8 ms·
Don't Fire People for Making Pornography in Their Free Time
- mindvirus 3y agoOne big viewpoint shift I've had over the past 5 years is that it should be very hard to fire people for their actions outside of work. By and large things that aren't criminal, don't involve employees of the company or their customers, and are not done under the guise of being an employee of the company should be that person's business alone. I get that there are a lot of grey areas, but it feels to me we've gone way too far the other way.
- mindcure 3y ago[dead]
- SnorkelTan 3y agoDo you mean we’ve become to lenient or too strict? I feel like image outside of work has always been something that employers have concerned themselves with and anything legal but untoward has been perilous for anyone in a highly paid career that’s image conscious. I guess what I’m asking, was it ever not like this? The internet has just made it easier for the overly image conscious to purge the ranks of unseemly people.
- whstl 3y agoIMO: the majority of people has become stricter. Not everyone, but most people. But here's the catch: different people have become more strict about different things.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoOf course it was never always like this. The CEOs todays CEOs look up to were having olive and martini lunches and finding company on paid business trips
- seesawtron 3y agoThis would not be possible to implement in a lot of businesses where the "public image" of the employee (even during non working hours) matters to the company and its business. But I agree with the argument "Judge the art, not the artist". As Camus attempted to portray in "The stranger", the protagonist was on "a trial that judged his character and the ways in which he integrated in the society, not on a trial for killing an Arab".
- whstl 3y agoI think it's two different topics here. Businesses themselves rarely fire people out of principle, but rather because of pressure. (at least in the case outlined by GP, where the cause is "not criminal, not involving employees/customers, not done under the guise of being an employee") The pressure often comes from the outside, and it's indeed very difficult for a business to fight it. I don't think GP is arguing for it, I also don't know if I am arguing for it... but... IMO for those cases the only simple "solution" I can see is to legally protect those people from being fired for unrelated reasons, so that business has legal plausible deniability, and hopefully doesn't suffer the consequences itself.
- Jensson 3y ago> The pressure often comes from the outside, and it's indeed very difficult for a business to fight it. In the rest of the world where you can't fire without a valid reason, it is very easy for them to say "We can't legally fire them for things they do unrelated to their job".
- pi-e-sigma 3y agoIf it's a rank and file employee then sure. This is about a university chancellor, though. I think it changes the optics significantly.
- cykros 3y agoThis is the crux of the matter. If you're the face of an institution, different rules apply. And your compensation and benefits should reflect this. Most importantly, it should be in BLACK AND WHITE in your contract when you start. If you're someone who needs to abide by a code of conduct different from the norm outside of work hours, that absolutely should be something you're made crystal clear about, and are agreeing to. For both your sake, and the sake of the institution having to clean up the mess otherwise.
- IAmGraydon 3y agoWhile I agree in principle, the fact remains that certain things you publicly do in your free time will change the way people view you and their respect for you as a professional. In the end, it affects your ability to do your job when you lose respect of your colleagues and clients. In a perfect world, this wouldn’t be a problem, but we’re far from that.
- lgkk 3y agoIn a perfect world I think that people wouldn’t be resorting to OF or porn. Imo people today do that to make fast money and well… I don’t personally know why I should be forced to accept or approve that kind of way of money making. I don’t respect drug dealers, corrupt businessmen, nor YouTube scammers. I also don’t respect people who perpetuate mental harms by producing porn and contributing to these issues. I do respect startup founders that solve actual problems, teachers who help improve failing schools, or scientists who don’t accept corporate funding to paint an inaccurate picture. I value persistence, virtue, and meritocracy and no amount of social force will make me accept certain behaviors. Just being honest with my opinion. And people are free to disagree with my pov as well, and do whatever they want.
- maxbond 3y agoIf I told you that I had moral views about the legal and consensual stuff you get up to in your private life (whatever that may be), and I told you I thought it was reprehensible and that you should lose your job over it, would you perhaps think I was being overbearing and that I should mind my own business? Eg, if you were a person of faith (I have no idea if you are), and I was a militant atheist (to be clear I'm agnostic), and I told you that I thought all religion was harmful and said something disrespectful like, if you believe in an imaginary friend who grants wishes you aren't qualified to be a doctor/engineer/etc (this is not a position I actually endorse or an appropriate way to talk about religion) - can you see how you might tell me to get lost?
- lgkk 3y agoAre you causing harm through your actions? That’s really the only metric I use, and it’s pretty simple. If my actions were increasing mental issues, leading to people getting sick via inaccuracies, or causing pension funds to be misallocated then sure. You should call me out on it. Money isn’t the end all be all. Id say if someone can make porn and publish it they can surely do something else with that “creative” energy.
- AmVess 3y agoMorality clauses are common in positions of greater responsibility. They exist to keep the degenerates from destroying the reputation of the business or institution that employs them.
- junon 3y ago> the degenerates I've never heard of a free-time pork actor ruining the reputation of a company on its own. Also, doing something you like doing isn't being a degenerate. That's Trump-speak.
