I am actually a little bit shocked. Don't you believe in employee rights at all?
That's an awfully loaded question. I for one believe in employee rights, but I disagree with you with respect to how far you think they should extend.
Sure, sorry. I know you guys believe in rights of protected classes or whatever the expression is, and I'm sure you believe in some basic rights.
But the right to just speak freely when I'm not at work seems so basic! I don't understand how you can have the 1st Amendment saying the government shouldn't limit speech at all, and then be comfortable with draconian limitations from your employer. Those seem to be incompatible things to accept.
I don't really see it as Draconian. Okay, I'm not saying that it's totally cool for your company to term you for writing "BATTLE STAR GALACTICA IS BETTER THAN STAR WARS, YOU DOUCHENOZZLE" on some random message board. You have the right to do that. However, I believe you also have the responsibility to not put your employer in a bad spot.
If you say something on your facebook wall that's suspect and you have it set to private, exclude coworkers, and don't mention where you work, there is probably no way what you say as a regular person will ever rise to the level of "this guy's gotta go"
However, if you put the same suspect comment on your LinkedIn page it's a bit worse imo, because where you work is a much larger part of your identity on that site. Even though you're doing it in your private time, you're a little bit more connected to work even if you aren't an official representative of the company.
way back in the day of usenet, some dick found some political posts I had put up, traced my IP & email, and sent complaints to my employer, which was a large national laboratory.
the sysadmin who received the stuff knew me and binned the complaints, but it could have gotten me in trouble in spite of the fact that the political opinions were pretty mainstream left-wing stuff, since this guy was claiming that my DOE email address/ IP meant that the DOE was endorsing political positions.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I don't really see it as Draconian. Okay, I'm not saying that it's totally cool for your company to term you for writing "BATTLE STAR GALACTICA IS BETTER THAN STAR WARS, YOU DOUCHENOZZLE" on some random message board. You have the right to do that. However, I believe you also have the responsibility to not put your employer in a bad spot.
If you say something on your facebook wall that's suspect and you have it set to private, exclude coworkers, and don't mention where you work, there is probably no way what you say as a regular person will ever rise to the level of "this guy's gotta go"
However, if you put the same suspect comment on your LinkedIn page it's a bit worse imo, because where you work is a much larger part of your identity on that site. Even though you're doing it in your private time, you're a little bit more connected to work even if you aren't an official representative of the company.
way back in the day of usenet, some dick found some political posts I had put up, traced my IP & email, and sent complaints to my employer, which was a large national laboratory.
the sysadmin who received the stuff knew me and binned the complaints, but it could have gotten me in trouble in spite of the fact that the political opinions were pretty mainstream left-wing stuff, since this guy was claiming that my DOE email address/ IP meant that the DOE was endorsing political positions.
Yeah, I suppose they could have fired you on the word of a lonely internet detective, but they could fire you because they want to turn your office into a storage room. It really isn't the same as broadcasting your views in your name and actively tying your company to you even passively through your "about me".
Yeah, still don't think it's cool to fire someone for stuff they say outside the office, provided they make reasonable efforts to keep their private idiocy private.
Honestly, look around your office. Look at those people you work with. Odds are, every single one of them has at least one terrible opinion, one thing that, if you knew, you would think, "Wow, you're kind of an awful person." Or, if you're being more charitable: "You're a complete goddamn idiot." Maybe they did something really terrible when they were a kid. Maybe they have a political belief you find morally abhorrent. The more opinionated you are, the more likely a given person is going to be super-opinionated in the opposite direction.
That's why you don't bring this shit up at work. Because that stuff can get distracting. These people aren't your friends. You don't have a choice of whether or not to work with them. You are paid to deal with them, and they are paid to deal with you, starting and ending with how you do your job. Personal opinions? Yeah, if you're a professional grown-up person, that doesn't play into it. Shut up and do your job. You don't have to be everyone's buddy once you hit the parking lot, but you have to be everyone's partner before that point.
And there's reciprocity here. You agree not to let personal shit get in the way, and they agree not to bring it into the workplace. If it winds up in the workplace on accident? If you see someone at a political rally you find offensive, or you learn through the grapevine that they're into orgies, or you find out they support killing God's precious rape-fetuses? That's not their fault. The fact that you had no idea that Bob in accounting was really into Stormfront means that Bob in accounting was doing his job and not bringing personal stuff into the workplace. Good on Bob. Bob is a fucking asshole, but he's a fucking asshole who does his job.
As a coworker, you have a responsibility to get along with everyone else in your office. You have a responsibility to not let personal matters get in the way of doing your job. And every single word I just typed should apply just as much if you're in HR, or if you're the boss. You don't have to be super-nice to the horrible racist, but you have to be professional. And if he asks why you don't want to grab beers after work, politely inform him, "Because I saw you at that rally, Bob." Bam, problem solved, you're a professional.
In principle, I do agree with this. I think that if there is a person who leaves their personal views at home, and comes into the office and acts mechanically professional, it shouldn't matter what their personal views actually are. Regardless if it's their opinion on a given topic, some group they associate with, etc. If those actions - even outside and wholly unrelated to work - cross into criminal, that's a different story, but I can agree with you in principle.
However, even in a professional setting, there are so many ways that our personal opinions affect what we do in small ways that it's pretty much impossible to separate our personal and professional opinions. We see that in hiring - all things being equal, a person with a 'black' name is significantly less likely to get called in for an interview. Women are more likely to get smaller raises or passed over for promotions than a man.
For someone who just has a basic job to do - a system admin, machine operator, whatever...their personal views and opinions shouldn't matter as long as they keep them out of the office. They come in, punch a clock, get along, and leave. Most places aren't going to discipline them unless their personal opinions enter the workplace, be it interpersonal conflicts with another co-worker, promoting their (whatever) on company time, etc. Now, if they do publicize their views, they shouldn't expect to be given the benefit of the doubt if there is an issue either.
However, when someone enters management, works for human resources, is a public representative of the company, or is part of decisions like scheduling or team assignments that directly affect other people, and their individual judgement affects their co-workers salaries or the companies hiring practices, those personal views and opinions do become part of the corporate culture and identity. Even if it's only in a small or insidious way. Doing the right thing includes avoiding the appearance of doing the wrong thing.
I'll also say that I think there are different lines...for example, religion is a protected class, so someone's opinion (either way) on abortion shouldn't be relevant to discipline / firing. Medical procedures - like say an abortion? Those are explicitly private under HIPAA unless published / made public by the individual. Sexual orientation is protected in many states, and really should be a Federally protected class. Family status? Age? Also protected classes.
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association though? Absolutely support that. Doesn't mean you should have freedom from consequences of your speech or associations.
One of the problems, though, is that this makes it trivially easy to fire anyone at any time. Like I said, everyone is going to have some personal opinion or factor that someone else is going to think is terrible. So let's say I don't like you. No particular reason why, I just don't like you. I spend some time on Google and find out that you once posted something on a message board that could be maybe construed as racist if I squint at it really hard. Now I get to fire you for cause, right? Because we don't tolerate that behavior. Or maybe I find out that, ten years ago, you cheated on your girlfriend. We don't want to be associated with unfaithful guys, sorry.
There is no way to enforce a policy of "We can fire you for doing terrible things in your private life" that does not turn into "We can fire you for any reason at all and just make up some bullshit reason about how your behavior reflects poorly on our company." It also would completely invalidate the notion of protected classes. Right now, if you want to fire Ted for being black, you at least have to make up some bullshit papertrail to justify axing him. But now it's just, "Oh, Ted went to an Obama rally. I can't work anywhere with a Democrat. Fuck you, Ted."
