Behavior Censorship by Employer

[ParanoiA]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303076,00.html

 

This story is just an example, so I really don't want to argue about it's specifics unless they represent a broader application.

 

But when do you get to be yourself? When are you "off work"? Why are our employers dictating how we can behave off work?

 

Why can't the woman in this story post personal pics, info, sexual or not, etc? She's not allowed to be a slut, if she so desires, and perform her job? One has nothing to do with the other.

 

The excuse I keep getting is that you represent the company, even outside of work. Accepting that premise implies we are only really free when we're unemployed. Otherwise, my "legal" behavior becomes censored and restricted - punishable by termination.

 

Yeah, I know, we're free to quit that job if we don't like it. And my typical libertarian views are inconvenient on this issue, since all that's required to enable this kind of control by your employer is to simply include it in the contract you sign for the job.

 

So, is it right to be controlled by your employer off work like this?

[insane_alien]

i agree with the veiw that you should be able to do what you want outside work(assuming it is legal of course) and that your employer shouldn't be able to control that. for behaviour in the workplace, i think it's fine to place some restrictions on it as long as they are reasonable(don't set fire to other employees and stuff like that) but if they are too restrictive without good reason(say, everybody must have chicken sandwiches on tuesdays) then i would disagree with them.

 

if my employer tried to control my life outside work(say, by telling me to take my posts of SFN) i would tell them to go <insert favourite expletive here> themselves.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I agree with all that. Funny you should mention SFN posts in this context. A co-worker was telling me that someone here got fired for saying dispairaging things about our company on a forum. And supposedly, it wasn't posted during work hours nor with company equipment.

 

Now, I'm always suspicious of stories like that without any evidence or whatnot. But considering our company has us sign a code of business conduct each year which includes verbiage like "No employee shall engage in any activity that creates a conflict of interest or even the appearance of one", I'm inclined to suspect it's true.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how they could really terminate or punish someone for doing something that "appeared" like a conflict of interest, but wasn't.

 

Sometimes I wonder if it's just over extended groundless bluff techniques - like hanging a sign in your store that says "we reserve the right to shoot anyone we want for any reason". Just because you have it in a document or post a sign doesn't make it legal nor enforceable.

[Phi for All]

So, is it right to be controlled by your employer off work like this?

If I had an employee in a non-sales position who posted questionable material about themselves on the web I would consider it none of my business. If that same employee mentions where they work in the posting it suddenly becomes my business, literally.

 

Sales positions are different, imo. A salesperson creates relationships which tie their name together with the company they sell for. The two become synonymous if the salesperson is doing their job right. If I knew one of my salespeople was creating an incompatible image for their name (or their face, if the salesperson meets clients face-to-face) outside of business, I would question how effective they could be for me *in* business. I wouldn't consider firing the salesperson until this other image became a problem but I would certainly keep an eye on the situation.

[ParanoiA]

If I had an employee in a non-sales position who posted questionable material about themselves on the web I would consider it none of my business. If that same employee mentions where they work in the posting it suddenly becomes my business, literally.

 

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. What about if this employee doesn't state where they work, but one of your customers recognizes them? Even brings it up to them? Should they be obligated to remove anything you feel is offensive to your brand? I don't think so. The fact they're recognized is incidental, perhaps unfortunate, but not their fault nonetheless.

[Phi for All]

Sometimes I wonder if it's just over extended groundless bluff techniques - like hanging a sign in your store that says "we reserve the right to shoot anyone we want for any reason". Just because you have it in a document or post a sign doesn't make it legal nor enforceable.

Bluff techniques like this are so powerful they don't need to be legal to be effective.

 

A friend worked for a major software maker and her division was told that management was having a weekend retreat to figure ways to cut expenditures. The bluff was spread that they had been told to fire two people or come up with equivalent annual savings. On the Monday morning after the weekend retreat everybody came to work to find all the free coffee stations in the break rooms dismantled. On Tuesday morning, everyone showed up with their Starbucks in hand, ready to work.

 

Nobody, in the whole office, voiced a single word of complaint.