- Dwedit 3y agoOkay, but then what about people who start making racist or antisemetic tweets during their off-hours?
- AdrianB1 3y agoTrust does not depend only on things that are illegal. For example you would not trust an obsessive liar, even if it is jus outside of work. For now. Because you will be convince it is a huge risk it will happen at work, sooner or later. Same, you will not want to hire a famous womanizer. It will create chaos in your company or with clients. And you can find a huge number of examples to confirm that if what people do outside of work something that is considered negative, even if it is legal, it is a problem to hire them; maybe to keep them.
- from-nibly 3y agoYes, and we should force people to shop at places who hold views they don't agree with. And I mean force. You can't stop buying from them. You have to give a fundamental reason why it's a worse place to shop. Otherwise it'd be illegal to not shop there.
- insickness 3y ago> it should be very hard to fire people At will employment exists for good reason. You can quit your job at any time for any reason and your employer can fire you at any time for (almost) any reason. There are a very narrow set of circumstances for which your employer cannot fire you, and this is by design. The government should have as little control as possible over who you hire and fire and why.
- runarb 3y agohttps://archive.is/SCgSa https://archive.is/SCgSa
- linusg789 3y agohttps://ghostarchive.org/archive/nz00W https://ghostarchive.org/archive/nz00W
- jwond 3y ago> Karen Walsh, the president of the UW Board of Regents, said she was “alarmed” and “disgusted” by Gow’s actions, which were, she stated, “wholly and undeniably inconsistent with his role as chancellor.” But Gow’s actions were neither consistent nor inconsistent with being chancellor. Strictly, his actions were outside the scope of that role. Or they could be considered so, if most Americans simply chose to see the situation that way. People's actions outside of work are still an indication of who they are as a person, and being an effective leader generally requires that your subordinates have some level of respect for you. As the article itself admits, the majority (58%) of Americans consider porn to be immoral. Most people aren't going to have much respect for someone who engages in behavior they view as immoral, particularly if the individual has a long history of such behavior (as is the case here). The leader of an organization is also viewed by people as a representative of the organization's values. If people view the leader of an organization as immoral, it will deter them from engaging with that organization.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoPeople don’t really care about the morality of the organization head if the org is able to stand on its own. There’s been no shortage of known scumbags helming popular companies even in recent times to seemingly little effect.
- broscillator 3y agoHow much of that 58% abstains from porn?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- MattGaiser 3y agoA lot of this is simply that people are far more replaceable in their jobs than they believe, so a lot of firing is not that they did something terribly wrong, but rather that replacing them is simpler than dealing with minor damage. So I suspect that if an affair made national news, the chancellor would be fired as well. Any change to the current ways of doing things would need to be societal, as otherwise whatever institution is employing the person would pay a high price.
- h2odragon 3y agoHow far does that stretch? Can one question the effectiveness and safety of COVID vaccines outside of work? How about protesting for (or against) Palestine or Israel? BLM? Can your employees have an "its OK to be White" yard sign? is this a case of closing the barn door after its been filmed in the Senate Hearing chamber?
- walnutclosefarm 3y agoI think the bar for what constitutes unacceptable outside of work behavior changes significantly as you move up the responsibility ladder. Once you are in any significant leadership position where credibility and moral authority matter, doing things that land you on the front page in situations that make you look highly partisan, or immoral, or just plain stupid, in the eyes of much of your constituency - employees, customers, or community - is a real tax on your ability to lead. It justifies firing. And, to be clear, if Gow really thinks his porn appearances don't impair him in his job as university Chancellor in small Wisconsin city, he's probably also too social judgement impaired for the job anyway. Chancellor is not a back-office job.
- hutzlibu 3y ago"if Gow really thinks his porn appearances don't impair him in his job as university Chancellor in small Wisconsin city, he's probably also too social judgement impaired for the job anyway." He clearly stated, he was aware of it: "We think our sex is beautiful and have no qualms at all about other people watching us make love,” they wrote. “But our establishment colleagues likely would be shocked … and we’re fairly certain we’d be shunned in our community. Our careers likely would be ruined.”" He simply thinks it should be allright and accepted behavior even for a university chancellor and I agree with that.
- voakbasda 3y agoSex is not immoral. Fuck everyone who thinks it is and imposes that belief on others. People who impose those beliefs on others as a tool to ruin lives and careers should be in prison.
- hackernoteng 3y agoI believe in objective morality. Porn is immoral. A persons immoral behavior outside of work is a red flag. It means they are also MORE likely to ack immoral at work. Based on that, it could be grounds for dismissal.
- whstl 3y agoIMO, your opinion more of a red flag than porn itself. Porn doesn't affect employee performance. Not directly, and not more than any other outside activity. Being of the opinion that someone should be fired or not hired because of something that doesn't affect work performance is a handicap on your leadership and collaboration skills. IMO.
