kho-loses-medical-licence/
There's two sides of argument here:
1. He's medical license should be revoked because it destroys the integrity of the medical association.
2. Being a bad person doesn't make him a bad doctor. Therefore his medical license should not be revoked.
Also, whether secretly video taping while having sex with women is immoral or not, is another point of argument.
I think he's act doesn't destroy the integrity of the doctors. He was doing fine as a doctor before the scandal and probably do fine after. Nothing in his act influences any of his or other doctor's performance. Yet keeping his profession might leave an impression to the public that the medical association condones such act, which depends on the public's view(most likely subjective). Revoking his license makes a statement that they don't condone it. But the question is, does public scrutiny hurt the doctors? Perhaps, their point is they want to protect other doctors from being criticized by the generalizing eye of the public. The public's view maybe irrational but the question is whether it would hurt other doctors. I think it may depend on the public opinion. This is also another case of utilitarianism vs justice for an innocent person.
But what about doing something wrong, while on the job, but nothing to do with the job?
Reminds me of the canister scandal here in Cebu. Doctors laughed while pulling out a canister from a person's anus and waved the thing in the air and even spraying the contents around to say that it wasn't empty. The entire thing was video taped by a nurse and posted on youtube. I haven't watched the video so I'm not sure how the doctors laughed or make fun of the situation or if they did laughed and mocked the patient. But because of this, the ombudsman filed a recommendation to fire the doctors.
source:http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2008/04/22/the-cebu-posterior-surgery-scandal-and-its-national-implications/
The point is, the doctors saved the patient but the doctors mocked him while on the job. So the question is, is it right to fire them? Is it part of the doctor's job to respect the patient?
The key question here also is, is it right to deny an applicant from a job position because of his criminal background?
| Indi wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | Now, these public perceptions may indeed be wrong... but they exist, so the employer is forced to consider them. |
Why? Seriously. Why?
|
Because public perceptions can have a large impact on the employer, both negatively and positively.
(Depending on what kind of employer it is. Some are more vulnerable to the whims of the public than others.)
| Quote: |
If they have done their jobs diligently and well up to this point, but you get some notion that they might, possibly, maybe at some point in the future start to do something bad, you're literally inventing problems for the employee that don't really exist.
|
That don't really exist yet.
Upon getting this new information, the employer needs to figure out if there will be a problem in the future or not. -- Something that will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Now, they may judge wrongly in making that decision, but what higher authority do they have to help them make it?
...And if they judge wrongly too often in the direction of assuming the usage will become addiction and the addiction will become a problem, I'd blame not the employer, but excessive use of anti-drug propaganda, which perhaps overemphasizes the idea of progressive addiction leading to failure in all areas of life. Employers hearing and believing that propaganda may skew their judgments by assuming that drug or alcohol use is more likely to become progressively worse than it really is.
| Quote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | A teacher, soldier, or clergyman though... they are seen as their job 24/7. Wrong or not, that's how it is. |
This is not a discussion of what "is", it is a discussion of what is right. This is a philosophy forum.
So, is it wrong, or not?
|
^.^ A little bit of ivory-tower-ism going on there?
Given that individual employers can't change 'what is', they have to decide what's right and wrong given the situation as it is. (Not the situation as it should be.)
Now, is this public perception wrong or not?
Again, depends on the job.
To say a clergyman is a clergyman 24/7 is a somewhat reasonable statement.
To say a teacher is a teacher 24/7 though... that's more questionable... that public perception is likely more due to over-protective parents than any rational argument.
| Quote: |
You're leaping to conclusions - the person said their job/coworkers/client sucked. That doesn't mean that they don't enjoy working there. In fact, the person who feels strongly about stuff going on at work obviously cares more about work than the person who doesn't give a crap.
|
Less jumping to conclusions, more playing the numbers. Complaining might not always correlate to not enjoying working there, but I would guess that it is more likely than the alternative.
Since the employer is unable to read an employee's mind -- and probably can't trust them to be honest when their livelihood is at stake -- they have to work with deciding which is more likely.
(Now, while I can see why some employers would do so, were I an employer, I would ask a complaining employee into my office for a chat first, to try to ascertain if they enjoy working there or not, and if they want to do good work or not. Then make the fire/keep decision based on what I learn during that interview.)
| Quote: |
No, there is no difference. You do not have a right to become a citizen of any country you want. |
Now... back to that discussion about what should be vs. what is...