"We can fire you for doing terrible things in your private life" is not really what anyone is talking about, I don't think. I mean, you can certainly oversimplify it to that, and when you put it that way it sure sounds dumb and awful, but I would hope that you give folks here enough credit to think that they probably mean something a little more nuanced. I mean, you'll note that the examples people have used are pretty specific, and seem to pick out a fairly narrow range if inappropriate behaviours. It really isn't a "you made someone mad, now you're fired" kind of thing.
If my employee had a tweet talking about how he scammed some sweet Nazi Memorabilla off a holocaust museum and that tweet was right before another one about how he had such a blast at the #DeebaserCO company picnic...
I would fire his ass so hard. If you can potentially cause your company embarassment by broadcasting your shitty views, keep them to your fucking self.
At what point do you stop representing your employer and are allowed to be yourself? I know in your example you've used the company picnic, which ties back into your job, but lots of people have been fired for things they only do in their personal lives.
Well, it may seem unfair, but if your expression is tied to your employment or could conceivably be featured in a gawker/HuffPo blog post titled "DeebaserCo: is it a haven for _________?"
Yeah, but I'm talking about when my personal life and professional life are seperate, not when I'm stating "I work for X and think Y" in any manner.
Would you fire someone if you found out they were a KKK member, even if they never made any racist remarks or did anything else to seem racist while at work?
That would depend on a lot, such as how I came to learn this, the person's position in the company, the position's visibility, etc.
Well for learning this, we're just talking about a legal way of obtaining such information.
I can see how a position and it's visbility could have an effect, but only for positions where a person is supposed to be driving the image of the company. For example, a CEO. Such persons are the exception though. In general, though, I would think that you should treat a janitor or an executive the same with regards to such information.
I disagree, dude. It's not about punishing people for having views that you disagree with, it's about limiting the potential harm to the company.
If you find out that the janitor is a klan member through some legal means, you're certainly entitled to say "Yeah, well, it's his life, and he doesn't bring that shit in here, so whatevs. Rock on, shithead", but if the person is a manager it doesn't matter if they are a particularly visible manager, keeping that person on staff is a shitstorm waiting to happen.
Just imagine your picture in the Huffington Post because your company is being sued for discrimination and you knowingly continued to employ a racist.
It's not illegal to be racist. It's illegal to discriminate at work. Unless you have some proof that this person is discriminating, then he's done nothing wrong.
CEO contracts usually permit a for cause termination if the CEO engages in behavior that damages the finances or reputation of the company. The most common way that this type of thing gets tripped up is if the CEO is arrested for DUI or involved in some media scandal.
Right, and by setting up their employment contract in that manner, the CEO is agreeing to be liable for their behaviour when away from the office. And CEO's are compensated appropriately (at the very least) for having to have such restrictions.
Yeah, still don't think it's cool to fire someone for stuff they say outside the office, provided they make reasonable efforts to keep their private idiocy private.
Honestly, look around your office. Look at those people you work with. Odds are, every single one of them has at least one terrible opinion, one thing that, if you knew, you would think, "Wow, you're kind of an awful person." Or, if you're being more charitable: "You're a complete goddamn idiot." Maybe they did something really terrible when they were a kid. Maybe they have a political belief you find morally abhorrent. The more opinionated you are, the more likely a given person is going to be super-opinionated in the opposite direction.
That's why you don't bring this shit up at work. Because that stuff can get distracting. These people aren't your friends. You don't have a choice of whether or not to work with them. You are paid to deal with them, and they are paid to deal with you, starting and ending with how you do your job. Personal opinions? Yeah, if you're a professional grown-up person, that doesn't play into it. Shut up and do your job. You don't have to be everyone's buddy once you hit the parking lot, but you have to be everyone's partner before that point.
And there's reciprocity here. You agree not to let personal shit get in the way, and they agree not to bring it into the workplace. If it winds up in the workplace on accident? If you see someone at a political rally you find offensive, or you learn through the grapevine that they're into orgies, or you find out they support killing God's precious rape-fetuses? That's not their fault. The fact that you had no idea that Bob in accounting was really into Stormfront means that Bob in accounting was doing his job and not bringing personal stuff into the workplace. Good on Bob. Bob is a fucking asshole, but he's a fucking asshole who does his job.
As a coworker, you have a responsibility to get along with everyone else in your office. You have a responsibility to not let personal matters get in the way of doing your job. And every single word I just typed should apply just as much if you're in HR, or if you're the boss. You don't have to be super-nice to the horrible racist, but you have to be professional. And if he asks why you don't want to grab beers after work, politely inform him, "Because I saw you at that rally, Bob." Bam, problem solved, you're a professional.
In principle, I do agree with this. I think that if there is a person who leaves their personal views at home, and comes into the office and acts mechanically professional, it shouldn't matter what their personal views actually are. Regardless if it's their opinion on a given topic, some group they associate with, etc. If those actions - even outside and wholly unrelated to work - cross into criminal, that's a different story, but I can agree with you in principle.
However, even in a professional setting, there are so many ways that our personal opinions affect what we do in small ways that it's pretty much impossible to separate our personal and professional opinions. We see that in hiring - all things being equal, a person with a 'black' name is significantly less likely to get called in for an interview. Women are more likely to get smaller raises or passed over for promotions than a man.
For someone who just has a basic job to do - a system admin, machine operator, whatever...their personal views and opinions shouldn't matter as long as they keep them out of the office. They come in, punch a clock, get along, and leave. Most places aren't going to discipline them unless their personal opinions enter the workplace, be it interpersonal conflicts with another co-worker, promoting their (whatever) on company time, etc. Now, if they do publicize their views, they shouldn't expect to be given the benefit of the doubt if there is an issue either.
However, when someone enters management, works for human resources, is a public representative of the company, or is part of decisions like scheduling or team assignments that directly affect other people, and their individual judgement affects their co-workers salaries or the companies hiring practices, those personal views and opinions do become part of the corporate culture and identity. Even if it's only in a small or insidious way. Doing the right thing includes avoiding the appearance of doing the wrong thing.
I'll also say that I think there are different lines...for example, religion is a protected class, so someone's opinion (either way) on abortion shouldn't be relevant to discipline / firing. Medical procedures - like say an abortion? Those are explicitly private under HIPAA unless published / made public by the individual. Sexual orientation is protected in many states, and really should be a Federally protected class. Family status? Age? Also protected classes.
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association though? Absolutely support that. Doesn't mean you should have freedom from consequences of your speech or associations.
One of the problems, though, is that this makes it trivially easy to fire anyone at any time. Like I said, everyone is going to have some personal opinion or factor that someone else is going to think is terrible. So let's say I don't like you. No particular reason why, I just don't like you. I spend some time on Google and find out that you once posted something on a message board that could be maybe construed as racist if I squint at it really hard. Now I get to fire you for cause, right? Because we don't tolerate that behavior. Or maybe I find out that, ten years ago, you cheated on your girlfriend. We don't want to be associated with unfaithful guys, sorry.
There is no way to enforce a policy of "We can fire you for doing terrible things in your private life" that does not turn into "We can fire you for any reason at all and just make up some bullshit reason about how your behavior reflects poorly on our company." It also would completely invalidate the notion of protected classes. Right now, if you want to fire Ted for being black, you at least have to make up some bullshit papertrail to justify axing him. But now it's just, "Oh, Ted went to an Obama rally. I can't work anywhere with a Democrat. Fuck you, Ted."
This is exactly the point I'm trying to get people to realize. Now, I'm not only being held liable for the quality of my work, but also because I'm being held to some standard that is never clearly communicated.
If my employee had a tweet talking about how he scammed some sweet Nazi Memorabilla off a holocaust museum and that tweet was right before another one about how he had such a blast at the #DeebaserCO company picnic...
