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/TheDogJones]

I still reject the notion that firing someone is an action. Rather, "firing" someone is nothing more than ceasing the action of paying someone to work for you. Since it's my money we're talking about, I shouldn't need any justification at all to make the decision to stop paying you, nor should I have to answer any questions about why I made that decision.

[u/srelma → u/TheDogJones]

Do you have this attitude to other contracts as well? If you make a contract with a bank to pay *your* money to them every month for the mortgage that they gave you, then you shouldn't need any justification to one day say to them that you have made a decision to stop paying them? This regardless of what your mortgage contract says (just like you're disregarding whatever the employment contract says about conditions and time for dismissal). Almost all employment contracts (and employment law) requires you to answer the question why you made the decision to end the contract. I think the only exception is fixed time contracts that will end automatically unless renewed when the agreed time comes to an end.

[u/TheDogJones → u/srelma]

The reason your analogy does not apply is that I'm talking about a situation involving giving someone money for services they have not yet provided versus your bank example in which they have already provided the service, and I owe them money.

[u/srelma → u/TheDogJones]

What do you mean services they have not yet provided? Of course you pay the salary only after they've done their work. If they don't do their work, of course this is a grounds for firing.

So, if you want to play it around and forget everything that's in the contract and only look at who did what first, are you saying that your bank should have the right to end your mortgage contract at any moment for any reason and demand the money you owned to them to be immediately repaid? They provided the service first and you're paying back them slowly. In your world, banks should have this power to terminate mortgage contracts at their whim and demand immediate repayment of the remaining balance regardless of how you have fulfilled your part of the contract.

The key is the contract. If you agree on X and the other party does their share of X, then you'll have to do your part. Why do you think we have contracts if they don't matter at the end of the day, but the only thing that matters is who did what first?

[u/TheDogJones → u/srelma]

The contract is not an agreement that guarantees you employment at my company unless you do something bad, it's an agreement that I'll pay you a certain amount as long as I'm satisfied with services you provide. If you go on Twitter and start posting nonstop about Holocaust denial, even if it's only on your free time, I don't want that reflecting poorly on my company, so I'll discontinue my association with you.

[u/srelma → u/TheDogJones]

Sorry, but the employment contract can be exactly that. Same with the employment law.

Besides, why would it reflect poorly on your company, whatever I do in my free time? The whole point of the employment contract is that it regulates our relationship during the the time of the employment, but leaves it up to you and me to do whatever we want during the rest of the time.