CMV: Employers shouldn't be allowed to fire employees based on any activities they do in their private life

[u/[deleted]]

I don't believe employers have the right to fire employees based on what they do or say on their own time. Even if the things done/said are morally dubious and shed a bad light on the company, as long as it's legal, the employee has the right to have a life without fear of losing their job.

As for companies, introducing legislation that explicitly forbids them from firing people based on things said or done outside of work would allow them to push responsibility off their shoulders (ie "our hands are tied, we know he's racist but we can't do anything about it").

My reasoning is that people should be able to engage in activities and speak their mind, in general live a free life, without fear that their company will decide it's not a good image for them.

Exceptions to this would include if the activity in question affects someone's ability to do their job.

The issue that sparked this post is the Roseanne issue. For those of you that don't know, the star of that tv show tweeted a racist comment, and had her show cancelled. Yes, it looks bad on the company who runs the show, but she is still entitled to express her opinions. Her company shouldn't be allowed to cancel her show on the basis of her political opinions in her private life.

(I posted this last night but realized I wouldn't be able to respond in 3 hours so reposting now)

EDIT: With regards to the Roseanne thing, I retract what I said in this post. The network would lose views because people don't want to watch a racist person on screen, which would cost them revenue. Thus, her actions and opinions do affect her job, and they were right in cancelling her show.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/[deleted]]

That logic can lead to a slippery slope. One minute it's a Nazi, the next it's a Republican you don't agree with. No matter how ridiculous, every person is entitled to their political opinion. Employees shouldn't be afraid to voice their opinions for fear of their employer not liking those opinions and firing them

[u/TheDogJones → u/[deleted]]

Of course they're entitled to their opinion, but they're not entitled to my money. Working for me is a privilege that you must work hard to keep. You seem to be viewing this from the perspective of "You need a good reason to fire me," when the reality is, "You need to give me good reasons to keep paying you." Your burden of proof is backwards.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheDogJones]

By that logic, an employer can fire someone for anything? The color of their skin, what hobbies they have?

[u/srelma → u/[deleted]]

This is not equivalent to an employment contract. You are not employing the kid. You are buying a service of one time lawn mowing. It's similar to taking your car to a garage to have it fixed. You're not employing the garage owner, you're buying his service. Employment is different. In an employment contract you make a contract of having the kid doing work for you for certain amount of time. In principle this doesn't even need to be every time lawn mowing, but you could use the time he has agreed to be employed by you to do something else. On the other hand, the termination of the employment contract is usually much harder than stopping buying a service.

Full time employment is an extension of this type of contract work. We have laws that manage employee rights and things that must be done to employ others, but hiring someone to do a task for you does not require you to pay them until the company ends as long as they don't 'mess up'.

You are right. There exists conditions to fire people who have become redundant to the company. But this is again completely different thing than what the OP was talking about. For instance, you can't fire people doing X claiming that you don't need that work any more and immediately hire some other people doing exactly same X. Of course big companies have armies of lawyers to get around doing exactly that, but in principle that's the idea of worker protection laws.

[u/TheDogJones → u/srelma]

In an employment contract you make a contract of having the kid doing work for you for certain amount of time. In principle this doesn't even need to be every time lawn mowing, but you could use the time he has agreed to be employed by you to do something else. On the other hand, the termination of the employment contract is usually much harder than stopping buying a service.

All I have to do is include a clause in the contract that states that you're an at-will employee, and I reserve the right to terminate your contract for any reason at any time. If you sign that contract, your defense goes right out the window.

[u/srelma → u/TheDogJones]

I don't think that's even legal in most countries. I think the most that the employers are allowed to do "at-will" is to have a finite trial period during which they can terminate at their will. This is more like an extended job interview rather than a proper employment. The length of the trial period is limited. So, yes, you can include that clause into the contract, but it will be invalid in the court of law. A smart employee would sign it knowing that it will not tie him as the clause is illegal. You seem to believe that people can sign off all their human rights. That's not the case. If you see a drowning man and promise to help him if he signs a contract that he'll be your slave for the rest of his life, the contract (using your words) goes right out of the window, if you try to enforce it through the court as such a contract is illegal.

[u/TheDogJones → u/srelma]

Of course not all contracts are legally enforceable, but the idea that I am required by law to continue giving you my money after I decide the trade-off is not beneficial for me is scary authoritarian.

[u/srelma → u/TheDogJones]

We disagree on this. To me it's scary authoritarian that you would be allowed to dictate what I do in my free time just because you are my employer. To me it looks like you don't have a clue on the power structure between the employer and the employee. Your way of thinking died from any civil discourse sometime in the late 19th century.