Should your employer take an interest in your personal life? - Page 2 - 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

#15113441
Beren wrote:Cyberpunk, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, by Rancid. Maybe the sooner we reach it the better, if it's unavoidable anyway. :hmm:

I wish I was talented enough to write novels. I would love to use that as the book title (I'd credit you with the title idea of course).
:lol:

Yea, maybe we should all just submit ourselves to the altar of capitalism. Get it done with.


Oxymoron wrote:
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.


That's not exactly what I meant by inefficiency. I mean things like giving more benefits to workers at the expense of the bottom line. The ultimate measure of efficiency in a business is revenue/cost, and giving benefits makes the cost higher (reduces efficiency).

A classic tactic of the capitalist is to pit workers against each other, so that they don't unite against them. Hence why you brought up the point that I should be unhappy with inferior workers (i.e. shift my focus to my fellow workers)... well, sure I would not be happy, but that fact doesn't absolve the capitalist either.

Why do I sound like dirty marxist?
#15113443
Rancid wrote:
That's not exactly what I meant by inefficiency. I mean things like giving more benefits to workers at the expense of the bottom line. The ultimate measure of efficiency is cost/revenue, and giving benefits makes the cost higher.

A classic tactic of the capitalist is to pit workers against each other, so that they don't unite against them. Hence why you brought up the point that I should be unhappy with inferior workers (i.e. shift my focus to my fellow workers)... well, sure I would not be happy, but that fact doesn't absolve the capitalist either.

Why do I sound like dirty marxist?


That is actually not true, giving a competitive salary/benefits to workers in a strategic way, actually improves morale and productivity which in turn increases profits. Its not as simple as giving more money, work needs incentives both financial, personal growth, and appreciation. If a worker is making less then he needs to live comfortably his work will demonstrate that(late for work, leaving early etc). your second statement about classic tactics, those tactics were a response and in conflict with the vile Marxist undercurrents of the 19th early 20th century. When that insidious ideology is at bay, Capitalist want nothing more then to help and support their workers. Even back then people Like Ford and Hershey specifically thought of the well being of their workers, the first gave highest wages for his workers and the latter actually built a whole town to make life better for this workers. I think people miss the forest for the trees.
#15113466
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.


Even this isn't quite true. There is a reason why unions can also be sued under anti-discrimination labor law.
#15113469
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...


I guess these big corporations worry much about their public image. When some of their employees behave badly in public and make news headlines, it's a right call to terminate them. Otherwise, Fender will face a boycott by BLM protesters. Boycotts can be extremely effective - as Facebook is finding out.

Civil rights groups behind the #StopHateForProfit boycott are giving Facebook poor grades on its response, saying the company failed to address or fell short of addressing the coalition's demands.

In a report card sent to advertisers and released exclusively to USA TODAY, the coalition makes the case that Facebook hasn't taken meaningful steps to stop the spread of hate speech on its platforms.

"We put out an assessment to clarify what civil rights groups, including Color Of Change, have been demanding for several years versus what Facebook has actually done and agreed to do," said Rashad Robinson, president of Color of Change. "Despite a sweeping statement from corporate leaders that Facebook must do better to protect its Black users, the company has failed to address our core demands meaningfully."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/202 ... 348161001/
#15113477
I see Finfinder made his usual asinine comment. I actually don't believe he "owns a company" unless he is mowing lawns but for the record.

If any of his employees know he posts here.

And those employees tell someone who is fired after making their political views known, about his post here.

And Biden wins and we get an honest Attorney General

then

Finfinder looses his company through the revocation of his EIN, the employee collects massive damages.

And Finfinder has more time to post here and make even more idiotic comments.



@Rancid 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?


In my state (Arizona) an employer does not have to give a reason for firing someone. We have no wrongful firing laws. So as long as that employer is smarter than Finfinder and does not shoot off his mouth about why he/she is doing it, the firing is incontestable.

As a consultant I know that if I identify myself with certain people or issues publicly that it might affect my business. But I can tell you that on a personal level I might want to associate myself with people who share my values and this might affect my hiring choices. Would I hire a Trump supporter? If the person was good enough I would.

