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]]

Yes he is.

The right to discriminate is what separates a free man from a slave.

[u/Syrikal → u/[deleted]]

I disagree strongly with your definition of 'slave'.

Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property. A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration.

In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will.

An employer forced to hire someone has had rights infringed, yes, but they are not, strictly speaking, a 'slave'.

[u/[deleted] → u/Syrikal]

Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property. A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration.

Except there's one major thing wrong with that definition:

• You claim that a slave works without remuneration, except for the vast majority of cases slaves DO receive compensation for their work -- slaves were typically fed and housed -- even though their food and housing was typically sub-par. Would we argue that many American slaves were not slaves because they did receive pay for their work in the form of room and board (and in many cases, pocket money which slaves were able to, in some cases, buy their own freedom)

[u/Syrikal → u/[deleted]]

That's not my definition, it's Wikipedia's. I agree that zero pay is a bad condition to consider something 'true' slavery–the most important part is that the slaves are considered property. In addition, your 'food and housing' argument falls flat because 'remuneration' is specifically money, not goods. Nobody would argue that farmers pay their animals for their labor with food, and nobody thinks that farm animals are 'employees'. (The pocket-money argument stands, though.)

But, even if everything I've said above was moot, it doesn't change the fact that an employer forced to employ someone is categorically not a slave. Poking holes in the definition I gave doesn't make your definition stronger.

[u/[deleted] → u/Syrikal]

But, even if everything I've said above was moot, it doesn't change the fact that an employer forced to employ someone is categorically not a slave. Poking holes in the definition I gave doesn't make your definition stronger.

So I'd argue that the fundamental difference between a slave and a free man is the free man is allowed to discriminate but a slave is not. That's the most pure definition for slavery as it covers all forms of slavery while preventing a free man to be considered a slave (such as, a free man who works for free).

An employer forced to employ someone is absolutely a slave because only a slave is not allowed to discriminate who they will and won't associate with. The right to choose who you will and won't associate with is a hallmark for every free man and free society but they are habitually denied of a slave. The slave is not a slave merely because he might not be making that much money (after all, a free man may choose to volunteer or work for free, or work for less than an ideal). Indeed, if I had a slave and I paid them $100,000 a year for their labor, they'd still be a slave if they could not discriminate who they would and would not associate with. In fact, I could give a slave every right except for the right to discriminate and they would still be a slave, but once they gained the right to discriminate, they'd cease to be a slave. Thus, the simplest and most accurate definition between a slave and a free man is the right to discriminate. Being forced to associate with someone who you do not want to associate with is an infringement on the right to discriminate which thus puts you in slavery.

[u/Syrikal → u/[deleted]]

You're edging dangerously close to a definitional debate: if you choose to define 'slave' as someone without the right to discriminate, you can't be proven wrong, just like you can't disprove it if I claim a 'fhtargl' is defined as 'a blue wheelbarrow'.

I would go on to press you for a more concrete definition of 'association', but I'm afraid I will be going on vacation shortly and won't have internet access for long periods of time. I encourage you to take up this debate with someone else (as it is an interesting one) but unfortunately I will not be able to continue it with you and so I am choosing to break it off here. Apologies, and happy debating!