January 7, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Losing Your Job
January 8, 2008 at 12:52 am
I actually think that there is a fairly simple answer to the question; never take a job at a company whose values you don't share. Guaranteed you may never find a company whose values you share 100%, but if you like partying and works for a Mormon-owned company in Utah it is probably a less than ideal situation.
I work for a company that is very relaxed when it comes to most things. We have a very relaxed dress code, flexible hours, very wild parties where everyone gets smashed, and you wouldn't be surprised to see our CEO be one of the most drunk. On our parties people freely speak about scandals they've done on other parties and we are very open about everything.
At the same time we are very serious about what we do when it comes to our work and how we treat customers and everyone working at the company is very dedicated in making a great product and keeping our customers happy.
This fits me very good as it is the type of person that I am and that is why i have stayed with this company for almost 10 years.
If someone gets fired from a company because of being a "Drunken Pirate" at a Facebook picture she was working for the wrong company to begin with.
If I wasn't able to be open with my employer who I am I would start looking for another job. I probably spend more time with my colleagues at work than with my family and I wouldn't be able to do that and feel good about myself if I didn't share their values or if I couldn't be open with who I am.
January 8, 2008 at 12:56 am
First, I wanted to say that I think that you're dead on about us working all hours for our jobs. 🙂
As for the article that started this, I have mixed feelings. Employers have some freedoms of association as well. If I was employed by AA, but had a similar picture posted in a very public place that anyone could find, I would think that AA would have every reason to terminate my association with them. It doesn't reflect well on them and it definitely wouldn't be helpful to anyone I worked with.
For teachers, there's a level of respect that they have and seeing something like this doesn't really do much to earn them respect in a positive way. I can see where the school might decide that a person lacking good judgment about what they put on their public internet profile should find employment elsewhere. On the other hand, I can also see where the teacher was being silly and made a bad choice. In this case, I'd probably have had a chat with the teacher rather than an outright dismissal. After all, if someone employed by the school can find that page, any child sure can and probably a lot easier.
I guess it's just one of those things that we need to be careful about now. It used to boil down to checking references to see whether or not an employee was worth hiring, but now a lot of people put their lives on the Internet, making it much easier to find out about them. I know that there's a lot more on the net about me than I'm aware, but I'm not really concerned at this point. And if someone objects to the fact that I volunteered for Scouting or attend church, or have a family then it's probably better that I not be associated with them in the first place. However, if I had a history of posting pictures of myself doing all sorts of strange things while under the influence of some drug or another - I can see where a company may not think that I'm a good person to have on the rolls.
I agree that this is a tough issue and one that I think isn't really summed up under any law. I can see where sometimes anti-discrimination laws are just silly - a pro-lifer working for an abortion clinic or the opposite, a Satan worshiper working at a Christian church, an Obama supporter working for Clinton :), a binge drinker working for AA or similar 12-step programs. All of those just don't mesh well and don't make a whole lot of sense. That person's non-work life would be pretty much in direct opposition to the goals of the employer. Making it public so anyone can find it doesn't help the employer's image for those who know that person X works there.
I think that a line is in place already for the most part. If you maintain some lifestyle outside of work and don't try to publicize it then it's not necessarily a problem. Once you start putting up photos, blogs, etc then it really is public knowledge. Use some judgment about your public life and Internet profile and you won't really have to worry about what your employers see online. For the employers' part, I think that some discussion is usually in order if you discover something about an employee's non-work life. Not always, but usually. I'm not sure what the legal ramifications are of mentioning to the employee that you know about ... but if a rational discussion can be had about why that may not reflect well on the employee, it would probably help resolve some of these issues.
Good can of worms to open for the day, Steve.
-Pete
January 8, 2008 at 1:22 am
As an IT professional who literally does clock out - we work formal flexi-time and it's great - I believe anyone who's got the time to blog (non-work) or use facebook etc. needs to get a life! With various hobbies and interests, house and family there just aren't enough hours in the day 🙂
January 8, 2008 at 1:36 am
My take on this is relatively simple. IMHO, any person's private life is nothing to do with the company they work for, unless the person's actions in their private life could reasonably be expected to have a tangible adverse reflection on the company.
Therefore, if I decided to attend a political rally in support of the National Front or the Ku Klux Klan, I think I could expect to have my photo taken. From my company's point of view, they may disagree with those views (which, I hasten to add, are NOT ones I hold in reality - I'm just using them for illustrative purposes), but it's my private time, and so none of their business, even if my face is plastered all over the daily newspapers, so I don't think it's reasonable for them to try doing anything about it.
HOWEVER, if I attended the rally wearing a t-shirt with my employer's logo emblazoned across the chest, or if the daily rags identified me in their article with a reference to the employer's name, or if my work role dealt with customers who could reasonably be expected to recognise my face and not want to do business with me because of it, then all those are issues that suddenly make that aspect of my private life very much my company's business. At that point, they're justified in taking any action they need to in order to protect themselves from the fallout.