As for the person who behaves stupidly. Take for example someone who has a Trump sticker on her car. Just kidding. Take for example someone who flies into a rant at the post office because they don't want to wear a mask and winds up on the news. . I have no problem with a boss letting that person go IF IF IF that person is obviously associated with the employer's business. Certainly racism, homophobia, sexism etc. should result in instant firing. Once the employee does that they are putting the boss at risk if he/she doesn't act.

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?


No. That would be absurd. They should not be allowed to do it but then unless the boss said that was the reason there is really no way to prevail in court.


Can they fire you for attending a protest?


That should be prohibited. In fact, I think it is in most states and it certainly is a federal law. But we really do not have federal law at the moment.


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


That would be too much. But I think there is a fair case for asserting that a person should be mindful of what they are putting up on Facebook and the like. There is really do difference between posting on Facebook and what is done in public. Facebook IS in public for all intent and purpose.

This is a huge question. As a conservative who has the novel idea that people deserve some measure of privacy and freedom to vote. Republicans only believe in the former when their President is paying off hookers and the later only when you are a rural white person.

I am old enough to remember a very real sense of privacy. I have been completely lost in the world before. Not a soul know where I was and short of stopping me and asking for my passport no way to find out. I remember when credit checks were not done online. I remember when there was no online. I remember when police records checks were done by teletype if not by mail. There were no cameras on one in public. If you wanted to "friend" someone you got their address and if they did not live in your city, you wrote to them. That was real privacy. Even then though some employers tried to get in to some people's politics and all people's bedroom choices.

I believe that privacy is pretty much over for all practical purposes. We all live in the Matrix. So if you want to be a racist like Julian and you don't want your boss to find out then don't post racist shit.

POD is absolutely correct that unions can offer the most protection. Three bits of advice for all employees:

1. Don't say it if you don't want the boss to hear it.

2. Be the absolute best at your job. So good that the boss does not want anyone else to have you.

3. Don't get your meat where you get your potatoes.
#15113480
Most states would allow your employer to fire you for protesting if your contract is at-will:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/05/can-you ... otest.html

Makes sense, or else firing people for whatever crap they post on the internet would be illegal. It's not. And it's also why cancellation works to begin with.

If political ideology/expression was a protected class under the Civil Rights Act, I suspect these firings would stop. Should it be a protected class? Note then that if it was, it could create a conflict with other labor law provisions.

For instance, if you had a colleague saying openly his wanting for Trump to build the wall or to kick illegal immigrants out, one could file a complaint under the Civil Rights Act alleging discrimination by nationality if your employer didn't discipline your colleague saying that sort of thing. I know this because it's actually an example used for the compulsory anti-discrimination training under Illinois law.

OTOH, if political ideology was not a protected class, what would stop an employer firing you for attending a protest? Or a Trump or Biden rally?

And to complicate things further, let's go back to the "build the wall" example. Could an you also file a similar complaint if, instead of saying that openly, a colleague simply wore a MAGA hat instead? Or if he appeared on TV/Internet attending a Trump rally? Or if he appeared on a BLM rally? Or if your colleague commented on e.g. undoing whiteness or White fragility and you are White?

This stuff can go many, many ways and easily spiral out of control. Lawyers would be happy though.
#15113484
My employer can only see what I give them access to since they are lazy. I have my manager as a LinkedIn contact. I keep all my facebook, PoFo and other social media stuff separate. I do not view social media over work wifi.

I have heard that people have been fired over racy social media posts/photos and such.

It creeps me out that third party sites like BeenVerified collect your data and let people buy the compiled report on you for a small fee. I removed myself from Spokeo some years ago.
#15113499
The US had to pass a law to stop employers demanding (potential) employees give them their social media passwords. Many business employ illegal immigrants so they can have them deported by ICE anytime they demand too much compensation. Many employees are a status symbol for their superiors who can brag about how big their team is even though few of them contribute anything of worth to the company.

Welcome to the neo-feudal age rancid.
#15113513
I just played a small part in a union drive at work and it's hilarious (if nauseating) to read corporate union-busting bullshit propaganda being repeated verbatim by @Oxymoron. I'm half expecting him to start scolding me about how "there's only one pot of money" and a union will "destroy our culture". :lol:

In reality, of course, unionised workers make significantly more than non-union counterparts. And the idea that companies "reward the best workers" is absolute horseshit. They reward yes-men and friends of the boss. Anyone who has spent five minutes in a reasonably sized company knows that middle management and above tends to be a sea of gutless mediocrities. Lol.

