I read a recent news story about a man who lost his job for something he did away from work, on his own time, in plain clothes. His employer deemed that he had violated a company "code of ethics" policy and was immediately fired. The man broke no laws and did nothing more than exercise freedoms that I would think should be exercised as we please.

Granted, I believe employers have a right to hire/fire as they see fit, but is it reasonable for any of us to believe an employer should cross the fine line of meddling into our personal lives, providing we stay within local, state, and federal laws? Had this man done something "egregious" on company time, on company property, or wearing a company uniform that revealed who his employer was, I could understand the company's position. Had the man committed a violent crime and was arrested over the weekend, I get it. That said, what do you think about this?

Please, let's keep this civil and keep it out of the context of politics, religion, etc. per forum rules. If you know of this story, please keep the context of what happened out of it.

Welcome to the real world. You can quit any time you want (barring a contract and some other niggling details in certain industries) and your employer can fire you any time they want (barring protected issues, contract (including union membership), etc., etc.)

The connected world makes it much easier to document behaviors that employers can feel threatened or embarrassed by and thus makes it much easier to dismiss an employee.

For this specific case, it isn't clear if this was a "last straw" or something else.

I'm not sure that I think it's right, but I can see both sides.

I'm a certified teacher (without a job beyond subbing....), and I can understand why schools wouldn't hire someone that would be deemed a poor role model to their students. heck, I bet that (in some places at least) would include smokers, if they do it publicly. And I can't say I blame them, either. I wouldn't openly tell my students I smoke a cigars or a pipe. There are lots of other things I wouldn't tell my students about my personal life, too. Not that I want them to think I'm a robot, but there is a line between students and teachers.

In this case, this "code of ethics" violation was the only thing cited in his job performance. Let's say aside from a single action, he is a "model employee" of sorts. And what if something in the company's code of ethics essentially undermines freedoms granted in the US Constitution as a condition of employment?

As a non-union employee, what rights should he/she expect to have when they're not working?

In most states, none. They can fire you for your haircut, your smile, whatever; they just can't fire you for something that it is illegal to fire you for.

Provided the company was legally within its right to terminate the relationship, I generally wouldn't have a problem with it. Can it and does it suck? Yes. However, as Marc stated very succinctly, absent some type of contract, neither party is beholden to the other.

This is a tough one for me...especially after serving 23+ years in the US Army. Your off duty performance goes hand in hand with your on duty performance. You may be a great worker...but if you are not a great member of the community...would you want that person representing your company/organization? I am probably thinking to the extreme here... IE, Johnny is a great worker, always meets his suspenses, puts out a great product, is a team player, etc...but Johnny has three DUIs, got arrested last weekend with cocaine, etc. But then again...just my :-)

I'm not talking about what an employer can legally do. I'm simply asking if it's stepping over the lines of decency and in some regard, a little bit of privacy.

I know the point can easily be made to go elsewhere if you don't think it's right, but what if all businesses started doing the same thing?

I'll just say this worker doesn't work in a position of law enforcement, military, teacher, or any other position would would put additional trust in because of their position. Like I said, he was charged with no crime as well.

What did the man do, and can I get a copy of the ethics code of the company:-)

Something sounds wrong to me:-)

I'm not going to reveal it publicly as it may turn the thread south quite easily.

No problem:-)

Then it still goes back to "Does this company want "this type" of behavoir from someone representing their company?"

Duane, to me, the issue I guess is whether or not the employer stepped out of bounds to acquire information about the man. Privacy acts are different for each state.

I don't believe this person is representing his employer at this point. He's on his personal time, off company property, and wearing no clothing that identifies him as an employee of any company. He'd be more likely to put Levis at risk for wearing his jeans than any form of communication.

In this case, I don't believe the company overstepped their reasonable bounds at all. No private investigator, no wire tapping, etc. was involved. It was a case of something that happened with photo evidence that appeared to be seen in the newspaper by higher powers.

This is where we differ, my friend, because if he works for company "X"...he ALWAYS represents company "X"...both on and off duty. His personal conduct is always being judged, even as unfair as that may be. Whether or not he is wearing their uniform, logo, etc. Perception in todays society is a *****...if someone from his workplace recognized him from the photo evidence (front page of New York Times, etc), then maybe a customer recognized him as well.

Let me get this right.

There was a situation that you 'read about' but which you won't reveal here.

A person was fired.

You want to know if the company did something inappropriate or over the line.

You say that the company didn't do anything inappropriate such as ... and you go one to make a list.

But you seem to be fishing for a blanket condemnation of the company. Further, you seem to want validation of your own personal beliefs without disclosing what they are.

What am I missing here?

It's just a scary thing to me with the information age the way it is. Things could be taken completely out of context because a single photograph of a situation doesn't really tell the whole story. I'd like to think how many of us would have lost a previous or current job for a company who implements a code of ethics on this level if they're pursing after our personal interests outside of the workplace.

The subject of the story itself is controversial and I promised the ToE that we'd try to keep those issues out of the story. I'm just speaking of "what if" here.