Fired for being an asshole

Not one iota. I don't care if you run around drunk, naked, with a whiffle bat stuck in your asshole while you shout racial slurs and throw flaming stray cats at children. We're getting too fucking sensitive in this country. Your private life is your private life. Do that at work, then we'll talk about appropriate behavior. Unless you work with Scootah.

The only caveats being for law enforcement, elected offices, military. They need to be held to a higher standard. One, because these guys are armed and/or upholding our most sacred rights. You took the job, keep your nose clean. That is your responsibility to bear.

The only crime one should be held professionally liable to is rape. An employer is putting everyone that walks through his business' doors at risk. Ostracize the fucker, regardless of gender.

Also, mimes. Fuck those guys. If you find out your employee is a mime you should do the decent thing and set him on fire in front of his children. They'd agree with you, thank you even.

 

To play devil's advocate, why not? Or more accurately, doesn't it probably indicate that you were unsuitable the whole time and no one had noticed yet?

If you are hitting someone else's child in public, haven't you displayed a pretty damn high capacity for poor judgment that now makes it unwise for a company to trust you with any responsibility whatsoever? Haven't you effectively proven yourself too stupid to do your job?

There are certain acts that are sufficiently stupid or irresponsible as to indicate general stupidity or irresponsibility, both of which are personality traits that employers tend to not look kindly upon.

 

And the predictible response to that then, is "where is the line?" If we're going to penalize someone for "poor judgment", do we fire a guy for getting a speeding ticket? Clearly, he displayed poor judgment when he decided to break the law and speed. Worse, it makes masking invidous discrimination much easier. Oh, that guy got caught fucking another dude in a public restroom? Let's fire him and claim it was for "indecent behavior" or whatever the citation was, when in reality we're firing him for being gay.

No good comes from this kind of Orwellian policing.

 

Generally speaking most US States (I can't speak for our Canadian neighbors) have some form of "at will employment" meaning the employee can leave at any time for any reason and the employer can fire the employee at any time for any reason, provided that reason is non-discriminatory. (A contractual relationship with your employer or union relationship changes the rules, obviously.)

So whether or not the employer should or should not isn't all that relevant. The employer can fire you if your employer doesn't like the color of the pants you wore to the Christmas party three years ago.

From a more practical standpoint it's pretty easy to see how someone looking to do business with, for instance, AGC Aerospace and Defense Composites Group and decide that maybe he didn't want to buy from a company who has as an executive a guy who would slap a 19 month old baby and tell his mother to "Shut that nigger baby up."

Also, was the guy on that plane for business? I couldn't tell. Because that makes the situation drastically different, I think.

 

How about when a person's actions directly harm their employer, for example news reports following an unsavory incident on your behalf driving away customer/sales...

If I ever own a business I won't give a shit about what my employees do in their private lives, as long as it does not negatively impact the business or your ability to do the job. Cross that line and you're gone.

 

Oh, there's definitely a line somewhere.

I think it's between "posted a Facebook status about having a 'vicious lil boner'" and "is an active member and financial backer of white supremacist forums" but I'm not sure where exactly it is.

 

This.

Common sense would dictate that if your actions can have a negative impact on the company you work for, whether you're a burger flipper at McDonalds or a CEO of a fortune 500 company, if your actions have a negative impact on the company in terms of your performance or in terms of public relations, they were well within their rights to fire you.

People need to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Now, that said, if you want to go home and do blow or go out and get shitfaced, that doesn't mean that you CAN'T. You can do whatever you want on your off time. It means that you have to be fairly smart about it, and understand that you're taking a risk, so if you insist on taking that risk, you should probably minimize it. Maybe don't get into a drunken bar brawl while you're out. Don't drive home after doing a few lines of coke and twenty shots of tequila. Perhaps don't post pictures of yourself to facebook or instragram of you doing lines of coke off a midget hooker's tits. Don't slap a 19 month old child. Take some responsibility for yourself and how you portray yourself to the public.

 

How do you determine what constitutes a "negative impact on the company you work for"? You talked about public relations; in the absence of clearly defined pre-existing company guidelines, what's fair and what isn't? Here's a couple of scenarios of varying degrees. At-Will employment aside, tell me which ones are worthy of being firable offenses:

1. I work for Coke and am seen by a company representative publicly enjoying a Pepsi product.
2. A local news report caputures me on camera participating in a GLBT rights rally.
3. I post a picture of myself on facebook proudly displaying the 10-point buck I just killed with my rifle in the picture.
4. A picture of me smoking a joint is taken without my knowledge at a party in my own home and uploaded to the internet.

If in each case I'm fired for having a "negative impact" or "damaging the company image", is that fine just because the company claimed that was the reason I was terminated?

