Should your employer take an interest in your personal life? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15113376
There have been a lot of interesting things happening with the way companies handle what employees do when they are not "on the clock".

For example:
- Fender fired one of their master builders for posting a meme that depicted violence against BLM protestors on his personal social media
- Franklin Templeton fired that crazy woman that went nuts in central park when a black dude asked her to leash her dog as the signs indicated.
There are tons of examples of this sort of stuff. The specific examples/cases aren't the point here...

Here's the question I want to get at:
Is there a line that we can clearly draw where what you do on your own personal time "off the clock", should not be of any concern to your employer?

For example, let's say I work at an Amazon warehouse, should Amazon be allowed to to fire me if they find out I shopped at Walmart?
Can they fire you for attending a protest?


How much of an interest should they be allowed to have on my personal life? Will we be expected to report our weekend plans? Where is the line? There has to be a line, no?


My concern is that, when we get rabid and call for the firing of someone due to their misdeeds outside of the job, we are effectively saying that it's ok for employers to monitor our day to day life.
Do we really want that? In a day where monopsolies (that's not a typo look it up) are growing? In a day where corporate power is growing and arguable stronger than governments? Do we really want this?

If there is no line, and I am effectively an agent of my company 24/7, then I demand to have my salary tripled, since I'm effectively on the job 24/7. Is that not a fair compromise? I feel like I'm owed (a lot) if they want to monitor me constantly.
#15113383
Your employer can take an interest in your personal life, but whether you want to indulge them with said knowledge, is up to you. They are not "allowed" to have any say in your personal life, unless it infringes on your work.

That said, I don't think I would have fellow workers linked to my Facebook pages or anything like that.
#15113384
Godstud wrote: is up to you


That is the crux of my concern. It's not always in your control on what data/information your employer gets about you. In most of these cases of firings for bad behavior outside of work, it's a third party providing the information to the employer (and in some cases demanding the firing). That is, the person that gets in trouble did not consent to have their personal life details communicated to the company.

Ultimately the company has to decide "do I ignore it, or do I act on it." That is where this begins and ends. Ultimately it's the companies that get to draw the line. Do we want to give them that much power?
#15113413
We currently do give them that much power. Companies can fire workers for almost any reason. Overt discrimination based on things like race and sex are illegal, but still doable on a practical level.

If we are contemplating limits on this employer discretion, the obvious one is that those who advocate for discrimination or display overt discrimination (i.e. consistent with existing discrimination laws) can be fired, while people who display other political opinions can be protected from being fired.

That seems like the logical next step. It would allow Central Park Karen to be targeted, while still protecting random anti-vaxxers, for example.
#15113417
Rancid wrote:Ultimately the company has to decide "do I ignore it, or do I act on it." That is where this begins and ends. Ultimately it's the companies that get to draw the line. Do we want to give them that much power?

What do you mean, "give" them that much power? They have already taken that power and are still taking it. As the saying has it, true power is not given, it is taken. :|
#15113422
Pants-of-dog wrote:We currently do give them that much power. Companies can fire workers for almost any reason. Overt discrimination based on things like race and sex are illegal, but still doable on a practical level.

If we are contemplating limits on this employer discretion, the obvious one is that those who advocate for discrimination or display overt discrimination (i.e. consistent with existing discrimination laws) can be fired, while people who display other political opinions can be protected from being fired.

That seems like the logical next step. It would allow Central Park Karen to be targeted, while still protecting random anti-vaxxers, for example.


Right, which brings up another question for me. I understand and agree with firing for breaking anti-discrimination laws. It doesn't have to be a law either, it could just be corporate policy to not discriminate. That makes sense and is obvious. For example, let's say I'm a hiring manager and throw away all resumes that have names that sound Hispanic. I think this case is obvious, especially since it directly affects the company you are working for. It's a litigation and bad PR risk, and simply doesn't align with stated corporate values.

However, what if pictures of me are taken at say, an anti-immigration protest? Is that protected (assuming I never talk about my anti-immigration beliefs at work)? My views are not lining up with the company in that case, is that fireable?

Anyway, I guess the point I'm saying to you is that I don't think it's always that obvious, and when it's unclear, that's where there's room for abuse (demand employees to report what they are doing off the clock, fire people for trumped up accusations of whatever).

At the same time, I understand that often companies just respond to public outcry, so it's actually not always in the hands of the company. Sometimes they'll just take action to appease or avoid the public outcry.

I think this question is entangled and complex.

EDIT:
For the record, I'm sure you guys know I'm not anti-immigration (generally speaking).