Anyway - on the topic of the OP, I agree that employers should fuck off and stop snooping on their workers outside of work hours. But as @Potemkin says, they've taken that power and barring a bloodthirsty Stalinist revolution (my preferred option) there seems to be little we can do about it. Especially in the hellish corporate dystopia of the US, where people have been conditioned to think that two weeks of holiday per year is the height of opulent luxury. :|
#15113560
Rancid wrote: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.


Employers are effectively able to fire anyone for any reason. Your public actions are exactly that: public. There is nothing that can stop them from firing you on the basis of your public actions, including speech. They can't prevent you from being a Chad or a Karen on Twitter, but you can't prevent them from firing you either.

And you can be damn sure they will fire you for leading a protest against your employer or engaging in labor activism.
#15113569
Heisenberg wrote:a bloodthirsty Stalinist revolution (my preferred option)

British Stalinists really baffle me. Do you seriously believe or feel like it would fit your character? I mean there's such a dissonance because Stalinism is so un-British, actually, and you don't even appear to be a Russophile. However, Stalin wasn't even Russian, he was of Ossetian and Georgian origin, what the hell could you have to do with that? What's that vanilla Stalinism of yours? How did you become a Stalinist at all? :?:
#15113572
Beren wrote:How did you become a Stalinist at all?

Working as a journalist covering the hedge fund industry tends to send you in one of two directions: you either buy into the bullshit and turn into a caricature of an 1980s yuppie, or you find it so repulsive that you become a jaded communist malcontent. I chose the latter path. :lol:
#15113573
Heisenberg wrote:Working as a journalist covering the hedge fund industry tends to send you in one of two directions: you either buy into the bullshit and turn into a caricature of an 1980s yuppie, or you find it so repulsive that you become a jaded communist malcontent. I chose the latter path. :lol:

I thought you studied law and work at a law firm. Anyway, Marx and Engels would still fit you better than Stalin.
#15113574
Can an employer fire or discriminate against an employee based on political beliefs? You may be surprised to learn that, for many employees, the answer is yes. Federal law does not protect private employees from discrimination based on their politics. However, some states do protect employees from certain types of political discrimination. And, an employer may not use an employee’s politics as a pretext for discrimination based on a protected trait, like race or religion. Discrimination based on politics happens when an employer makes job decisions because of an employee’s political beliefs, party affiliation, or civic activities. An employer that, for example, refuses to hire applicants who vote Republican, fires anyone who supports gun control, or demotes someone who runs for the local school board is engaged in political discrimination. Not all forms of discrimination are illegal, however. It is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employers to make job decisions based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. Other federal laws prohibit discrimination based on age, disability, and genetic information. However, political views aren’t covered by these laws and the laws of most states. This means employers are free to consider political views and affiliations in making job decisions...
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-based-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html
#15113576
quetzalcoatl wrote:And you can be damn sure they will fire you for leading a protest against your employer or engaging in labor activism.

Protesting directly against your employer sure, that's an obvious one. However what if it's just a general labor protest, like protesting for an increase in minimum wage? I guess your answer is yes.

Here's the thing though, this basically means that we have to submit ourselves to corporations for permission to do anything. Are you/we ok with that?

It's interesting because many people are often concerned with governments taking our freedoms away, yet, what we are doing is allowing corporations to take our freedom away, and we seem to like it an encourage it.
#15113587
Rancid wrote:Protesting directly against your employer sure, that's an obvious one. However what if it's just a general labor protest, like protesting for an increase in minimum wage? I guess your answer is yes.

Here's the thing though, this basically means that we have to submit ourselves to corporations for permission to do anything. Are you/we ok with that?

It's interesting because many people are often concerned with governments taking our freedoms away, yet, what we are doing is allowing corporations to take our freedom away, and we seem to like it an encourage it.

Of course. A lot of bootlicking cock gargling plebs out there who think employers know best.

Identify quite strongly with freedom in the bourgeoisie sense whete impositions on that classes ability to exploit the working class on their terms is unfreedom and economical impractical.

Even the constitution of the USA is a freedom from governments interference, not corporations.

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1773436787622[…]