 

Somebody pointed this out above, but this is all about how perception of this particular executive could impact existing and future business. I'm an executive at a healthcare company, and I can tell you with 100% confidence that if I had made the news for doing something like that, we would have patients who would refuse to be admitted to our facilities. My company would have every right to do damage control and take whatever measure necessary to preserve shareholder value. As an executive, you are generally covered under some sort of professional and general liability policy, but it never covers events like this (since there's no real way to quantify loss). As such, executives always acknowledge a certain level of responsibility for your actions both inside and outside of the workplace, and you're usually compensated pretty well for bearing that risk.

I don't know if they said it was a business trip or not, but if it wasn't, this guy will most likely get a reasonable payout pursuant to his employment agreement (unless he was a terrible negotiator). Generally speaking, in an employment agreement, there are varying levels of payout depending on whether you were terminated with or without cause. If this was not a work-related trip, my guess is that they will have a hard time proving actionable cause. Those agreements usually call for 1 to 3 years of full salary and benefit payout if the employee is terminated without cause. Of course, getting another job somewhere else is not going to be an easy task.

 

I've attended events where Pete Coors brought a six pack of his own product to protect his image when only Budweiser products are available. Are you a truck driver or the CEO? It matters.

Are you a family law attorney or a Baptist preacher? Are you wearing a shirt with your company's logo? Again, it matters.

As someone who works in the hook and bullet business... Was the deer taken legally with legal methods? Do you work for a firearms manufacturer or conservation group? If you're breaking the law in the photo, you could easily be fired and pretty much black balled from the hunting industry.

Are you a teacher or counselor or something? Do you have a job where drug testing is random and actually happens?

All of these scenarios are relative to the position. Personally, I've seen instances in three out of four of your scenarios where your job could be negatively impacted by outside actions. If you count company logo stuff, make it four out of four.

In my experience, companies are pretty transparent when it comes to image-related issues. My company, for example, has a very strict hunting violation policy- get a hunting violation and you're fired. It's pretty simple.

 

I work in law enforcement. When I get up in a courtroom and testify to a violation of someone's probation, will the follow up question be:

"Officer Pink, have you been convicted of a DUI?"
"Officer Pink, were you disciplined by your department for having a picture on Facebook with you holding a vodka bottle captioned 'My ass is druuuuuunk'?"
"Officer Pink, is it true your relative/friend/significant other tried to use your name as a way to get out of felony/misdemeanor charges?"
"Officer Pink, was that you on the news after you slapped a kid in public?"

And in closing, "Judge, how can we take this probation officer at her word when she drives drunk, posts inappropriate things on Facebook, keeps company with those that engage in illegal activities and has no impulse control? My client should be set free."

My job is on the line, along with my credibility. When I was sworn in as a certified officer after training in 2011, everything changed. This job is my life and what I've wanted to do since I was a kid. I sure as shit won't have anything jeopardize that.

And I think all law enforcement should abide by those standards.

Oh, and my brother a little while back wanted me to help a friend of his by tipping him off about whether or not the feds were looking into his uncle for drug trafficking. There was so much wrong with that, and the only reply I could muster was "Even if I knew at the federal level, which I don't, I'm not risking felony charges and my job for your dumbass friend."

 

I know this has been covered, but I thought I'd address it, too.

This is not illegal (and it started talking about illegal scenarios and breaking laws that would bring about bad publicity). That said, what is your position within Coke? Are you a bottle plant employee and no one really knows what you do or how you work for them? Or are you the CEO and a public face of the company? Context matters. Common sense dictates that the CEO of Coca-Cola drinking Pepsi in public would have a negative impact on the company. If a random bottling plant employee is drinking a Pepsi in public, I doubt anyone would give a fuck enough to make it a story. Unless, of course, the employee is wearing a shirt that says "I work for Coca-Cola!" Is the employee representing him or herself as a Coca-cola employee, because that would matter. Regardless, if the employer makes it clear that drinking Pepsi will result in your termination, they are within their rights to fire you.

Who do you work for? The public? Chik-Fil-A? Also, are you clearly representing yourself as an employee of (insert company)? Did you give an interview where you say "I work for Chik-Fil-A and I am gay! I hate their policies!" Are you a high-profile enough employee (CEO, Present, VP, or another executive) that people recognize you and associate you with that company and/or organization?

Again, what you're talking about is NOT illegal, and if you're just some joe-schmoe employee sandwich maker, no one would give a fuck or even notice you. Then again, if you give an interview and say "I work for (insert company)..." or you're wearing your company uniform, then suddenly you're representing your company and you can be fired.