I'd go as far as to say living where you want to is a basic human right, and that no country should have borders closed to immigration.
| Quote: | So, i ask again: if someone insults the government, is it right to kick them out of the country? If not, then why is it right when a company does it?
|
A government's primary duty is to it's citizens.
An employer's primary duty is usually to the owner/stockholders (or to the country as a whole for government work). Not (notably) to its employees.
It is wrong for the government to banish a complainer because the government (should) exist for that citizen's (and every citizen's) benefit.
It is not (necessarily) wrong for an employer to fire an employee because the employer does not exist for that employee's (or any employee's) benefit.
Now, should employers exist for the benefit of their employees? Perhaps, but that is more a socio-economic debate... and another discussion of what should be vs. what is.
| Quote: |
a) And yet it happens. |
Oh, I don't doubt that there are exceptions.
I still think the general trend is to the opposite though.
Ideally, an employer should make an in-depth investigation of each case to determine which category each particular complainer will fall into... But they often don't.
And that, perhaps, is where you can find fault with them. Assuming that everyone will follow the general trend, and not looking for the exceptions.
| Quote: |
In other words, shouldn't employers want employees who want to climb the ladder and get frustrated when they can't, because those employees are driven and intelligent?
|
Yet again, it depends on the job.
For some jobs, the employers probably do want robot-level drive and intelligence, and only still hire live workers because robots haven't been built yet that can do the job.
For a factory worker assembling cheap plastic trinkets, for example, the employer doesn't want intelligence or drive... They just want assembly A connected to assembly B often enough per day to meet quota.
| Quote: |
If they'd called me on a Saturday, it bloody well better have been a national emergency. |
RHIP, I suppose.
If they call me in on a Saturday, 'because we needed you to do X' is sufficient.
| Quote: | | Beat up someone while on-duty = court martial. Beat up someone while off-duty = standard civilian assault charges; the military doesn't get involved. |
Off topic a bit, but... What military did you work for?
In the one I'm familiar with, the military always gets involved. They may decide that your civilian-directed punishment is enough, but they will be involved.
(And in the case of a civilian crime, they'll often mete out military punishment before waiting around to see if you're convicted or found innocent in civilian court.)
| Quote: |
Your messages are mixed. One minute your off-duty time is your own to use as you please, the next minute employers can fire you for what you do there. |
A 'wise' man once told me, "you can do whatever you want, as long as you're willing to accept the consequences."
You can do whatever you want off-duty. If you're willing to accept whatever possibility there is that the employer fires you for it.
ie, don't be a slave because you 'need' a job. Giving up on what you want to do with your life is worse than being fired.
| Quote: | The only explanation i can see so far is that it depends on whether the public figures you're on the job or not... not you or your employer, the public.
|
That's more or less exactly it.
| Quote: |
Now, i'm frankly baffled at why you think the public's input has any relevance whatsoever. |
I explained this above. The public's 'input' can have drastic effects on the employer. (Though both the likelihood of there being an effect and the severity of that effect vary widely among different employers, and even different jobs within the same employer.)
| Quote: | | The employment contract is between you and the employer. You promise to do a good job, they promise to pay you (that's a simplified statement of the employment contract, but essentially true). Where, exactly does public opinion enter into it? If i signed a contract with you for some reason, would you accept it if i backed out because some other dudes i know made me feel uncomfortable about it? i think not. i think you'd be royally pissed, and probably suing me for breach of contract. |
Well now, that depends... Did our contract allow either party to back out at will?
Most employment contracts are written so that either the employee or the employer can terminate the contract at any time.
And if you want them written so that the employer can't terminate at will, would it also be okay to write them so the employee can't quit if they feel like it?
| Quote: |
And then there's this notion that public opinion - even when wrong - should be taken seriously in any case. So, what, if the public doesn't believe a woman should be flying planes, that means Air Canada should fire a woman pilot? i'm sure you'd say no, but then, why is it that if the public doesn't believe a weekend prostitute should be teaching classes, that means the school should fire a teacher who moonlights as a sex worker?
|
The employer's primary duty is not to the employee, or to the civil rights movement.
They are supposed to do what's best for the owner(s) of the company.