I would fire his ass so hard. If you can potentially cause your company embarassment by broadcasting your shitty views, keep them to your fucking self.
At what point do you stop representing your employer and are allowed to be yourself? I know in your example you've used the company picnic, which ties back into your job, but lots of people have been fired for things they only do in their personal lives.
Well, it may seem unfair, but if your expression is tied to your employment or could conceivably be featured in a gawker/HuffPo blog post titled "DeebaserCo: is it a haven for _________?"
Yeah, but I'm talking about when my personal life and professional life are seperate, not when I'm stating "I work for X and think Y" in any manner.
Would you fire someone if you found out they were a KKK member, even if they never made any racist remarks or did anything else to seem racist while at work?
That would depend on a lot, such as how I came to learn this, the person's position in the company, the position's visibility, etc.
Well for learning this, we're just talking about a legal way of obtaining such information.
I can see how a position and it's visbility could have an effect, but only for positions where a person is supposed to be driving the image of the company. For example, a CEO. Such persons are the exception though. In general, though, I would think that you should treat a janitor or an executive the same with regards to such information.
I disagree, dude. It's not about punishing people for having views that you disagree with, it's about limiting the potential harm to the company.
If you find out that the janitor is a klan member through some legal means, you're certainly entitled to say "Yeah, well, it's his life, and he doesn't bring that shit in here, so whatevs. Rock on, shithead", but if the person is a manager it doesn't matter if they are a particularly visible manager, keeping that person on staff is a shitstorm waiting to happen.
Just imagine your picture in the Huffington Post because your company is being sued for discrimination and you knowingly continued to employ a racist.
It's not illegal to be racist. It's illegal to discriminate at work. Unless you have some proof that this person is discriminating, then he's done nothing wrong.
CEO contracts usually permit a for cause termination if the CEO engages in behavior that damages the finances or reputation of the company. The most common way that this type of thing gets tripped up is if the CEO is arrested for DUI or involved in some media scandal.
Right, and by setting up their employment contract in that manner, the CEO is agreeing to be liable for their behaviour when away from the office. And CEO's are compensated appropriately (at the very least) for having to have such restrictions.
Yeah, still don't think it's cool to fire someone for stuff they say outside the office, provided they make reasonable efforts to keep their private idiocy private.
Honestly, look around your office. Look at those people you work with. Odds are, every single one of them has at least one terrible opinion, one thing that, if you knew, you would think, "Wow, you're kind of an awful person." Or, if you're being more charitable: "You're a complete goddamn idiot." Maybe they did something really terrible when they were a kid. Maybe they have a political belief you find morally abhorrent. The more opinionated you are, the more likely a given person is going to be super-opinionated in the opposite direction.
That's why you don't bring this shit up at work. Because that stuff can get distracting. These people aren't your friends. You don't have a choice of whether or not to work with them. You are paid to deal with them, and they are paid to deal with you, starting and ending with how you do your job. Personal opinions? Yeah, if you're a professional grown-up person, that doesn't play into it. Shut up and do your job. You don't have to be everyone's buddy once you hit the parking lot, but you have to be everyone's partner before that point.
And there's reciprocity here. You agree not to let personal shit get in the way, and they agree not to bring it into the workplace. If it winds up in the workplace on accident? If you see someone at a political rally you find offensive, or you learn through the grapevine that they're into orgies, or you find out they support killing God's precious rape-fetuses? That's not their fault. The fact that you had no idea that Bob in accounting was really into Stormfront means that Bob in accounting was doing his job and not bringing personal stuff into the workplace. Good on Bob. Bob is a fucking asshole, but he's a fucking asshole who does his job.
As a coworker, you have a responsibility to get along with everyone else in your office. You have a responsibility to not let personal matters get in the way of doing your job. And every single word I just typed should apply just as much if you're in HR, or if you're the boss. You don't have to be super-nice to the horrible racist, but you have to be professional. And if he asks why you don't want to grab beers after work, politely inform him, "Because I saw you at that rally, Bob." Bam, problem solved, you're a professional.
In principle, I do agree with this. I think that if there is a person who leaves their personal views at home, and comes into the office and acts mechanically professional, it shouldn't matter what their personal views actually are. Regardless if it's their opinion on a given topic, some group they associate with, etc. If those actions - even outside and wholly unrelated to work - cross into criminal, that's a different story, but I can agree with you in principle.
However, even in a professional setting, there are so many ways that our personal opinions affect what we do in small ways that it's pretty much impossible to separate our personal and professional opinions. We see that in hiring - all things being equal, a person with a 'black' name is significantly less likely to get called in for an interview. Women are more likely to get smaller raises or passed over for promotions than a man.
For someone who just has a basic job to do - a system admin, machine operator, whatever...their personal views and opinions shouldn't matter as long as they keep them out of the office. They come in, punch a clock, get along, and leave. Most places aren't going to discipline them unless their personal opinions enter the workplace, be it interpersonal conflicts with another co-worker, promoting their (whatever) on company time, etc. Now, if they do publicize their views, they shouldn't expect to be given the benefit of the doubt if there is an issue either.
However, when someone enters management, works for human resources, is a public representative of the company, or is part of decisions like scheduling or team assignments that directly affect other people, and their individual judgement affects their co-workers salaries or the companies hiring practices, those personal views and opinions do become part of the corporate culture and identity. Even if it's only in a small or insidious way. Doing the right thing includes avoiding the appearance of doing the wrong thing.
I'll also say that I think there are different lines...for example, religion is a protected class, so someone's opinion (either way) on abortion shouldn't be relevant to discipline / firing. Medical procedures - like say an abortion? Those are explicitly private under HIPAA unless published / made public by the individual. Sexual orientation is protected in many states, and really should be a Federally protected class. Family status? Age? Also protected classes.
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association though? Absolutely support that. Doesn't mean you should have freedom from consequences of your speech or associations.
One of the problems, though, is that this makes it trivially easy to fire anyone at any time. Like I said, everyone is going to have some personal opinion or factor that someone else is going to think is terrible. So let's say I don't like you. No particular reason why, I just don't like you. I spend some time on Google and find out that you once posted something on a message board that could be maybe construed as racist if I squint at it really hard. Now I get to fire you for cause, right? Because we don't tolerate that behavior. Or maybe I find out that, ten years ago, you cheated on your girlfriend. We don't want to be associated with unfaithful guys, sorry.
There is no way to enforce a policy of "We can fire you for doing terrible things in your private life" that does not turn into "We can fire you for any reason at all and just make up some bullshit reason about how your behavior reflects poorly on our company." It also would completely invalidate the notion of protected classes. Right now, if you want to fire Ted for being black, you at least have to make up some bullshit papertrail to justify axing him. But now it's just, "Oh, Ted went to an Obama rally. I can't work anywhere with a Democrat. Fuck you, Ted."
This is exactly the point I'm trying to get people to realize. Now, I'm not only being held liable for the quality of my work, but also because I'm being held to some standard that is never clearly communicated.
Obviously the company needs to make its policy with respect to statements made outside of work clear from the start. I'm not sure where people get this idea that this is something management should be able to invoke on a whim, without having any formal policies in place.
Also, I suspect that nobody believes that a company shouldn't be allowed to place any restrictions whatsoever on what employees can say or do when they aren't working. Are people bothered by the idea that companies can require that their employees not divulge confidential information? Should companies be prohibited from demanding that their employees not compete directly with the company while under the company's employ?
Normally I'm all about not letting companies dictate the behaviour of their employees outside of work. But these all seem like pretty reasonable and narrow exceptions.