Potemkin wrote:What do you mean, "give" them that much power? They have already taken that power and are still taking it. As the saying has it, true power is not given, it is taken. :|


Yes, they are taking that power, but we are also giving it away to them too.
Last edited by Rancid on 14 Aug 2020 19:21, edited 1 time in total.
#15113425
Potemkin wrote:Indeed, every taking is also a giving. But how do you propose to stop them? :eh:


Well, the unfortunately truth, which I'm sure you would agree with, is that preventing the rise of a cyberpunk future were corporations run everything is like trying to plug a hole in dam with your fingers. :hmm: Eventually they will win (we can only plug 10 holes in the dam with our fingers), the best we could do, is slow it down.

Sooooooooo

I guess i don't have a proposal. :*(
#15113426
@Rancid

Right now, a company can fire you for being racist.

They can also fire you for being anti-racist.

They can also fire you for being black, as long as they can put another reason on the books.

And as far as I can tell, there is no movement to change this in the foreseeable future.
#15113429
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Rancid

Right now, a company can fire you for being racist.

They can also fire you for being anti-racist.

They can also fire you for being black, as long as they can put another reason on the books.

And as far as I can tell, there is no movement to change this in the foreseeable future.


... (my silence is an acknowledgement)

Oxymoron wrote:1. Employers should be free to fire and hire any one and for any reason.

2. Employers who support the BLM and other Commies are retards

:eek:
#15113431
Back in the day, the union would have had your back, but the continued erosion of union power (except for cops, because they support capitalism) has led to the current lack of worker power in this regard.

This is one of the reasons why I only work for businesses that are small enough that I have a personal relationship with the top person in the business.
#15113432
Pants-of-dog wrote:Back in the day, the union would have had your back, but the continued erosion of union power (except for cops, because they support capitalism) has led to the current lack of worker power in this regard.

This is one of the reasons why I only work for businesses that are small enough that I have a personal relationship with the top person in the business.


Union Worker power is crap, the real worker power is skill, know-how and experience. Unions degrade them and create obvious economic inefficiency, as they try to equate all workers no matter what their skill level is. Meaning going above and beyond serves no purpose, that is really the crux of all Marxist ideolofical problems when faced with real world conditions. I do agree working for small business is far better, as you have less middle management. Who are in my opinion one level removed from my dislike of Unions. If anything is wrong with modern capitalism its middle management.
#15113435
@Oxymoron

Top management in a big corporation can be out of touch with the reality on the front lines where the front line workers and front line managers are dealing with customers and doing the work. The problem there is that top management makes decisions that are out of touch with the reality on the ground where their front line workers and front line managers are located which don't serve the best interest of the business. I have seen some pretty shitty middle management too. Good management and good leadership is really hard to find. So is good help when you are a business owner.
#15113436
@Rancid

I think it's OK to have some inefficiency if that means taking care of people a little better. You don't want too much inefficiency though because then the business and the economy become un-sustainable due to a lack of efficiency. It's that happy middle ground.
#15113437
Rancid wrote:Well, the unfortunately truth, which I'm sure you would agree with, is that preventing the rise of a cyberpunk future were corporations run everything is like trying to plug a hole in dam with your fingers. :hmm: Eventually they will win (we can only plug 10 holes in the dam with our fingers), the best we could do, is slow it down.

Sooooooooo

I guess i don't have a proposal. :*(

Cyberpunk, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, by Rancid. Maybe the sooner we reach it the better, if it's unavoidable anyway. :hmm:
#15113438
Rancid wrote:Interesting question.

Should efficiency be the parameter that is optimized for? Or perhaps it's ok to have some inefficiency, if it means taking care of people better?


How would you feel if a inferior worker got the same compensation? If a person feels under appreciated, then they aren't being taken care of, now are they.
I know a pat on the back can work, and other ways of appreciating people. But nothing in the world signifies it like partaking in the success you help produce.
Not taking care of your workers, is the same as not taking care of your equipment or your bank account. The workers are part of your success, and should be treated that way Union or no Union. Those companies and leaders who understand this concept succeed, and even though there are many that do not value their workers and still do well... The market will make them pay eventually, and the best practices will always bubble to the top.
#15113439
Politics_Observer wrote:@Oxymoron

Top management in a big corporation can be out of touch with the reality on the front lines where the front line workers and front line managers are dealing with customers and doing the work. The problem there is that top management makes decisions that are out of touch with the reality on the ground where their front line workers and front line managers are located which don't serve the best interest of the business. I have seen some pretty shitty middle management too. Good management and good leadership is really hard to find. So is good help when you are a business owner.


4 Sure, that is why I think the best management is one that is very integrated with the front lines. The Management training must involve working on the "floor". I think like the Army, No Officer can be an officer without going through basic training. I think this should be same for business. If you don't get your hands dirty, your doing something wrong.

Trump won't even do that, @Igor Antunov . I woul[…]

What is Fascism

@Julian658 If you cannot answer the question,[…]

That's probably a non-starter. The left is losing[…]

First 2020 Debate Thread

And you would be wrong. Every poll taken shows T[…]