I'd say there was a moral wrong being done in both cases... But not being done by the employer. Being done by the general public, by holding such opinions and by putting those opinions into action in ways that harm the employer -- which puts pressure on the employer to fix the 'problem'.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Why? Seriously. Why?
|
Because public perceptions can have a large impact on the employer, both negatively and positively. |
That's what employers like to claim, but it doesn't really apply in this case. When it does apply, it's a case of the public being wrong (bigoted, ignorant, meddling), and the employer should just ignore them.
Just think about real life cases to see what i mean. The cases of people badmouthing the job/company/boss/clients... do you really think "public opinion" is going to affect the employer in that case? (In fact, consider the reverse effect: that firing the employee for having private opinions is going to negatively affect the employer.) What about the case of a weekend drug user? Well, in that case the public's opinion - if there is any - would be wrong: it would be based on ignorance, and on prejudice against casual drug users. It would be no different from pressuring the employer to fire someone because they're black.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Quote: |
If they have done their jobs diligently and well up to this point, but you get some notion that they might, possibly, maybe at some point in the future start to do something bad, you're literally inventing problems for the employee that don't really exist.
|
That don't really exist yet.
Upon getting this new information, the employer needs to figure out if there will be a problem in the future or not. -- Something that will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. |
They don't exist period. They might exist in the future, but they might not. Saying they don't exist yet implicitly suggests that they will sometime... which is false.
And again, the employer is not working in a vacuum - if they want to evaluate the employee's performance, they actually have the employee's performance. There's no need for speculation. In fact, the speculation you're implying is just plain wrong. For example, what if the employer hears that the employee met with an imam. By your logic, the employer can then say, "Well, this occasionally leads to turning into a devout Muslim, and if that happens, she won't be able to wear the uniform, which would lead to problems so... i guess i'll just fire her now." As you can see, that's no different from saying, "Well, recreational pot smoking occasionally leads to turning into a raging drug fiend, and if that happens, she won't be able to do her job, so...."
| ocalhoun wrote: | Now, they may judge wrongly in making that decision, but what higher authority do they have to help them make it?
...And if they judge wrongly too often in the direction of assuming the usage will become addiction and the addiction will become a problem, I'd blame not the employer, but excessive use of anti-drug propaganda, which perhaps overemphasizes the idea of progressive addiction leading to failure in all areas of life. Employers hearing and believing that propaganda may skew their judgments by assuming that drug or alcohol use is more likely to become progressively worse than it really is. |
Higher authority? They don't need a higher authority. Simple, reasonable thought is all they need. If they're incapable of that, they shouldn't be employing people. Why is there any need for a higher authority?
And if they've bought into the propaganda, they should be blamed. We all have a responsibility to filter out bullshit we hear. The employer who buys into and actually bases employment decisions on information they haven't properly vetted is, in a word, stupid, and doesn't deserve to be an employer. They should rightly be called out and mocked for their stupidity.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Quote: | This is not a discussion of what "is", it is a discussion of what is right. This is a philosophy forum.
So, is it wrong, or not?
|
^.^ A little bit of ivory-tower-ism going on there? |
No, just philosophy. If we wanted to discuss what is, we would be doing social science.
| ocalhoun wrote: | Given that individual employers can't change 'what is', they have to decide what's right and wrong given the situation as it is. (Not the situation as it should be.)
Now, is this public perception wrong or not?
Again, depends on the job.
To say a clergyman is a clergyman 24/7 is a somewhat reasonable statement.
To say a teacher is a teacher 24/7 though... that's more questionable... that public perception is likely more due to over-protective parents than any rational argument. |
Indeed, that's exactly what employers should decide. They should not pass the buck on to public opinion and use that to blame immoral decisions on.
Now, a clergyman is not exactly a "job", per se, which is why i've specifically avoided talking about them. A clergyman is not only hired by the church, they've taken various oaths of service (for example, in some religions, celibacy, but in general to abide by the laws of the religion... a rabbi that eats bacon is violating their rabbi oath). Clergyman is - literally - a 24/7 job. And that's fine - 24/7 jobs exist. Just as Micheal Jordan gets paid to be a full time representative of McDonald's and Haynes, clergymen are paid to be full time representatives of their religion, which is fine. (Sure clergymen don't get paid nearly as much as Jordan, but they have other reasons for doing it.)
The teacher case is more representative of most jobs, and you nailed it: the public perception is wrong.
| ocalhoun wrote: | Less jumping to conclusions, more playing the numbers. Complaining might not always correlate to not enjoying working there, but I would guess that it is more likely than the alternative.
Since the employer is unable to read an employee's mind -- and probably can't trust them to be honest when their livelihood is at stake -- they have to work with deciding which is more likely. |
i'd say your statistics are shaky at best. Because first you have to figure out whether complaining means they don't enjoy working there... which is hardly the slam dunk you're claiming it is... then you have to figure out whether not enjoying working there is actually affecting their job performance... which would not really be the case for most jobs (how many jobs require enthusiasm? how many people are not capable of faking it adequately to do the job?)... then on top of all this - and this is the part you're oddly completely missing - you have to figure out whether the employee's concerns are actually legitimate. Because sometimes an employee's dissatisfaction with their job is quite legitimate, and a sign of problems at the lower levels. Those complaints may not be getting to the higher ups because of some middle management interference, or simply a lack of any way to reasonably communicate between the floor workers and management.
It really baffles me that you think a complaining employee is a bad employee, because in my experience, the complaining employees are the ones who make the workplace better for everyone. They're the ones who point out faulty equipment, hazards and other problems on the job (like maybe another employee, or even mid-manager, is making everyone's life miserable). But even when they're just griping - and even when they just don't enjoy working there because they're just miserable people - that doesn't mean they can't do their job just as ably, or even more ably, than anyone else.
Again, you don't need to speculate... you have their job performance: look at it and see how they're doing. You keep talking about how employers need to play the numbers... this is not speculative gambling, the employee records are right there, the employee is right there, and you can literally just watch them to see how they're doing their job. If you hear that they're miserable and think this might affect their job... look at their job performance; don't create a fantasy in your head of what you think might happen, and base the employee's fate on that.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | I'd go as far as to say living where you want to is a basic human right, and that no country should have borders closed to immigration. |
A basic human right? ^_^; Hardly. Unless you think random people - from anywhere in the world - should be allowed to set up camp in your living room.
A nation is just a group of people who've agreed on laws and staked out a plot of land to live by those laws on. You have to "right" to force yourself into their collective. You can apply, and if they like you they can invite you, but you have no "right" to be part of it.
| ocalhoun wrote: | A government's primary duty is to it's citizens.
An employer's primary duty is usually to the owner/stockholders (or to the country as a whole for government work). Not (notably) to its employees.
It is wrong for the government to banish a complainer because the government (should) exist for that citizen's (and every citizen's) benefit.
It is not (necessarily) wrong for an employer to fire an employee because the employer does not exist for that employee's (or any employee's) benefit.
Now, should employers exist for the benefit of their employees? Perhaps, but that is more a socio-economic debate... and another discussion of what should be vs. what is. |
You did see the part where i said employers are like dictatorships, right? At best, they're like oligarchies. Clearly an employer isn't like a democratic republic.
But alright, if you want to insist that it is, let me ask this: should an employer have a duty to their employees? Is it right to treat people like replaceable cogs? Is throwing money at them justification enough for no longer respecting their humanity? This is not a symmetrical situation - the stockholders do not have nearly as much at stake in an employee's employment as the employee does - so is it morally legitimate to put the comfort and happiness of the stockholders above the livelihood of the employee?
(And no, that isn't a socio-economic question, it's pure philosophy. The question of whether or not you can treat people as less than people if you pay them has nothing to do with sociology or economics.)
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Ideally, an employer should make an in-depth investigation of each case to determine which category each particular complainer will fall into... But they often don't. |
In-depth investigation? No, i'd say ideally an employer should look at an employee's job performance to determine whether they're doing their job or not. i mean, duh, right? Failure to do that means they're firing the employee for a fantasy - it's no different from firing an employee because a shaman told them the employee had bad juju. It's simply morally wrong.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | For some jobs, the employers probably do want robot-level drive and intelligence, and only still hire live workers because robots haven't been built yet that can do the job. |
Even if you don't want to treat your employees as people, does that really excuse you from your moral obligations to do so? Or do you think it's kosher to treat people as robots because it's expedient? i'm going to doubt that you do, which means that you see that behaviour is simply morally wrong. So, call it what it is.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Quote: |
Your messages are mixed. One minute your off-duty time is your own to use as you please, the next minute employers can fire you for what you do there. |
A 'wise' man once told me, "you can do whatever you want, as long as you're willing to accept the consequences."