Yeah, still don't think it's cool to fire someone for stuff they say outside the office, provided they make reasonable efforts to keep their private idiocy private.
Honestly, look around your office. Look at those people you work with. Odds are, every single one of them has at least one terrible opinion, one thing that, if you knew, you would think, "Wow, you're kind of an awful person." Or, if you're being more charitable: "You're a complete goddamn idiot." Maybe they did something really terrible when they were a kid. Maybe they have a political belief you find morally abhorrent. The more opinionated you are, the more likely a given person is going to be super-opinionated in the opposite direction.
That's why you don't bring this shit up at work. Because that stuff can get distracting. These people aren't your friends. You don't have a choice of whether or not to work with them. You are paid to deal with them, and they are paid to deal with you, starting and ending with how you do your job. Personal opinions? Yeah, if you're a professional grown-up person, that doesn't play into it. Shut up and do your job. You don't have to be everyone's buddy once you hit the parking lot, but you have to be everyone's partner before that point.
And there's reciprocity here. You agree not to let personal shit get in the way, and they agree not to bring it into the workplace. If it winds up in the workplace on accident? If you see someone at a political rally you find offensive, or you learn through the grapevine that they're into orgies, or you find out they support killing God's precious rape-fetuses? That's not their fault. The fact that you had no idea that Bob in accounting was really into Stormfront means that Bob in accounting was doing his job and not bringing personal stuff into the workplace. Good on Bob. Bob is a fucking asshole, but he's a fucking asshole who does his job.
As a coworker, you have a responsibility to get along with everyone else in your office. You have a responsibility to not let personal matters get in the way of doing your job. And every single word I just typed should apply just as much if you're in HR, or if you're the boss. You don't have to be super-nice to the horrible racist, but you have to be professional. And if he asks why you don't want to grab beers after work, politely inform him, "Because I saw you at that rally, Bob." Bam, problem solved, you're a professional.
In principle, I do agree with this. I think that if there is a person who leaves their personal views at home, and comes into the office and acts mechanically professional, it shouldn't matter what their personal views actually are. Regardless if it's their opinion on a given topic, some group they associate with, etc. If those actions - even outside and wholly unrelated to work - cross into criminal, that's a different story, but I can agree with you in principle.
However, even in a professional setting, there are so many ways that our personal opinions affect what we do in small ways that it's pretty much impossible to separate our personal and professional opinions. We see that in hiring - all things being equal, a person with a 'black' name is significantly less likely to get called in for an interview. Women are more likely to get smaller raises or passed over for promotions than a man.
For someone who just has a basic job to do - a system admin, machine operator, whatever...their personal views and opinions shouldn't matter as long as they keep them out of the office. They come in, punch a clock, get along, and leave. Most places aren't going to discipline them unless their personal opinions enter the workplace, be it interpersonal conflicts with another co-worker, promoting their (whatever) on company time, etc. Now, if they do publicize their views, they shouldn't expect to be given the benefit of the doubt if there is an issue either.
However, when someone enters management, works for human resources, is a public representative of the company, or is part of decisions like scheduling or team assignments that directly affect other people, and their individual judgement affects their co-workers salaries or the companies hiring practices, those personal views and opinions do become part of the corporate culture and identity. Even if it's only in a small or insidious way. Doing the right thing includes avoiding the appearance of doing the wrong thing.
I'll also say that I think there are different lines...for example, religion is a protected class, so someone's opinion (either way) on abortion shouldn't be relevant to discipline / firing. Medical procedures - like say an abortion? Those are explicitly private under HIPAA unless published / made public by the individual. Sexual orientation is protected in many states, and really should be a Federally protected class. Family status? Age? Also protected classes.
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association though? Absolutely support that. Doesn't mean you should have freedom from consequences of your speech or associations.
One of the problems, though, is that this makes it trivially easy to fire anyone at any time. Like I said, everyone is going to have some personal opinion or factor that someone else is going to think is terrible. So let's say I don't like you. No particular reason why, I just don't like you. I spend some time on Google and find out that you once posted something on a message board that could be maybe construed as racist if I squint at it really hard. Now I get to fire you for cause, right? Because we don't tolerate that behavior. Or maybe I find out that, ten years ago, you cheated on your girlfriend. We don't want to be associated with unfaithful guys, sorry.
There is no way to enforce a policy of "We can fire you for doing terrible things in your private life" that does not turn into "We can fire you for any reason at all and just make up some bullshit reason about how your behavior reflects poorly on our company." It also would completely invalidate the notion of protected classes. Right now, if you want to fire Ted for being black, you at least have to make up some bullshit papertrail to justify axing him. But now it's just, "Oh, Ted went to an Obama rally. I can't work anywhere with a Democrat. Fuck you, Ted."
Well, ignoring the whole 'at-will employment' culture where it's already trivially easy to fire someone at any time...
As long as the policy is laid out and employed in a consistent and non-discriminatory fashion? I'm not sure what the problem is.
I think we'll agree that there are cases where a conduct clause is necessary. If the CEO of Coke is posting on his Facebook 'Coke tastes like shit, I only drink Pepsi', I don't think it's controversial to fire him. But - if Coke gives the CEO a pass for that, and then fires the black truck driver because he drank a Pepsi, that truck driver would have a legitimate case for wrongful termination.
I don't think there are hard and fast rules that can apply to every situation and every company. I think that most speech should be protected, but I really don't feel that people who publish hateful and inflammatory comments deserve protection from the consequences of their speech.
I am actually a little bit shocked. Don't you believe in employee rights at all?
That's an awfully loaded question. I for one believe in employee rights, but I disagree with you with respect to how far you think they should extend.
Sure, sorry. I know you guys believe in rights of protected classes or whatever the expression is, and I'm sure you believe in some basic rights.
But the right to just speak freely when I'm not at work seems so basic! I don't understand how you can have the 1st Amendment saying the government shouldn't limit speech at all, and then be comfortable with draconian limitations from your employer. Those seem to be incompatible things to accept.
I don't really see it as Draconian. Okay, I'm not saying that it's totally cool for your company to term you for writing "BATTLE STAR GALACTICA IS BETTER THAN STAR WARS, YOU DOUCHENOZZLE" on some random message board. You have the right to do that. However, I believe you also have the responsibility to not put your employer in a bad spot.
If you say something on your facebook wall that's suspect and you have it set to private, exclude coworkers, and don't mention where you work, there is probably no way what you say as a regular person will ever rise to the level of "this guy's gotta go"
However, if you put the same suspect comment on your LinkedIn page it's a bit worse imo, because where you work is a much larger part of your identity on that site. Even though you're doing it in your private time, you're a little bit more connected to work even if you aren't an official representative of the company.
way back in the day of usenet, some dick found some political posts I had put up, traced my IP & email, and sent complaints to my employer, which was a large national laboratory.
the sysadmin who received the stuff knew me and binned the complaints, but it could have gotten me in trouble in spite of the fact that the political opinions were pretty mainstream left-wing stuff, since this guy was claiming that my DOE email address/ IP meant that the DOE was endorsing political positions.
I certainly think that's BS, and the sysadmin who helped you out did the right thing...and even if he didn't the right thing for your bosses / superiors to do would be to tell the guy to piss up a rope.
That said - and I'm playing the devil's advocate here - there is a risk that you take when you post an opinion using your work address and company resources. I'm not positive on the Federal law, but here in Michigan using public resources - like e-mail or a computer, regardless if it's on your own time, to promote a candidate or ballot initiative is against the law. Technically, if last November I'd come into the forum from work and posted in the election thread 'Go vote for Obama', I could have been fired and prosecuted. It's unbelievably unlikely that it would happen, but it's possible.