As for the "drunken pirate" picture, I think that's going overboard. There's no law against being drunk (drunk in a public place, or drunk and disorderly, or committing a crime and aggravating it with drunkenness are, I'll agree, Bad Things, but it's not the being drunk that's the problem), and from what Steve's editorial suggests, there's nothing but the caption to suggest the subject is, in fact, drunk. And Myspace, whilst public domain, is hardly publicising per se. Unless people believe pirate costumes are a crime against good taste (and there you may have me, I'll admit), I can't see any justification whatsoever for sacking the lady; it's her private life, it's legal, and it cannot reasonably reflect badly on the employer.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
January 8, 2008 at 2:21 am
majorbloodnock (1/8/2008)
My take on this is relatively simple. IMHO, any person's private life is nothing to do with the company they work for, unless the person's actions in their private life could reasonably be expected to have a tangible adverse reflection on the company.
Agreed. However, who is qualified to make this judgement except for the owners of the company or their representatives? If they think that a certain behaviour may pose a risk for the image of the company, big enough for them not wanting to take it, who´s to say they are wrong?
I certainly agree with most people here that it's wrong to fire someone for a party-picture on Facebook, however there is no absolute line that if you cross you should be rightfully fired, if not it would be wrong to fire you. Where we draw the line for what behaviour should be encouraged, discouraged or are downright grounds to fire someone depends a lot on many factors. The only way to make sure that your actions outside your job isn't going to negatively affect your career is to make sure you know what is expected of you and what your employer doesn't accept and stay within those boundries. If you are a party-person working for a Mormon-owned company that might not be easy, however, if you share most of the values that the company has there is no problem; just be yourself and you will not only get away with it, but be appreciated for it - even if you do things that would be grounds for firing in other companies.
January 8, 2008 at 2:35 am
Oscar Mannbro (1/8/2008)
majorbloodnock (1/8/2008)
My take on this is relatively simple. IMHO, any person's private life is nothing to do with the company they work for, unless the person's actions in their private life could reasonably be expected to have a tangible adverse reflection on the company.Agreed. However, who is qualified to make this judgement except for the owners of the company or their representatives? If they think that a certain behaviour may pose a risk for the image of the company, big enough for them not wanting to take it, who´s to say they are wrong?
Actually, I think we have the answer in place already. I'm not sure how it is in the US, but here in the UK, someone can be prosecuted for damage caused by an action of theirs if they could reasonably have foreseen the consequences. What is "reasonable" to foresee is deemed legally as the considered opinion of "the man in the street", and takes a pragmatic approach that there is one such "man in the street" already in attendance in the court - the judge. A case of unfair dismissal is no different, so is just as susceptible to legal pondering around the meaning of "reasonable".
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
January 8, 2008 at 3:24 am
Personally I think it's a disgrace that someone can be fired for attending a fancy dress party and having a drink. He's not broken any laws, or done anything ridiculously wild or dangerous that his pupils might copy. He's an adult, he's aloud to drink. My parents drink, I've been on school holidays where the teachers had a glass of wine with their meal. If that was me, I would so sue for unfair dismissal.
As for finding a company that shares your values, there are very few companies that do share my values. In fact I can only think of one company that I have worked for that does anything I consider worthwile. Chirst, if I waited to find a company that shared my values I'd still be on the dole looking for my first job.
January 8, 2008 at 3:43 am
Approximately 2800 people somewhere in the world died from Malaria today. About the same number of teenage girls became unintentionally pregnant today in the USA. And someone is worried about a drunken-pirate photo "possibly" encouraging underage drinking?? As if these kids aren't already conspiring Monday morning to get that case of Bud in-hand for Saturday night's party. Here's an idea: lower the drinking age to 16 and raise the driving age to 21!
I digress...
id·i·ot (\'i-de-?t\)
n.
1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. offensive: A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers.
3. An adult of normally sound mind who posts drunken party photos of themselves on the popular social networking sites.
James Stover, McDBA
January 8, 2008 at 3:55 am
majorbloodnock (1/8/2008)
Actually, I think we have the answer in place already.
No. We have one (or actually severel - one per country) definition of what is legally right or wrong, but my perception was that this discussion is not about the strict legal definitions of "right and wrong" in some certain jurisdiction right now, but the matter of opinion.
There are many things that are completely legal that most people would strongly object to and also many things that are illegal that many people think is morally OK. IMHO it's bad to look to the law for moral guidance. It's the only instrument we have to hold people responsible for behaviour that is unacceptable from the view of society, but it's not a good judge of what is ethical.
No matter how legal it was to fire the "Pirate", I still think it's against what I believe in and so I would not want to work for a company that would fire someone for something like that. However I do also realize that there are companies based on different values that may be of different opinions - which is fine by me. I don't have to work there.