You can do whatever you want off-duty. If you're willing to accept whatever possibility there is that the employer fires you for it. |
You know, i'm sure that "wise" man meant that the consequences are reasonable expectations. That's what "consequences" means. It doesn't mean "any random thing that happens after you do something", it means the reasonably expected results of your actions.
In a society ruled by law, it is also reasonable to expect justice - when you don't get it, you know something has gone horribly wrong. So it comes back to the thread question: is it just for employers to fire employees for what they do on their own time (or is "their own time" a misnomer... do they belong to the company 24/7)?
| ocalhoun wrote: | | The public's 'input' can have drastic effects on the employer. |
True (in some rare cases), but that's not the problem. The public could boycott an airline for hiring a woman pilot, or they could boycott a supermarket for hiring a black cashier, or they could do pretty much anything they want. The question isn't about what the public will do. The question is twofold: a) whether an employer has obligations to act morally, and b) whether firing someone for anything other than job behaviour is moral. This thread is about (a specific version of) the second question. We're not really interested in whether the public is behaving morally or not... this is about the employer. And the employer doesn't get to just shirk his responsibilities as a moral agent because the public was acting immorally first... this is basic "two wrongs don't make a right" moral math.
| ocalhoun wrote: | Most employment contracts are written so that either the employee or the employer can terminate the contract at any time.
And if you want them written so that the employer can't terminate at will, would it also be okay to write them so the employee can't quit if they feel like it? |
What? No, that's not true at all. ALL standard employment contracts are written so that the employer cannot terminate the contract at any time. (In every country i've ever heard of, at least.) An employer cannot fire an employee without meticulously proving due cause, unless there are extenuating circumstances. That's one of the core principles of labour law; labour law recognizes the power imbalance between employers and employees, and gives some of the power back to employees.
And yes, many employment contracts don't allow the employee to quit anytime they want, and sometimes put restrictions on the employee even after they've quit. (For example, when i worked for a company that designed auto parts, i agreed that i would give two months notice and not work for any competitors in the industry for two years. That wasn't a typical contract because i was very specialized, and privy to very sensitive engineering knowledge - it would be ridiculous to force a burger flipper to sign that contract. But i think even McDonald's employment contracts specify that the employee has to give two weeks' notice* (i doubt most do, and it's not really worth McDonald's enforcing, but, still, it's in the contract).)
(* i don't know this as fact. But i saw a Micheal Jr. comedy routine where he said McDonald's told him he had to give two weeks' notice to quit. (His response: "Yo, two weeks from now... you gonna notice i ain't been here in two weeks.") It's quite believable, though.)
| ocalhoun wrote: | The employer's primary duty is not to the employee, or to the civil rights movement.
They are supposed to do what's best for the owner(s) of the company. |
The employer - being a moral agent - has a primary duty to morality that comes even above the shareholders. (Otherwise it would be perfectly acceptable for an employer to do immoral things to make money for the shareholders.) It is that duty that the employer is shirking when they fire an employee for no good reason.
| Indi wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | Indi wrote: | Why? Seriously. Why?
|
Because public perceptions can have a large impact on the employer, both negatively and positively. |
That's what employers like to claim, but it doesn't really apply in this case. When it does apply, it's a case of the public being wrong (bigoted, ignorant, meddling), and the employer should just ignore them.
|
The employer should ignore them... but can the employer ignore them?
I don't see the employer as having a responsibility to take a dive in a (probably vain) attempt to improve public perception of casual drug users.
| Quote: |
They don't exist period. They might exist in the future, but they might not. Saying they don't exist yet implicitly suggests that they will sometime... which is false.
|
I was quite precisely trying to imply that they might exist sometime, which as far as I know is a valid use of the word 'yet'.
(ie, if somebody says 'has anybody come to visit?', the answer, 'not yet' would not imply a certain knowledge that someone will come to visit in the future, only that it might happen in the future.)
| Quote: |
And again, the employer is not working in a vacuum - if they want to evaluate the employee's performance, they actually have the employee's performance. There's no need for speculation. |
Hm... perhaps. Though I'm going to say that depends on the frequency of how often their performance is evaluated, and the amount of damage that could possibly be done by a poor employer between evaluations.