If I were to send a letter into the editor and reference my title here at the university, it's policy that I must include a disclaimer that my title is included for identification purposes only, and not an indication the university endorses or supports my position.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
If my employee had a tweet talking about how he scammed some sweet Nazi Memorabilla off a holocaust museum and that tweet was right before another one about how he had such a blast at the #DeebaserCO company picnic...
I would fire his ass so hard. If you can potentially cause your company embarassment by broadcasting your shitty views, keep them to your fucking self.
At what point do you stop representing your employer and are allowed to be yourself? I know in your example you've used the company picnic, which ties back into your job, but lots of people have been fired for things they only do in their personal lives.
Well, it may seem unfair, but if your expression is tied to your employment or could conceivably be featured in a gawker/HuffPo blog post titled "DeebaserCo: is it a haven for _________?"
Yeah, but I'm talking about when my personal life and professional life are seperate, not when I'm stating "I work for X and think Y" in any manner.
Would you fire someone if you found out they were a KKK member, even if they never made any racist remarks or did anything else to seem racist while at work?
That would depend on a lot, such as how I came to learn this, the person's position in the company, the position's visibility, etc.
Well for learning this, we're just talking about a legal way of obtaining such information.
I can see how a position and it's visbility could have an effect, but only for positions where a person is supposed to be driving the image of the company. For example, a CEO. Such persons are the exception though. In general, though, I would think that you should treat a janitor or an executive the same with regards to such information.
I disagree, dude. It's not about punishing people for having views that you disagree with, it's about limiting the potential harm to the company.
If you find out that the janitor is a klan member through some legal means, you're certainly entitled to say "Yeah, well, it's his life, and he doesn't bring that shit in here, so whatevs. Rock on, shithead", but if the person is a manager it doesn't matter if they are a particularly visible manager, keeping that person on staff is a shitstorm waiting to happen.
Just imagine your picture in the Huffington Post because your company is being sued for discrimination and you knowingly continued to employ a racist.
It's not illegal to be racist. It's illegal to discriminate at work. Unless you have some proof that this person is discriminating, then he's done nothing wrong.
You can fire people for things that aren't illegal without any proof whatsoever.
In the above example, you have a manager working for you who is affiliated with the KKK. How fired do you think you will be when the company is sued and you tell the higher ups "It's not illegal to be racist and I didn't have proof that this person was discriminating"
If my employee had a tweet talking about how he scammed some sweet Nazi Memorabilla off a holocaust museum and that tweet was right before another one about how he had such a blast at the #DeebaserCO company picnic...
I would fire his ass so hard. If you can potentially cause your company embarassment by broadcasting your shitty views, keep them to your fucking self.
At what point do you stop representing your employer and are allowed to be yourself? I know in your example you've used the company picnic, which ties back into your job, but lots of people have been fired for things they only do in their personal lives.
Well, it may seem unfair, but if your expression is tied to your employment or could conceivably be featured in a gawker/HuffPo blog post titled "DeebaserCo: is it a haven for _________?"
Yeah, but I'm talking about when my personal life and professional life are seperate, not when I'm stating "I work for X and think Y" in any manner.
Would you fire someone if you found out they were a KKK member, even if they never made any racist remarks or did anything else to seem racist while at work?
That would depend on a lot, such as how I came to learn this, the person's position in the company, the position's visibility, etc.
Well for learning this, we're just talking about a legal way of obtaining such information.
I can see how a position and it's visbility could have an effect, but only for positions where a person is supposed to be driving the image of the company. For example, a CEO. Such persons are the exception though. In general, though, I would think that you should treat a janitor or an executive the same with regards to such information.
I disagree, dude. It's not about punishing people for having views that you disagree with, it's about limiting the potential harm to the company.
If you find out that the janitor is a klan member through some legal means, you're certainly entitled to say "Yeah, well, it's his life, and he doesn't bring that shit in here, so whatevs. Rock on, shithead", but if the person is a manager it doesn't matter if they are a particularly visible manager, keeping that person on staff is a shitstorm waiting to happen.
Just imagine your picture in the Huffington Post because your company is being sued for discrimination and you knowingly continued to employ a racist.
It's not illegal to be racist. It's illegal to discriminate at work. Unless you have some proof that this person is discriminating, then he's done nothing wrong.
You can fire people for things that aren't illegal without any proof whatsoever.
In the above example, you have a manager working for you who is affiliated with the KKK. How fired do you think you will be when the company is sued and you tell the higher ups "It's not illegal to be racist and I didn't have proof that this person was discriminating"
Extremely fired. Like, out-of-a-cannon-fired.
And now you may have grounds for a wrongful termination suit, depending on your local laws and employment policies of the company.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I am actually a little bit shocked. Don't you believe in employee rights at all?
That's an awfully loaded question. I for one believe in employee rights, but I disagree with you with respect to how far you think they should extend.
Sure, sorry. I know you guys believe in rights of protected classes or whatever the expression is, and I'm sure you believe in some basic rights.
But the right to just speak freely when I'm not at work seems so basic! I don't understand how you can have the 1st Amendment saying the government shouldn't limit speech at all, and then be comfortable with draconian limitations from your employer. Those seem to be incompatible things to accept.
I don't really see it as Draconian. Okay, I'm not saying that it's totally cool for your company to term you for writing "BATTLE STAR GALACTICA IS BETTER THAN STAR WARS, YOU DOUCHENOZZLE" on some random message board. You have the right to do that. However, I believe you also have the responsibility to not put your employer in a bad spot.
If you say something on your facebook wall that's suspect and you have it set to private, exclude coworkers, and don't mention where you work, there is probably no way what you say as a regular person will ever rise to the level of "this guy's gotta go"
However, if you put the same suspect comment on your LinkedIn page it's a bit worse imo, because where you work is a much larger part of your identity on that site. Even though you're doing it in your private time, you're a little bit more connected to work even if you aren't an official representative of the company.
way back in the day of usenet, some dick found some political posts I had put up, traced my IP & email, and sent complaints to my employer, which was a large national laboratory.
the sysadmin who received the stuff knew me and binned the complaints, but it could have gotten me in trouble in spite of the fact that the political opinions were pretty mainstream left-wing stuff, since this guy was claiming that my DOE email address/ IP meant that the DOE was endorsing political positions.
I certainly think that's BS, and the sysadmin who helped you out did the right thing...and even if he didn't the right thing for your bosses / superiors to do would be to tell the guy to piss up a rope.
That said - and I'm playing the devil's advocate here - there is a risk that you take when you post an opinion using your work address and company resources. I'm not positive on the Federal law, but here in Michigan using public resources - like e-mail or a computer, regardless if it's on your own time, to promote a candidate or ballot initiative is against the law. Technically, if last November I'd come into the forum from work and posted in the election thread 'Go vote for Obama', I could have been fired and prosecuted. It's unbelievably unlikely that it would happen, but it's possible.
If I were to send a letter into the editor and reference my title here at the university, it's policy that I must include a disclaimer that my title is included for identification purposes only, and not an indication the university endorses or supports my position.
right, i mean, it was certainly stupid by modern standards to use my work email address and post in such a way that my IP was available to busybodies. It was like 1994 or so, though, so a lot of things that seem obvious now just weren't all that well established.
I had a security clearance that was required for my job, and that's yet another dimension on this, though i guess not terribly topical to this thread.
But yeah your point is well-taken. Government employees seem to be held to a pretty high standard for this sort of thing.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
If my employee had a tweet talking about how he scammed some sweet Nazi Memorabilla off a holocaust museum and that tweet was right before another one about how he had such a blast at the #DeebaserCO company picnic...
I would fire his ass so hard. If you can potentially cause your company embarassment by broadcasting your shitty views, keep them to your fucking self.