We all have to accept the law weather we want to or not but people still have very different values. Some actions (let's assume for a minute that they are all actions that by the definition of the law are OK) are right for some people and wrong for others. The easiest (and in my point best) way to make sure to not risk being fired for something that you don't think is morally wrong is to work for a company that, for the most part, shares your values. It is also probably the best way to make sure that you enjoy your job too.
January 8, 2008 at 5:19 am
In the UK we have employment law, where your employer must have a good reason to fire you. I can't imagine any tribunal agreening that a teacher should have been fired for having a drink at a party. Whatever a company's moral values, it has to abide by the law.
January 8, 2008 at 5:27 am
Oscar Mannbro (1/8/2008)
majorbloodnock (1/8/2008)
Actually, I think we have the answer in place already.No. We have one (or actually severel - one per country) definition of what is legally right or wrong, but my perception was that this discussion is not about the strict legal definitions of "right and wrong" in some certain jurisdiction right now, but the matter of opinion.
There are many things that are completely legal that most people would strongly object to and also many things that are illegal that many people think is morally OK. IMHO it's bad to look to the law for moral guidance. It's the only instrument we have to hold people responsible for behaviour that is unacceptable from the view of society, but it's not a good judge of what is ethical.
No matter how legal it was to fire the "Pirate", I still think it's against what I believe in and so I would not want to work for a company that would fire someone for something like that. However I do also realize that there are companies based on different values that may be of different opinions - which is fine by me. I don't have to work there.
We all have to accept the law weather we want to or not but people still have very different values. Some actions (let's assume for a minute that they are all actions that by the definition of the law are OK) are right for some people and wrong for others. The easiest (and in my point best) way to make sure to not risk being fired for something that you don't think is morally wrong is to work for a company that, for the most part, shares your values. It is also probably the best way to make sure that you enjoy your job too.
You're right, of course. Whilst I disagree with some of your post, it's in detail, so not important enough to dive into. Overall, though, I agree with what you're saying.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
January 8, 2008 at 5:37 am
I agree, "The line between our personal time and work time is increasingly blurred". Too often activities or actions conducted outside of the workplace impact our professional lives.
However, what happened to the work/life balance that we all should have? Too many times our professions consume us to the point that we are working 50+ hours a week, we are away from family, friends, and our hobbies. This may impact our personal lives slightly or cause us to lose those things that matter the most to us outside of the workplace. I for one am an advocate for the work/life balance, I won't work for a company that does not encourage this practice.
I believe there should be a separation between our work life versus our personal life. What I choose to do on my own time is my business and my choice. The only time that my employer can have any say or impact on what I do outside of work is when you are on call or at a work function beyond that the choice is mine. The only other time I believe our personal choices can impact our professional life is when we break the law, that is IT.
So if one day I choose to dress up as a pirate and get drunk, I should not loose my job because of it. (Man I hope those pictures don't make it online!) This example shows why there are so many frivolous law suits taking place today. The MAN is trying to keep us down from living our lives and making choices that we are entitled to.
This is just my opinion but I could be wrong.;)
January 8, 2008 at 5:49 am
Freddie (1/8/2008)
In the UK we have employment law, where your employer must have a good reason to fire you. I can't imagine any tribunal agreening that a teacher should have been fired for having a drink at a party. Whatever a company's moral values, it has to abide by the law.
Here in Sweden it's pretty much the same way.
Personally though, I still think it's more important for me to work at a company that more or less shares my values than what the law says.
Not so much because of the fact that there are usually ways around the law if my employer really would want me fired, but because if I wouldn't want to work for an employer that would have had me fired if only the law would permit it.
If the law was the only thing stopping my employer from firing me I'd quit. I'd much rather quit and find something else than stay and not be wanted.
January 8, 2008 at 8:00 am
P Jones (1/8/2008)
As an IT professional who literally does clock out - we work formal flexi-time and it's great - I believe anyone who's got the time to blog (non-work) or use facebook etc. needs to get a life! With various hobbies and interests, house and family there just aren't enough hours in the day 🙂
I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this. For me, I do blog (extremely non-work) and use Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, amongst other social networking sites. This is how I stay in touch with family and friends, since they are scattered all over the world.
Let's add in there that I've been doing a lot of SIG work and volunteer work, which indirectly helps advance my career. Oh and then there's bass lessons and going out with my husband and friends.
Then trying to get this thing called "sleep". Yeah... what's this thing you call "a life"? 😉
--------------------------
As for the editorial, I have to agree with those who are saying that you do reflect your job and that you kinda have to be careful. You don't want to be the picture of AA while doing keg stands, for example.
But at the same time, you should be able to enjoy your life. You should be able to have fun without worrying about losing your job. Then again, it'll vary job to job as to what those limits are. So know the limits and then enjoy from there.
And if the job you're in is too restrictive for your liking, it might be time to consider a new job.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply