Employer/Employee Rights

[forgop]

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

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

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

[markem]

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

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

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

[holli4pirating]

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

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

[forgop]

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

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

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

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

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

[markem]

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

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

[massphatness]

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

[kelmac07]

This is a tough one for me...especially after serving 23+ years in the US Army. Your off duty performance goes hand in hand with your on duty performance. You may be a great worker...but if you are not a great member of the community...would you want that person representing your company/organization? I am probably thinking to the extreme here... IE, Johnny is a great worker, always meets his suspenses, puts out a great product, is a team player, etc...but Johnny has three DUIs, got arrested last weekend with cocaine, etc. But then again...just my :2

[forgop]

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

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

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

[forgop]

This is a tough one for me...especially after serving 23+ years in the US Army. Your off duty performance goes hand in hand with your on duty performance. You may be a great worker...but if you are not a great member of the community...would you want that person representing your company/organization? I am probably thinking to the extreme here... IE, Johnny is a great worker, always meets his suspenses, puts out a great product, is a team player, etc...but Johnny has three DUIs, got arrested last weekend with cocaine, etc. But then again...just my :2

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

[ChicagoWhiteSox]

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

Something sounds wrong to me:confused:

[forgop]

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

Something sounds wrong to me:confused:

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

[ChicagoWhiteSox]

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

No problem:tu

[kelmac07]

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

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

[ChicagoWhiteSox]

Duane, to me, the issue I guess is whether or not the employer stepped out of bounds to acquire information about the man. Privacy acts are different for each state.

[forgop]

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

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

[forgop]

Duane, to me, the issue I guess is whether or not the employer stepped out of bounds to acquire information about the man. Privacy acts are different for each state.

In this case, I don't believe the company overstepped their reasonable bounds at all. No private investigator, no wire tapping, etc. was involved. It was a case of something that happened with photo evidence that appeared to be seen in the newspaper by higher powers.

[kelmac07]

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

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

[markem]

Let me get this right.

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

A person was fired.

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

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

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

What am I missing here?

[forgop]

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

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

[forgop]

Let me get this right.

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

A person was fired.

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

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

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

What am I missing here?

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

[bobarian]

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

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

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

The Constitution was written to protect the individual from government, not to protect employees from employers. :2

[forgop]

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


The Constitution was written to protect the individual from government, not to protect employees from employers. :2

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

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

[markem]

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

Dude! Listen. Listen closely. You have NO constitutional rights in your relationship with your employer. Constitutional rights (I'm painting writ large here) are, for the purposes of this discussion, about protection from government, not protection from employer.

[bobarian]

Dude! Listen. Listen closely. You have NO constitutional rights in your relationship with your employer. Constitutional rights (I'm painting writ large here) are, for the purposes of this discussion, about protection from government, not protection from employer.

:tpd: Exactly! Give that man a cigar! :tu

[taltos]

With all due respect to the ToE, his job and what he admittedly did have a direct bearing on how to answer this question. In at least one of the papers his job was mentioned. I think that the employer was correct in the firing but the ACLU believes that his First Amendment rights were violated. This story is not over yet.

[BlackDog]

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

[markem]

With all due respect to the ToE, his job and what he admittedly did have a direct bearing on how to answer this question. In at least one of the papers his job was mentioned. I think that the employer was correct in the firing but the ACLU believes that his First Amendment rights were violated. This story is not over yet.

Well, now that the open secret is out, I can't see this thread staying around for long.

[jledou]

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

[icehog3]

With all due respect to the ToE, his job and what he admittedly did have a direct bearing on how to answer this question.

And if the discussion turns specific to this case, it will become political and religious in nature and will be closed with extreme prejudice, Paul. :)

[kayak_rat]

Dude! Listen. Listen closely. You have NO constitutional rights in your relationship with your employer. Constitutional rights (I'm painting writ large here) are, for the purposes of this discussion, about protection from government, not protection from employer.

I agree also. A person chooses to work for a company......he chooses.

[Samsquanch]

Google is a powerful tool :)

[forgop]

Dude! Listen. Listen closely. You have NO constitutional rights in your relationship with your employer. Constitutional rights (I'm painting writ large here) are, for the purposes of this discussion, about protection from government, not protection from employer.

I never argued constitutional rights with your employer. I'm just arguing over decency. ;)

[bobarian]

What does "decency" have to do with anything here?

Is it "decent" for an employer to lay off an employee with 30 years seniority so they can hire a new intern for 1/5th the salary? Maybe not but it happens all the time.

"At will" employment gives employers wide leeway in dealing with their employees.

The First Amendment does not apply. The employee was sanctioned for a violation of ethical rules. Now if a government agent had stepped in and prevented him from exercising his rights that is a different issue.

[mosesbotbol]

http://kyw.cbslocal.com/2010/09/16/nj-transit-conductor-fired-for-burning-koran-pages-in-nyc/

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

[bobarian]

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

[BlackDog]

Given that I think I better understand the situation to which the OP refers, I think there are two other considerations. One is that an employer has a duty to ALL of his employees, not just one individual. If one individual jeopardizes the harmony of the workplace, then yes, they have a right to fire him. Secondly, if an employee creates a situation where the employer may be adversely effected by loss of customers, then there too the employer has the right to sever the relationship with that employee.

[Tenor CS]

I downloaded the "code of ethics" for the company in question and gave it a quick read. Couldn't really find anything that screamed "Ah, there's the reason!"

The closest I could come up with was this: "No Department employee should knowingly act in any way that might reasonably be expected to create an impression or suspicion among the public that he or she may be engaged in conduct violative of his or her trust as a State officer or employee."

But even that's not very precise.

He could try to sue, but I doubt he'd win.

The first amendment is not as all-protective as many wish and hope it is or would be.

People simplify it as "freedom of speech" but that doesn't mean that you can say and do whatever you want without consequences. It just means that you generally won't get arrested for "just words."

(Unless those words are a threat to do harm.)

[bobarian]

Congress shall make no law...

[icehog3]

And if the discussion turns specific to this case, it will become political and religious in nature and will be closed with extreme prejudice.

;)