At what point do you stop representing your employer and are allowed to be yourself? I know in your example you've used the company picnic, which ties back into your job, but lots of people have been fired for things they only do in their personal lives.
Well, it may seem unfair, but if your expression is tied to your employment or could conceivably be featured in a gawker/HuffPo blog post titled "DeebaserCo: is it a haven for _________?"
Yeah, but I'm talking about when my personal life and professional life are seperate, not when I'm stating "I work for X and think Y" in any manner.
Would you fire someone if you found out they were a KKK member, even if they never made any racist remarks or did anything else to seem racist while at work?
That would depend on a lot, such as how I came to learn this, the person's position in the company, the position's visibility, etc.
Well for learning this, we're just talking about a legal way of obtaining such information.
I can see how a position and it's visbility could have an effect, but only for positions where a person is supposed to be driving the image of the company. For example, a CEO. Such persons are the exception though. In general, though, I would think that you should treat a janitor or an executive the same with regards to such information.
I disagree, dude. It's not about punishing people for having views that you disagree with, it's about limiting the potential harm to the company.
If you find out that the janitor is a klan member through some legal means, you're certainly entitled to say "Yeah, well, it's his life, and he doesn't bring that shit in here, so whatevs. Rock on, shithead", but if the person is a manager it doesn't matter if they are a particularly visible manager, keeping that person on staff is a shitstorm waiting to happen.
Just imagine your picture in the Huffington Post because your company is being sued for discrimination and you knowingly continued to employ a racist.
It's not illegal to be racist. It's illegal to discriminate at work. Unless you have some proof that this person is discriminating, then he's done nothing wrong.
You can fire people for things that aren't illegal without any proof whatsoever.
In the above example, you have a manager working for you who is affiliated with the KKK. How fired do you think you will be when the company is sued and you tell the higher ups "It's not illegal to be racist and I didn't have proof that this person was discriminating"
Extremely fired. Like, out-of-a-cannon-fired.
And now you may have grounds for a wrongful termination suit, depending on your local laws and employment policies of the company.
If a company wishes to censor/moderate my views/thoughts/utterances outside of work time, they'll need to have outlined this clearly on the the work contract I signed when I got the job, or they'll need to pay me my wages 24/7 to have any right to demand company behavior from me outside working time.
Obviously this isn't necessary for cases libel or slander. Outside of them however, the company taking such a great interest in my private time would come across as extremely controlling, if not downright creepy. I don't see how a company should have any right for such arbitrary enforcement of poorly defined requirements unless outlined in a contract.
Obviously the requirement that I don't publicly associate the company with issues clearly damaging to the company as an employee shouldn't be a question. Company representatives combing through my private matters and terminating my employment over things they don't like would be a brilliant justification for a suit over wrongful termination of employment however.
Yeah, still don't think it's cool to fire someone for stuff they say outside the office, provided they make reasonable efforts to keep their private idiocy private.
Honestly, look around your office. Look at those people you work with. Odds are, every single one of them has at least one terrible opinion, one thing that, if you knew, you would think, "Wow, you're kind of an awful person." Or, if you're being more charitable: "You're a complete goddamn idiot." Maybe they did something really terrible when they were a kid. Maybe they have a political belief you find morally abhorrent. The more opinionated you are, the more likely a given person is going to be super-opinionated in the opposite direction.
That's why you don't bring this shit up at work. Because that stuff can get distracting. These people aren't your friends. You don't have a choice of whether or not to work with them. You are paid to deal with them, and they are paid to deal with you, starting and ending with how you do your job. Personal opinions? Yeah, if you're a professional grown-up person, that doesn't play into it. Shut up and do your job. You don't have to be everyone's buddy once you hit the parking lot, but you have to be everyone's partner before that point.
And there's reciprocity here. You agree not to let personal shit get in the way, and they agree not to bring it into the workplace. If it winds up in the workplace on accident? If you see someone at a political rally you find offensive, or you learn through the grapevine that they're into orgies, or you find out they support killing God's precious rape-fetuses? That's not their fault. The fact that you had no idea that Bob in accounting was really into Stormfront means that Bob in accounting was doing his job and not bringing personal stuff into the workplace. Good on Bob. Bob is a fucking asshole, but he's a fucking asshole who does his job.
As a coworker, you have a responsibility to get along with everyone else in your office. You have a responsibility to not let personal matters get in the way of doing your job. And every single word I just typed should apply just as much if you're in HR, or if you're the boss. You don't have to be super-nice to the horrible racist, but you have to be professional. And if he asks why you don't want to grab beers after work, politely inform him, "Because I saw you at that rally, Bob." Bam, problem solved, you're a professional.
In principle, I do agree with this. I think that if there is a person who leaves their personal views at home, and comes into the office and acts mechanically professional, it shouldn't matter what their personal views actually are. Regardless if it's their opinion on a given topic, some group they associate with, etc. If those actions - even outside and wholly unrelated to work - cross into criminal, that's a different story, but I can agree with you in principle.
However, even in a professional setting, there are so many ways that our personal opinions affect what we do in small ways that it's pretty much impossible to separate our personal and professional opinions. We see that in hiring - all things being equal, a person with a 'black' name is significantly less likely to get called in for an interview. Women are more likely to get smaller raises or passed over for promotions than a man.
For someone who just has a basic job to do - a system admin, machine operator, whatever...their personal views and opinions shouldn't matter as long as they keep them out of the office. They come in, punch a clock, get along, and leave. Most places aren't going to discipline them unless their personal opinions enter the workplace, be it interpersonal conflicts with another co-worker, promoting their (whatever) on company time, etc. Now, if they do publicize their views, they shouldn't expect to be given the benefit of the doubt if there is an issue either.
However, when someone enters management, works for human resources, is a public representative of the company, or is part of decisions like scheduling or team assignments that directly affect other people, and their individual judgement affects their co-workers salaries or the companies hiring practices, those personal views and opinions do become part of the corporate culture and identity. Even if it's only in a small or insidious way. Doing the right thing includes avoiding the appearance of doing the wrong thing.
I'll also say that I think there are different lines...for example, religion is a protected class, so someone's opinion (either way) on abortion shouldn't be relevant to discipline / firing. Medical procedures - like say an abortion? Those are explicitly private under HIPAA unless published / made public by the individual. Sexual orientation is protected in many states, and really should be a Federally protected class. Family status? Age? Also protected classes.
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association though? Absolutely support that. Doesn't mean you should have freedom from consequences of your speech or associations.
One of the problems, though, is that this makes it trivially easy to fire anyone at any time. Like I said, everyone is going to have some personal opinion or factor that someone else is going to think is terrible. So let's say I don't like you. No particular reason why, I just don't like you. I spend some time on Google and find out that you once posted something on a message board that could be maybe construed as racist if I squint at it really hard. Now I get to fire you for cause, right? Because we don't tolerate that behavior. Or maybe I find out that, ten years ago, you cheated on your girlfriend. We don't want to be associated with unfaithful guys, sorry.
There is no way to enforce a policy of "We can fire you for doing terrible things in your private life" that does not turn into "We can fire you for any reason at all and just make up some bullshit reason about how your behavior reflects poorly on our company." It also would completely invalidate the notion of protected classes. Right now, if you want to fire Ted for being black, you at least have to make up some bullshit papertrail to justify axing him. But now it's just, "Oh, Ted went to an Obama rally. I can't work anywhere with a Democrat. Fuck you, Ted."
