12 ms·

One 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

One 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 ago
Do 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 ago
  IMO: 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 ago
  Of 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 ago
This 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 ago
  I 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 ago
If 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 ago
  This 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 ago
While 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 ago
  In 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      Are 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 ago
Morality 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.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - junon 3y ago
      Always strange to see this type on HN.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        You mean normal? What percentage of the world’s population do you think agreed with me that making porn is degenerate, and also that Trump is a degenerate? 80% maybe?
        junon 3y ago
        To assert yourself as normal says a lot.
        rayiner 3y ago
        I think it says a lot that you think normal people are okay with making porn in your free time, or cavorting with porn stars.
Dwedit 3y ago
Okay, but then what about people who start making racist or antisemetic tweets during their off-hours?
- loa_in_ 3y ago
  As judged by whom?
- AdrianB1 3y ago
  Free speech is fine in most cases. People can have opinions that other people dislike, even most people dislike. The problem is what they do (act), not what they say.
AdrianB1 3y ago
Trust 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 ago
Yes, 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.

mindcure 3y ago

[dead]

SnorkelTan 3y ago

Do 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 ago
IMO: 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 ago
Of 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 ago

This 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 ago
I 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 ago

If 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 ago
This 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 ago

While 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 ago
In 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    Are 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 ago

Morality 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.
- rayiner 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - junon 3y ago
    Always strange to see this type on HN.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      You mean normal? What percentage of the world’s population do you think agreed with me that making porn is degenerate, and also that Trump is a degenerate? 80% maybe?
      - junon 3y ago
        To assert yourself as normal says a lot.
        rayiner 3y ago
        I think it says a lot that you think normal people are okay with making porn in your free time, or cavorting with porn stars.

Dwedit 3y ago

Okay, but then what about people who start making racist or antisemetic tweets during their off-hours?

loa_in_ 3y ago
As judged by whom?
AdrianB1 3y ago
Free speech is fine in most cases. People can have opinions that other people dislike, even most people dislike. The problem is what they do (act), not what they say.

AdrianB1 3y ago

Trust 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 ago

Yes, 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.