4 ms·

> Do you believe that an employer should only fire someone for things that are illegal? If yes, why, if no, how can we rely on the legal system if they are bein

> Do you believe that an employer should only fire someone for things that are illegal? If yes, why, if no, how can we rely on the legal system if they are being fired for things that aren't illegal? They can fire an employee for any reason they want to in an "at will" state, so your question isn't cogent to begin with. Whether or not it should be done is contextual and I can't answer in the abstract. The way you frame your question here is designed to be a rhetorical trap though, and I don't appreciate that. > Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10? Remember, I'm discussing ethics not laws here. Yes, I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is a good ethical stance almost always. Your hypothetical isn't cogent here. Decisions must be contextual and your contrived example lacks context is is constructed so as to advance your (poorly concealed) agenda. Another rhetorical trap. I expect good faith discussion here and you're demonstrating bad faith. > Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint? Liability is a matter of the civic code and is a legal question, and remember, we're discussing ethics not law. Your contrived example here is once again lacking context so it is unanswerable as presented and yet another example of you attempting a rhetorical trap. > Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct. "I hope you don't think". Your constructions here are insulting to me. Nothing but leading questions, contrived examples, begging the question and other rhetorical tricks. If you have a position of your own you should state it directly and not assume I will be tricked or trapped by you. > company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment? yes to both. an implication of harassment should result in a fair process to determine the truth bounded by the context of the situation and the interests of all the involved parties. FAIR PROCESS is the key portion of the last sentence. My objections have always been to UNFAIR PROCESSES and are not a defense of harassment.

joshuamorton 9y ago
I'm sorry you took my post as a rhetorical trap, it wasn't intended as such. You stated that "that kind of action ought to wait until a real legal judgment has been made." Which to me comes across as rather absolute, your response has made it clear that that wasn't entirely true, so my apologies for misunderstanding you. From your comments here though, it sounds to me that you consider an HR investigation an unfair process, would that correctly characterize your view? To be clear, I do believe your stance is untenable, but that doesn't mean my statements are in bad faith, these questions are more or less the reasons that I believe that the stance that "companies shouldn't fire people before they're found guilty of a crime" is an untenable stance (and s/companies/universities or other organization/ for a broader conversation). I don't think that an organization can hold itself to the ethical bar you think is proper without causing itself (and its constituents) a level of inconvenience that is too great. For a society or government, where membership is not voluntary, that is necessary, but for groups whose members are free to leave (for whatever definition fits the group), it doesn't work. You can't simultaneously have a group that people will want to voluntarily join in and one that protects abusers.
- metaphorm 9y ago
  I do believe that it is very unusual for an HR investigation to be a fair process. HR is primarily tasked with protecting the company from legal liability first, and with resolving employee disputes second, and with finding out the truth as a distant third (so distant as to be not-on-the-map). I'm not an absolutist but I do have a high standard of ethics when it comes to disciplinary action that can affect a person's livelihood and reputation (and thus future employment prospects). There is an unfortunate trend in our society right now for the justice of the mob. The loudest and most aggrieved mob tends to exert its "authority" (as such, it's illegitimate but is authority none the less) against those who stand accused of a moral transgression. This has created the atmosphere of a moral panic which leads to numerous false accusations. It's a troubling circumstance. Given the troubling circumstances we find ourselves in I find it important to advocate for higher standards of discourse, ethics, and institutional conduct because the natural tendency otherwise becomes a race to the bottom combined with CYA behavior. I don't think my advocacy for high standards of ethics in institutional authority is untenable though. I think we have reached a place where we need new solutions because HR isn't cutting it because it is not intended to nor should its mandate be expanded to cover this kind of stuff. If workplace harassment is as pervasive and problematic as it seems to be (at some companies) then a separate function for handling those issues fairly would be my preference. I'm also, however, deeply concerned that we are seeing a slip into a transgressions-driven-dialogue and the moral panics and kneejerk reactions we see all over social media, and particularly on college campuses, is beginning to become normalized in the workplace as well. That would be a tragic outcome.

joshuamorton 9y ago

I'm sorry you took my post as a rhetorical trap, it wasn't intended as such. You stated that "that kind of action ought to wait until a real legal judgment has been made." Which to me comes across as rather absolute, your response has made it clear that that wasn't entirely true, so my apologies for misunderstanding you. From your comments here though, it sounds to me that you consider an HR investigation an unfair process, would that correctly characterize your view? To be clear, I do believe your stance is untenable, but that doesn't mean my statements are in bad faith, these questions are more or less the reasons that I believe that the stance that "companies shouldn't fire people before they're found guilty of a crime" is an untenable stance (and s/companies/universities or other organization/ for a broader conversation). I don't think that an organization can hold itself to the ethical bar you think is proper without causing itself (and its constituents) a level of inconvenience that is too great. For a society or government, where membership is not voluntary, that is necessary, but for groups whose members are free to leave (for whatever definition fits the group), it doesn't work. You can't simultaneously have a group that people will want to voluntarily join in and one that protects abusers.

metaphorm 9y ago
I do believe that it is very unusual for an HR investigation to be a fair process. HR is primarily tasked with protecting the company from legal liability first, and with resolving employee disputes second, and with finding out the truth as a distant third (so distant as to be not-on-the-map). I'm not an absolutist but I do have a high standard of ethics when it comes to disciplinary action that can affect a person's livelihood and reputation (and thus future employment prospects). There is an unfortunate trend in our society right now for the justice of the mob. The loudest and most aggrieved mob tends to exert its "authority" (as such, it's illegitimate but is authority none the less) against those who stand accused of a moral transgression. This has created the atmosphere of a moral panic which leads to numerous false accusations. It's a troubling circumstance. Given the troubling circumstances we find ourselves in I find it important to advocate for higher standards of discourse, ethics, and institutional conduct because the natural tendency otherwise becomes a race to the bottom combined with CYA behavior. I don't think my advocacy for high standards of ethics in institutional authority is untenable though. I think we have reached a place where we need new solutions because HR isn't cutting it because it is not intended to nor should its mandate be expanded to cover this kind of stuff. If workplace harassment is as pervasive and problematic as it seems to be (at some companies) then a separate function for handling those issues fairly would be my preference. I'm also, however, deeply concerned that we are seeing a slip into a transgressions-driven-dialogue and the moral panics and kneejerk reactions we see all over social media, and particularly on college campuses, is beginning to become normalized in the workplace as well. That would be a tragic outcome.