Both those variables could be reduced by singling that employee out for more frequent evaluations, which I would call a perfectly reasonable move.
| Quote: |
And if they've bought into the propaganda, they should be blamed. We all have a responsibility to filter out bullshit we hear. |
When that propaganda is extremely widespread and believed by the majority? When most of the sources you could fact-check with are also influenced by it?
No, I don't blame them for buying the official line about drug addiction.
It's too pervasive to expect every employer to independently identify it as inaccurate.
| Quote: | They should rightly be called out and mocked for their stupidity.
|
Perhaps so, in the case of any wrong judgment that was obviously wrong.
But for cases where the decision was not so obvious, I don't think they deserve to be mocked, or labeled as immoral.
| Quote: |
It really baffles me that you think a complaining employee is a bad employee, because in my experience, the complaining employees are the ones who make the workplace better for everyone. |
Well, I guess the (mutual) bafflement is just due to different experiences...
In my experience, the complaining ones are the ones more likely to show up late (if at all), to work slow, to do sloppy work, to be surly with customers...
| Quote: |
Again, you don't need to speculate... you have their job performance: look at it and see how they're doing. [...] this is not speculative gambling, the employee records are right there, [...] don't create a fantasy in your head of what you think might happen, and base the employee's fate on that.
|
You may have a point there.
Concerns about an employees future performance should probably dictate more frequent analysis of their performance, but not dictate terminating them.
| Quote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | I'd go as far as to say living where you want to is a basic human right, and that no country should have borders closed to immigration. |
A basic human right? ^_^; Hardly. Unless you think random people - from anywhere in the world - should be allowed to set up camp in your living room.
|
Living room, no. But I do think random people - from anywhere in the world - should be allowed to set up camp in my town.
| Quote: |
A nation is just a group of people who've agreed on laws and staked out a plot of land to live by those laws on. You have to "right" to force yourself into their collective. You can apply, and if they like you they can invite you, but you have no "right" to be part of it.
|
And what (originally) gives them the right to say this plot of land is theirs and not mine?
Because they planted a farm on it? Because they built a house on it? Those reasons I can accept.
Because they got there first? Because they killed or drove off the people who were there before them? Those I can't.
If people want to make exclusive communities that can and can't be joined, that's okay, but I question the validity of traditional land ownership.
| Quote: |
But alright, if you want to insist that it is, |
Even in a dictatorship, a government's duty is to its citizens.
They may (immorally) neglect this duty, but it is still there.
| Quote: | | let me ask this: should an employer have a duty to their employees? |
Yes, an employer should.
In the world as it is now, employers are mainly only concerned about shareholders, but they should be concerned about all stakeholders.
But, again, when considering individual decisions made by individual employers, we have to consider that decision in the context of what is, rather than what should be, because that is the context in which the decision is made.
| Quote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | For some jobs, the employers probably do want robot-level drive and intelligence, and only still hire live workers because robots haven't been built yet that can do the job. |
Even if you don't want to treat your employees as people, does that really excuse you from your moral obligations to do so? Or do you think it's kosher to treat people as robots because it's expedient? i'm going to doubt that you do, which means that you see that behaviour is simply morally wrong. So, call it what it is.
|
I'm not saying it's moral for them to want robot-level drive and intelligence... just that some of them do. (And under a strict shareholder mandate, have to.)
| Quote: |
You know, i'm sure that "wise" man meant that the consequences are reasonable expectations. That's what "consequences" means. It doesn't mean "any random thing that happens after you do something", it means the reasonably expected results of your actions.
|
And if, say, you're a teacher... you could reasonably expect that being caught using drugs will get you fired.
...Not that it should, but you could infer that pretty easily from past examples and probably being told so by your employer.
| Quote: |
In a society ruled by law, it is also reasonable to expect justice - |
When you find such a society, let me know.
All the ones I know of are ultimately ruled by man, not law.
(They may have laws, but those laws are made, enforced, and granted exceptions to by man.)
And while it may be reasonable to expect justice when arguing from first principles... if you look at past examples of similar situations, you may find that an expectation that your case will be an exception much less reasonable.
| Quote: |
The question isn't about what the public will do. The question is twofold: a) whether an employer has obligations to act morally, |
Yes -- but with the exception of times when that would be self-destructive.
