Once again, the judge has simply reaffirmed what took place in the past. Random drug testing is confirmation that a persons actions with illicit drugs on the job and off don't impact the workplace. Same with bonding or a security clearance. You get caught shoplifting after hours and you lose your bond on conviction. If being bondable is a job requirement and you've lost it, then you'd be out. I could go on with more examples, but I think the point has been amply made.
$1:
Untrue, unless The bus driver I know is lying through there teeth, possible I guess but doubtful you have allot of tickets and apply for a bus driver job then yes, but if you have a bus driver job and get one ticket your not getting fired.
I drive school bus and it's exactly the policy for the company I drive for as well as the others in the area. Ask your bud if he'd lose his school bus job if he was convicted of drinking and driving after hours. The "before" getting a job isn't the point we're discussing, and it isn't a "one ticket and your out" standard that I'm supporting.
$1:
Point is they still DO NOT get fired for it unless these are extreme.
So off work conduct does affect keeping your job. I've said that from the start. How extreme? This extreme?
$1:
...convicted of criminally harassing a young woman...
Which was the charge it was
plea bargained down to. Kinda more serious than a parking ticket isn't it?
You're correct, I've never been a pizza delivery dude, but the point I was making still stands. As the manager of a business that involves a vehicle fleet, I can say with 100% certainty that an employee's driver abstract impacts the rate paid for company vehicle insurance, and in our case an employee's conduct over his Christmas holiday (which resulted in charges, yet to go to trial) will result in his being fired, as he will not employable by us. Nothing short of the charges being dismissed will change the outcome as, in the least, his license is gone and with that so is his job.
$1:
That's not the issue the issue is that according to this they should be fired because they do that at home. And yes they are in a position to do that. They will be fired yes but the point is that they shouldn't even be there because of there off work activities.
You put out the teacher example. Not my fault is was a poor example. Besides, spanking kids isn't illegal. You're "just because they do it at home, they do it in the class" reasoning is also plainly faulty.
$1:
Unless of course they get like 5 speeding tickets etc. and even then you think they get fired?
Again with the weak reasoning. Nice how you've completely disregarded the examples I've made previously.
acidcomplex acidcomplex:
SprCForr SprCForr:
So long as the crackhead doesn't light up while actually on their crossing guard job it's all good, right?
Honestly yeah that would be all right, guess you never smoke pot or drink on your days off eh? what if we fired everyone who smoked pot while not on the job?. Oh right we wouldn't have many people left at all.
Nice. You'd trust the well being of children to a crackhead. Not me. And BTW, you're absolutely correct, I don't drink or do drugs on my time off. Nor any other time for that matter. I got better stuff to do with my time and money thanks. Actually, there are lot's of people out there who conduct themselves within the bounds of appropriate behavior.