"We can fire you for doing terrible things in your private life" is not really what anyone is talking about, I don't think. I mean, you can certainly oversimplify it to that, and when you put it that way it sure sounds dumb and awful, but I would hope that you give folks here enough credit to think that they probably mean something a little more nuanced. I mean, you'll note that the examples people have used are pretty specific, and seem to pick out a fairly narrow range if inappropriate behaviours. It really isn't a "you made someone mad, now you're fired" kind of thing.
My point was that it's very difficult to draw a line between "we can fire you for being a KKK member" and "we can fire you for <random bad opinion voiced somewhere at some point>." Further, if we allow the latter, it can easily be stretched to "we can fire you because we just don't like you and decided to snoop into your personal life to dredge up some bullshit objectionable thing you once did."
Now, all of this is a bit of a moot point since, as you mention, you're fucked if you live in an at-will state, anyway. It's still a very worrisome trend.
I'm sympathetic to the notion of someone's bad opinions being seen as being somehow endorsed by the company in certain very limited circumstances. Like, you are the PR spokesperson and you're a KKK member, or something. I wouldn't object to that sort of thing too hard.
But it's something that is problematic if it becomes the new normal. Do you really want to be professionally constrained by the worst thing you've ever said cast in the worst possible light? Because this thing where companies do in-depth searches on prospective employees before they hire them, or hold people responsible for things they do more or less discreetly in their own time, that's kind of where it's headed.
I support disciplining employees for things they do in their own time that negatively impact the company in a very distinct and tangible way. I don't support doing so because an employee said or did something that could kinda-sorta maybe affect something in the odd event that it ever got out, or something that could hypothetically create a hostile work environment if you start blabbing about it everywhere. Establish demonstrable harm, or just leave it alone.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+1
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
But it's something that is problematic if it becomes the new normal. Do you really want to be professionally constrained by the worst thing you've ever said cast in the worst possible light? Because this thing where companies do in-depth searches on prospective employees before they hire them, or hold people responsible for things they do more or less discreetly in their own time, that's kind of where it's headed.
It already is. It's about as common and natural for me to google someone I am about to meet for the first time as it is to yelp a restaurant I am thinking about checking out.
Hell, I had an interview last week for a volunteer position and I walked in there already knowing the interviewer's resumes courtesy of LinkedIn. You are free to call that creeping, but I prefer to think of it as asymmtrical information rebalancing.
A problem that can occur is when the 'stuff posted on social media' and the workplace coincide.
Obviously it's unlikely that anyone gives a shit that you disliked the choice of burgers at the recent company picnic, but over the years I've seen a lot of people say and do things that were incredibly irresponsible. It's one thing to complain about a shitty work day, it's another to go off on a long rant about particular crew members or conditions that could be misconstrued. It's one thing to have pics from a weekend get together for some of the closer crew members sharing beers and putting each other in compromising situations, it's another to take pictures that make it look like the entire security department sleeps the overnight shift away.
I do agree that a company should not be able to hold against me things that are entirely separate from my work life. If I'm into video games and the animays and getting wasted every friday night, barring an interest in my liver function, as long as I'm perfectly productive (within their expected limits) monday to friday, 9 to 5, they can fuck off.
But when those free spirited hobbies, actions and postings begin to risk smearing the reputation of a multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation, I can see where they might take interest.
It's a fine line to walk, and I've seen things come to light in the past that I immediately thought were stupid ideas from the start. Sometimes it was far enough to be used directly as grounds for dismissal, sometimes it was simply added to the pile and pink slip paperwork was generated for other reasons that might've been grey areas, but this pushed that individual's behaviour far enough over the line to be worth dealing with before anything worse happened.
And I can only imagine as social media advances and generations who've grown up in that world, it's going to become a more widespread issue, with uses and abuses alike.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
But it's something that is problematic if it becomes the new normal. Do you really want to be professionally constrained by the worst thing you've ever said cast in the worst possible light? Because this thing where companies do in-depth searches on prospective employees before they hire them, or hold people responsible for things they do more or less discreetly in their own time, that's kind of where it's headed.
It already is. It's about as common and natural for me to google someone I am about to meet for the first time as it is to yelp a restaurant I am thinking about checking out.
Hell, I had an interview last week for a volunteer position and I walked in there already knowing the interviewer's resumes courtesy of LinkedIn. You are free to call that creeping, but I prefer to think of it as asymmtrical information rebalancing.
But it's something that is problematic if it becomes the new normal. Do you really want to be professionally constrained by the worst thing you've ever said cast in the worst possible light? Because this thing where companies do in-depth searches on prospective employees before they hire them, or hold people responsible for things they do more or less discreetly in their own time, that's kind of where it's headed.
It already is. It's about as common and natural for me to google someone I am about to meet for the first time as it is to yelp a restaurant I am thinking about checking out.
Hell, I had an interview last week for a volunteer position and I walked in there already knowing the interviewer's resumes courtesy of LinkedIn. You are free to call that creeping, but I prefer to think of it as asymmtrical information rebalancing.
Asymm(e)trical information rebalancing is the new PC term for stalking.
And I can't get this image out of my head with @Deebaser as a villian, where someone under his thumb threatens to blackmail him to get out from under his power, and he starts telling them about their family and other personal information.
I don't think there are hard and fast rules that can apply to every situation and every company. I think that most speech should be protected, but I really don't feel that people who publish hateful and inflammatory comments deserve protection from the consequences of their speech.
So if we get a world where every job does this, where you can't put food on the table unless you censor every offensive comment or unpopular opinion, how is that any different from a world in which government punishes speech it deems offensive? It's the same result - express only opinions the community approves of, or you aren't allowed to live in society.
Also, bear in mind that when Reddit or the internet lynch mob of your choice picks out a comment from someone they deem "offensive", one of the first things they often do is track down the person's personal info and try to make their words a PR problem for whatever company they work at. Assuming that most individuals have at least one unpopular opinion, doesn't that create a situation where Reddit can basically get almost any individual fired by making their unpopular opinions public and associating it with bad PR for the company?
And if the solution to that is "Don't say things that might piss off internet lynch mobs"...well, that's a pretty big restriction on free speech, isn't it?
+8
Options
Clown ShoesGive me hay or give me death.Registered Userregular
Hell, I had an interview last week for a volunteer position and I walked in there already knowing the interviewer's resumes courtesy of LinkedIn. You are free to call that creeping, but I prefer to think of it as asymmtrical information rebalancing.
I'd call it interview preparation.
Finding out about the people you'll be working with if you pass the interview shows that you're serious about the position and it can't hurt to flatter the interviewer by showing that you've read up on their work.
Also, there is a big difference between checking out someone's profile on LinkedIn, which is specifically designed to share professional connections, and checking out someone's private Facebook account, or hunting down their presence on a random internet forum.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
way back in the day of usenet, some dick found some political posts I had put up, traced my IP & email, and sent complaints to my employer, which was a large national laboratory.
the sysadmin who received the stuff knew me and binned the complaints, but it could have gotten me in trouble in spite of the fact that the political opinions were pretty mainstream left-wing stuff, since this guy was claiming that my DOE email address/ IP meant that the DOE was endorsing political positions.
Yeah, I suppose they could have fired you on the word of a lonely internet detective, but they could fire you because they want to turn your office into a storage room. It really isn't the same as broadcasting your views in your name and actively tying your company to you even passively through your "about me".
"We can fire you for doing terrible things in your private life" is not really what anyone is talking about, I don't think. I mean, you can certainly oversimplify it to that, and when you put it that way it sure sounds dumb and awful, but I would hope that you give folks here enough credit to think that they probably mean something a little more nuanced. I mean, you'll note that the examples people have used are pretty specific, and seem to pick out a fairly narrow range if inappropriate behaviours. It really isn't a "you made someone mad, now you're fired" kind of thing.