It would be moral to run into a burning building to save someone... But I wouldn't call someone immoral for choosing not to.
| Quote: |
(In every country i've ever heard of, at least.)
|
I guess you haven't heard of the more conservative states in the US then...
Every contract I've signed (except for military enlistment) has explicitly stated that either party could terminate employment at any time, without needing to specify a reason.
Now, it might also state that failing to give two weeks notice will result in reduction of final paycheck, and it might also state that being fired without given reason will still let one retain retirement benefits... but they never said that either party had to justify themselves in order to terminate the agreement.
| Indi wrote: |
i don't see that as a case of being fired for bad behaviour, i see it as a simply conflict of interest problem. To put it in other words, the sex itself wasn't the problem: if you two were brother and sister - rather than lovers - or if you both had some other venture (like a band or something), then it would amount to the same thing; she has strong motivation toward favouritism, which is bad. |
I understand that and I did mention that when I said that people could have had legitimate complaints (ex: Daniel only gets Friday night off because he's sleeping with the boss!) and those possible complaints did happen (I always got Fridays off). However, like I said, if I was in charge of a company where I saw that potential favortism could happen I would respond by switching the job position of one of the persons involved so that neither was working for the other and then that solves the problem and allows both people to keep their job and relationship. Easy solution. Firing really isn't necessary.
| Indi wrote: |
But do you think an employer should have the right to censor your opinions outside the workplace. |
Hell no. Hence my response, "I basically gave them the finger..."
| Quote: |
If your employment contract is to specifically represent the company, then of course you should be fired for representing them badly. The question is whether that's a legitimate situation most of the time. Take a WalMart worker for example. While i'm sure WalMart would love to get them to sign a contract stating that they're representatives of the company 24/7 (so that they could fire anyone they wanted to if that person did something stupid/bad off-hours)... is that really what is happening? Because i don't know about you, but whenever i worked for retail stores, they would cover any accidents i had during "working hours", but not accidents i had at home... but... aren't i working for them even then, as a 24/7 representative? They say i am, right? Or how about this: i'm sure if a WalMart employee were to do something like put a WalMart logo on their car then go race in an open event, WalMart would balk. But... they're representing WalMart, aren't they? Their contract even says so. See, seems to me that this is a fairly blatant lie most of the time: a company says you're a representative, even off-hours... but you're not. They want all the benefits of having you as a representative - specifically, the ability to control your behaviour off-hours, and punish you on the job for what you do at any time day or night that they consider relevant - but don't want to give you any of the rights and privileges of actually being a full-time representative. |
Well most companies do have some sort of contract saying that you will not purposely try to cause them business. Why would I keep an employee who actively tries to run me out of business? I might as well fire him/her because unemployment seems to be what they want if they're trying to run the company they work for out of business...
| Quote: | [In response to my comment that a police officer who is arrested should be fired]
Yes, but why. |
Firstly, I should have said a police officer who is arrested and convicted. But that was really implied. Secondly, it's logical. They're not doing their job. Think about it. Their job is to enforce the law and make sure everyone follows it. They're part of everyone. Therefore, if they break the law and don't arrest themselves, then they obviously were negligent at doing their job, right? Or else they would have cuffed themselves and called for backup to to take themelves away.
| Quote: |
Again, that's not really a situation of off-the-job behaviour leading to you getting fired. It's a case of off-the-job behaviour changing your ability to actually do the job on the clock... and that leads to you getting fired. i can even give you a plausible example: a surgeon starts taking drugs, which makes their hands shake... and that is why they get fired... not for taking the drugs, but for the hand shaking.
Or, another example: an exotic dancer finds Jesus or Allah and now wants to wear modest clothing at all times... which means they can't wear the skimpy dance costumes... and that is why they get fired.
Those make sense. If your off-the-job behaviour actually affects your job, then it becomes the employer's business. But just because the employer imagines it might affect the job... or just because the public has an uninformed opinion or even just a whim that it might... that's not justification enough for firing. |
I understand. I think this was implied with what I said. It's the behavior that causes you to not to be able to do your job. So I fire you. You cannot do your job. That's why I'm firing you. In my original post, I said that if I hire you to a job and you can no longer do it....I'll fire you. I never said that if you do an action that might prevent you from someday doing your job (like taking drugs that possibly could make some people's hands shake but not necessarily yours)... I was referring to the case where it does stop you from doing your job.
|
