| || |
Employers want to be able to keep the best people in their employ, whatever they think that means for them. That is reasonable. People that reflect badly on the employer aren't wanted. Employers shouldn't have to keep someone on staff who might have made a great impression in the recruitment and hiring process but now has shown to be a complete ass. They should simply be able to part ways with employees that they don't want. Employees leave their employers all the time and seek out better deals elsewhere. Employers should be able to do this too.random drug testing, some business won't even consider hiring smokers, even if they only smoke while not at work, etc.
So, I take it you aren't informed on this.
Just anti-double-standards.And yes it is tying to control your behavior while not at work. I realize you are very strongly pro business,
If a business were to get on its social media page after Joe Schmoe was off the clock and say "wow, Joe is such a shitty worker, look at what a bad job he did here?" and Joe Schmoe was like "pfft fuck that bullshit, I quit," is that an act of Joe Schmoe trying to "control" his employer? An employer acts like a total ass, employer will lose quality employees. Employee acts like a total ass, employee will lose quality employers.but an employer has no business being in an employee's business outside of the office. period.
Time to put on our big boy pants and acknowledge the sale of labor is a trade and both have to be satisfied with what the other offers. Sometimes that includes character and reputation factors. Don't like it? Look in the mirror and tell yourself to stop acting like a teenager in public forums.
Last edited by Neomalthusian; 14th January 2016 at 10:21 PM.
And yes, if I put something on social media, I have the ability to limit who sees it.
If you were in a position where you placed funds into my trust account and my associate, John, stole that money because I didn't realize he was a coked up, deadbeat loser who had been charged with running a Ponzi scheme, you'd be the first to say I should've been alert to those circumstances, and if he were my delivery driver, and he struck your daughter with a vehicle I entrusted to him, you'd be the first to say I should've known he was a no good drunk who should've been entrusted with the truck.
I'm vicariously liable. Yeah, I got my eyes open, and my employees taking a drug test as a result of that.
Last edited by publius3; 16th January 2016 at 08:24 PM.