Another (not necessarily) illegal scenario, and again I ask, who do you work for? Why would it make a difference. Do you work for PETA as a lawyer? Then yeah, you should be fired. Do you work for Smith and Wessen? Then no. Was the kill legal? Was it during Deer season? Were you arrested? What is your position within the company?

This scenario is different, in that (in most places) this is an illegal activity. More importantly, most companies have a well written drug policy that you agree to when you are hired. Check applications and other forms you sign when you're hired in; most have a drug policy. Also, what are your facebook privacy settings? Did you tag/untag yourself? Can your bosses see it? Who can see the picture? Even if the picture was without your knowledge, you put yourself in a bad position; doing something illegal and against company policy in a (fairly) public place where anyone can see you and take a picture. Common sense would say "hey, smoking this joint here in this party around all these people might not be a great idea." It is a risk that you take.

The thing is, every single scenario you posited was missing a LOT of detail. Context matters, but you offered no context, simply blanket scenarios. When it comes to determining whether something is worthy of you being fired, context matters. The closest you came was the Coke employee drinking a Pepsi, but even then it was far too little detail.

The problem is that people who are against employers firing you for your actions in your private life love to posit all these scenarios where it is just the worst thing ever, when in reality it is ALWAYS more complicated and context matters.

They also have a bit of a persecution complex, where they think a company that employs thousands is actively looking for ways to fire you when you're just a small cog in a huge machine. They think that the McDonalds CEO is personally sifting through facebook pictures to find a picture of a teenage register-jockey smoking weed so they can fire them and get a "you're fired" boner. I'd venture that in the majority of the cases that someone is fired for what they do outside work, it is something that was either done publicly and reported on, or the person who did it was irresponsible and stupid and either put a picture out (or let a picture get out) of them doing something dumb/illegal, to the point where the public noticed it and brought it to the attention of the company. Believe it or not, most executives, managers, and employers have better things to do than spend all their time digging for dirt on employees so they can fire them for shits and giggles. Somehow, they did something that got out and required a response. Companies rarely go looking for it.*

Another context:

Is it a shitty employee anyway? Its a grill worker at McDonalds, and they always come in with red eyes and act high, but you've never been able to prove they're high at work. They've worked there for two months and they're constantly stoned, and they've called off two shifts already. They're a slow and shitty employee, and you've written them up before. Then a fellow employee brings in a picture of them smoking a joint with the caption "on my way to work at McDonalds, brah!" Yeah, that person should be fired.

Its a Grill Worker at McDonalds. They're a fantastic employee, always fast and alert at work. They're far and away your best employee, and they've never had a discipline problem and have great reviews. They've worked there reliably for a year, never missing a shift. A fellow employee brings in a picture of them smoking a joint with no caption, and no indication that they have ever worked while high. The VAST majority of employers and managers would look the other way and ignore it. They'd use common sense and say "this is a great employee who works well and this hasn't affected their work. Who Cares?" The employer may talk to the employee and warn them against making stupid decisions again (i.e. getting a picture taken while doing something illegal), and any promotion they were up for would be put on hold, but they probably wouldn't be fired.

For the same basic infraction, context matters.

*Yes, I am aware that some companies ask for access to facebook profiles or twitter or whatever when applying for a job. First, that has been made illegal in several states, and second, they'll likely look at it once or twice before hiring someone. They don't have the time or the manpower to continually monitor those sites, it would be a complete waste of resources, and besides that, if you gave a company access to your facebook and you still post something stupid that would get you fired, you deserved to be fired for showing such poor personal responsibility and judgment. I could also see a company looking for it if you are a shitty, unreliable employee, and they're searching for a reason to fire you, in which case you earned it by being a shitty, unreliable employee.

 

In that guy's defense, some kids need to get hit.

Pre-emptive edit: This is a flippant post; see rant and rave thread for details.

Post-emptive edit: Too late.

 

Quick response is. My private life is my own and none of my employers business......right up until I bring my private life to page one of a newspaper for being a shithead.

Now that's my fault and he has an option to respond.

Minor infraction he needs to hold his hand, illegal activities that look really bad, like fucking hitting a 2 year old....welll see ya asshole yer toast.

Because you know, unavoidable changes in cabin pressure is just the kid being a little shit.

 

He should learn how to be more diplomatic from the master:

 

Why not? If your doctor told you that wiping his own ass was beyond him, wouldn't you start to wonder if maybe you should get a smarter doctor?

Acting foolishly implies there is a good chance you might be a fool. Obviously there are degrees but this one is pretty out there. If you were this guy's customer would you ever be able to take him seriously again?

This question doesn't make sense on a grand scale really because the implications for something like this are obviously really different from a speeding ticket.