- Chris2048 3y agoWhy is porn immoral?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jLaForest 3y agoI also believe in objective morality, I believe forcing your subjective beliefs on other people is immoral. Therefore in my system you are immoral.
- nickysielicki 3y agoI am from Wisconsin, have good friends that went to the UW-LAX, and it's obviously an embarrassment and something that damages the reputation of the university. It's very simple: imagine you're interviewing for a job, they look at your resume, they see the university you went to, and think, "Oh, I was just hearing something in the news about this school, what was that about again?" Obviously, an interviewer shouldn't reasonably hold this against a candidate, but it's in the back of their head. As a candidate, the bar to impress is made slightly higher in order to overcome that subconscious bias. One of my best friends is in this exact situation of looking to switch jobs (outside of tech, in sales) and holding a degree from UW-LAX, and he's legitimately punting his job search for a few months until this is out of the news cycle. That's just completely unacceptable. You could be the most competent chancellor in the world, but it doesn't matter if your lifestyle choices can have that kind of negative impact on alumni. It's unbelievably selfish. If you have some inner need to publicize your sexual encounters, that's fine and well, but you owe it to the thousands of people you represent to resign from your job. The only way that I can explain this sort of blatant disregard for the impact this would have on others is that he found the risk he was taking (risk both to himself and the community he represented) to be sexually thrilling.
- andy99 3y agoI'd forgotten the university and I've been hearing about the story for weeks. And nobody would know about it at all if they hadn't been fired. So I think the reputational concerns are way overblown.
- nickysielicki 3y agoI think regionally this story is still a big deal, especially in a more blue-collar sales role.
- mattsan 3y agoYeah, people perceive and retain things much differently if its happening in the local area or if its somewhere else, regardless of how much they look into the story.
- rosmax_1337 3y agoWhat is unclear is if the author meant to make a broad statement about activities outside work that don't really interfere with work. >wouldn’t it be simpler to agree that, at least if no laws are broken, one is judged at work only for what one does at work? Would the author still agree with this sentiment if the activity outside of work was not pornography, but something they themselves find disagreeable? Let's say for example, participating in a KKK gathering. (not public activism, which certainly can interfere with someone in an official position) Please note that the KKK is a stand-in example rather than an actual example. You can imagine but I'd refrain from mentioning more real examples, which people are actually fired or "canceled" for, activities which certainly is far from something like pornography.
- lelanthran 3y ago> Would the author still agree with this sentiment if the activity outside of work was not pornography, but something they themselves find disagreeable? Let's say for example, participating in a KKK gathering. (not public activism, which certainly can interfere with someone in an official position) Please note that the KKK is a stand-in example rather than an actual example. From reading other stories by that author at that same publication, I think he'd agree. He's against cancel-culture in general, and has been writing against it for the past few stories, at least.
- blueflow 3y agoA honest question, only tangentially on-topic. Our parents all needed to have sex so we got conceived. So i would expect it to be a socially normalized thing, aka "people do it all the time". But yet we live in a society where any form of open sexuality is shunned. If you want to play along you sort of have to pretend these things don't exist. Why is that?
- gumballindie 3y agoSame reason we pretend taking dumps and passing gas dont exist. Likely so we differentiate ourselves from primates that do everything out in the open.
- loa_in_ 3y agoNot everyone does. Arguably, hardly anyone does.
- AdrianB1 3y agoI don't think this is the object of the discussion. I don't mind people that have sex (that means almost everyone I know), but I dislike people that do sex in public, with minors, with animals, with cadavers etc. For me, porn is similar with sex in public and this can be annoying, distracting or disliked by other people.
- rysertio 3y ago> porn is similar with sex in public How so? No one is forcing you to watch porn. Apart from pornographic ads, porn is very different from someone having sex in public.
- Ferret7446 3y agoYour parents didn't need to record that sex and broadcast it publicly, possibly for profit. People do it all the time privately (at least historically) because it was considered an intimate activity, not a banned activity (again, historically and generally speaking).
- 1letterunixname 3y agoThe problem is there are too many uncool, untraveled, insecure, stupid people who happen to be Americans who aren't getting any and cling to their prejudices as part of their self-righteous identity.
- noqc 3y agoChancellor isn't a real job. It's basically just a hat that you wear while being unassuming. The whole point is to be unassuming. You can't do that with an onlyfans.
- bell-cot 3y agoIt would be nice if The Atlantic was sophisticated enough to comprehend that different jobs might carry very different expectations of "Free Time" moral appearances. (Hint - they ain't.) If this guy was a long-haul truck driver, who would ever care? Vs. a public university leader, in a country where porn addiction is seen as a major mental health problem for young people?
- rayiner 3y agoPeople’s activities in their free time bear on someone’s values. The kind of person who makes pornography is a particular kind of person. For most jobs, those personality traits are probably irrelevant. But they are relevant to an educator—someone who is in charge of socializing the next generation. The kind of person who makes pornography has no business being in charge of a state educational institution.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]