It's not illegal to be racist. It's illegal to discriminate at work. Unless you have some proof that this person is discriminating, then he's done nothing wrong.
Right, and by setting up their employment contract in that manner, the CEO is agreeing to be liable for their behaviour when away from the office. And CEO's are compensated appropriately (at the very least) for having to have such restrictions.
This is exactly the point I'm trying to get people to realize. Now, I'm not only being held liable for the quality of my work, but also because I'm being held to some standard that is never clearly communicated.
Obviously the company needs to make its policy with respect to statements made outside of work clear from the start. I'm not sure where people get this idea that this is something management should be able to invoke on a whim, without having any formal policies in place.
Normally I'm all about not letting companies dictate the behaviour of their employees outside of work. But these all seem like pretty reasonable and narrow exceptions.
Well, ignoring the whole 'at-will employment' culture where it's already trivially easy to fire someone at any time...
As long as the policy is laid out and employed in a consistent and non-discriminatory fashion? I'm not sure what the problem is.
I think we'll agree that there are cases where a conduct clause is necessary. If the CEO of Coke is posting on his Facebook 'Coke tastes like shit, I only drink Pepsi', I don't think it's controversial to fire him. But - if Coke gives the CEO a pass for that, and then fires the black truck driver because he drank a Pepsi, that truck driver would have a legitimate case for wrongful termination.
I don't think there are hard and fast rules that can apply to every situation and every company. I think that most speech should be protected, but I really don't feel that people who publish hateful and inflammatory comments deserve protection from the consequences of their speech.
I certainly think that's BS, and the sysadmin who helped you out did the right thing...and even if he didn't the right thing for your bosses / superiors to do would be to tell the guy to piss up a rope.
That said - and I'm playing the devil's advocate here - there is a risk that you take when you post an opinion using your work address and company resources. I'm not positive on the Federal law, but here in Michigan using public resources - like e-mail or a computer, regardless if it's on your own time, to promote a candidate or ballot initiative is against the law. Technically, if last November I'd come into the forum from work and posted in the election thread 'Go vote for Obama', I could have been fired and prosecuted. It's unbelievably unlikely that it would happen, but it's possible.
If I were to send a letter into the editor and reference my title here at the university, it's policy that I must include a disclaimer that my title is included for identification purposes only, and not an indication the university endorses or supports my position.
You can fire people for things that aren't illegal without any proof whatsoever.
In the above example, you have a manager working for you who is affiliated with the KKK. How fired do you think you will be when the company is sued and you tell the higher ups "It's not illegal to be racist and I didn't have proof that this person was discriminating"
And now you may have grounds for a wrongful termination suit, depending on your local laws and employment policies of the company.
right, i mean, it was certainly stupid by modern standards to use my work email address and post in such a way that my IP was available to busybodies. It was like 1994 or so, though, so a lot of things that seem obvious now just weren't all that well established.
I had a security clearance that was required for my job, and that's yet another dimension on this, though i guess not terribly topical to this thread.
But yeah your point is well-taken. Government employees seem to be held to a pretty high standard for this sort of thing.
Depends if it's a Edit: at will state.
Thanks, dee.
Obviously this isn't necessary for cases libel or slander. Outside of them however, the company taking such a great interest in my private time would come across as extremely controlling, if not downright creepy. I don't see how a company should have any right for such arbitrary enforcement of poorly defined requirements unless outlined in a contract.
Obviously the requirement that I don't publicly associate the company with issues clearly damaging to the company as an employee shouldn't be a question. Company representatives combing through my private matters and terminating my employment over things they don't like would be a brilliant justification for a suit over wrongful termination of employment however.
My point was that it's very difficult to draw a line between "we can fire you for being a KKK member" and "we can fire you for <random bad opinion voiced somewhere at some point>." Further, if we allow the latter, it can easily be stretched to "we can fire you because we just don't like you and decided to snoop into your personal life to dredge up some bullshit objectionable thing you once did."
Now, all of this is a bit of a moot point since, as you mention, you're fucked if you live in an at-will state, anyway. It's still a very worrisome trend.
I'm sympathetic to the notion of someone's bad opinions being seen as being somehow endorsed by the company in certain very limited circumstances. Like, you are the PR spokesperson and you're a KKK member, or something. I wouldn't object to that sort of thing too hard.
But it's something that is problematic if it becomes the new normal. Do you really want to be professionally constrained by the worst thing you've ever said cast in the worst possible light? Because this thing where companies do in-depth searches on prospective employees before they hire them, or hold people responsible for things they do more or less discreetly in their own time, that's kind of where it's headed.
I support disciplining employees for things they do in their own time that negatively impact the company in a very distinct and tangible way. I don't support doing so because an employee said or did something that could kinda-sorta maybe affect something in the odd event that it ever got out, or something that could hypothetically create a hostile work environment if you start blabbing about it everywhere. Establish demonstrable harm, or just leave it alone.
It already is. It's about as common and natural for me to google someone I am about to meet for the first time as it is to yelp a restaurant I am thinking about checking out.
Hell, I had an interview last week for a volunteer position and I walked in there already knowing the interviewer's resumes courtesy of LinkedIn. You are free to call that creeping, but I prefer to think of it as asymmtrical information rebalancing.
Obviously it's unlikely that anyone gives a shit that you disliked the choice of burgers at the recent company picnic, but over the years I've seen a lot of people say and do things that were incredibly irresponsible. It's one thing to complain about a shitty work day, it's another to go off on a long rant about particular crew members or conditions that could be misconstrued. It's one thing to have pics from a weekend get together for some of the closer crew members sharing beers and putting each other in compromising situations, it's another to take pictures that make it look like the entire security department sleeps the overnight shift away.
I do agree that a company should not be able to hold against me things that are entirely separate from my work life. If I'm into video games and the animays and getting wasted every friday night, barring an interest in my liver function, as long as I'm perfectly productive (within their expected limits) monday to friday, 9 to 5, they can fuck off.
But when those free spirited hobbies, actions and postings begin to risk smearing the reputation of a multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation, I can see where they might take interest.
It's a fine line to walk, and I've seen things come to light in the past that I immediately thought were stupid ideas from the start. Sometimes it was far enough to be used directly as grounds for dismissal, sometimes it was simply added to the pile and pink slip paperwork was generated for other reasons that might've been grey areas, but this pushed that individual's behaviour far enough over the line to be worth dealing with before anything worse happened.
And I can only imagine as social media advances and generations who've grown up in that world, it's going to become a more widespread issue, with uses and abuses alike.
hey that's what i told the judge
Asymm(e)trical information rebalancing is the new PC term for stalking.
And I can't get this image out of my head with @Deebaser as a villian, where someone under his thumb threatens to blackmail him to get out from under his power, and he starts telling them about their family and other personal information.
So if we get a world where every job does this, where you can't put food on the table unless you censor every offensive comment or unpopular opinion, how is that any different from a world in which government punishes speech it deems offensive? It's the same result - express only opinions the community approves of, or you aren't allowed to live in society.
Also, bear in mind that when Reddit or the internet lynch mob of your choice picks out a comment from someone they deem "offensive", one of the first things they often do is track down the person's personal info and try to make their words a PR problem for whatever company they work at. Assuming that most individuals have at least one unpopular opinion, doesn't that create a situation where Reddit can basically get almost any individual fired by making their unpopular opinions public and associating it with bad PR for the company?
And if the solution to that is "Don't say things that might piss off internet lynch mobs"...well, that's a pretty big restriction on free speech, isn't it?
I'd call it interview preparation.
Finding out about the people you'll be working with if you pass the interview shows that you're serious about the position and it can't hurt to flatter the interviewer by showing that you've read up on their work.