[OnTheIce]

Not only that, but he didn't say anything.

The original guy who made the comment hasn't taken any heat at all. The one guy that thought it was funny got fired and the other guy who also did nothing but thought it was funny will be getting fired.

The original guy who made the comment walked away and nobody has focused on him at all. The other two are taking all of the heat.

[andyt]

Firing of Shawn Simoes for off-duty 'FHRITP' video reflects employment trend

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/firing- ... -1.3071919

$1:

Hydro One is likely justified in their decision to fire Simoes, lawyers said.

Traditionally, a company's code of conduct would not cover off-duty actions, Overholt said.

"That said, there are certain kinds of extremely offensive and shocking off-duty conduct that may make the continuation of the employment relationship impossible."

FHRITP confrontation
Shauna Hunt confronted a group of hecklers who defended a man who said, 'F--k her right in the p---y." (CityNews)

Workers can be fired for behaviour outside work if it damages the reputation of their employer, he said.

[Lemmy]

And that's why I think the courts are going to have to draw the line. Unless there's a specific clause in the employment contract regarding personal conduct, I don't think the company has any legal grounds to dismiss someone for something unrelated to job performance. If a law's been broken and the employer has a "no criminal record" clause, that's one thing. But there'd have be a criminal trial before the company could activate that clause. And this dude didn't break any laws.

Problem is, again, the line keeps moving. What's next on the slippery slope? A guy gets caught on video all greased up in a Speedo at the Pride Parade and his homophobic boss cans him, claiming that the company's reputation was damaged? Seems like this trend is going to give free reign for bigots and religious zealots, all the way down to conservative prudes, to discriminate against whomever doesn't meet their moral standards.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Firing of Shawn Simoes for off-duty 'FHRITP' video reflects employment trend

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/firing- ... -1.3071919

$1:

Hydro One is likely justified in their decision to fire Simoes, lawyers said.

Traditionally, a company's code of conduct would not cover off-duty actions, Overholt said.

"That said, there are certain kinds of extremely offensive and shocking off-duty conduct that may make the continuation of the employment relationship impossible."

FHRITP confrontation
Shauna Hunt confronted a group of hecklers who defended a man who said, 'F--k her right in the p---y." (CityNews)

Workers can be fired for behaviour outside work if it damages the reputation of their employer, he said.

The guy never even made the comment. While he was acting like a douche, he never made the vulgar comment to begin with.

[andyt]

I don't know. In today's climate, a company trying to fire someone for appearing in a pride parade would find itself in trouble, rather than the employee.

What if the employee is the spokesperson for the HA? Or a white supremacist group? Are you saying people should be allowed to do anything that's legal outside work, with the employer not being able to fire them?

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The guy never even made the comment. While he was acting like a douche, he never made the vulgar comment to begin with.

Well we don't know that. It may not have been caught on camera but that doesn't mean he never said it. He did drop the F-bomb a bunch of times, even if the exact phrase wasn't uttered. And I would argue that endorsing the use of that comment (which he did) is at least as vulgar as saying it. Maybe more so.

But if you're right, there's that slippery slope: now a guy can get fired for dropping the F-bomb and laughing at drunken idiots saying vulgar things. Kinda funny that this guy loses his job on morality grounds while Rob Ford's still got an office at City Hall.

andy andy:

What if the employee is the spokesperson for the HA? Or a white supremacist group? Are you saying people should be allowed to do anything that's legal outside work, with the employer not being able to fire them?

Unless there's a specifically worded clause in the employment contract, that both parties have agreed to, yes. Employers should not have more power than courts in punishing private behaviour.

[ShepherdsDog]

It's going to be a game day for lawyers.

[andyt]

I"m torn here. Maybe it should be up the employer to insert a clause in the contract that controls behavior outside of work.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

I"m torn here. Maybe it should be up the employer to insert a clause in the contract that controls behavior outside of work.

Or to the employee, saying "I'm not signing that bullshit, any more than I will sign your non-compete clause that basically puts me out of work in the industry for which I'm trained."

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

And that's why I think the courts are going to have to draw the line.

I think so. Also a good endorsement of the need for unions. We had buddy here in BC a couple of years ago got caught on video beating an animal. Multi-millionaire company owner. Guess what--he didn't fire himself.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Lemmy Lemmy:

And that's why I think the courts are going to have to draw the line.

I think so. Also a good endorsement of the need for unions. We had buddy here in BC a couple of years ago got caught on video beating an animal. Multi-millionaire company owner. Guess what--he didn't fire himself.

[2Cdo]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Lemmy Lemmy:

And that's why I think the courts are going to have to draw the line.

I think so. Also a good endorsement of the need for unions. We had buddy here in BC a couple of years ago got caught on video beating an animal. Multi-millionaire company owner. Guess what--he didn't fire himself.

Nice try but not even remotely the same thing. If this guy worked for himself we could make a comparison. But then he wouldn't fire himself either.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

I"m torn here. Maybe it should be up the employer to insert a clause in the contract that controls behavior outside of work.

Or to the employee, saying "I'm not signing that bullshit, any more than I will sign your non-compete clause that basically puts me out of work in the industry for which I'm trained."

Well he can make that choice of course. As the right likes to say, nobody is forcing him to take that job.

We live in an increasingly corporatized society - that should be resisted. But in cases like this, I can see the employers side - why should their company suffer because of what an employee gets up to?

[Zipperfish]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Lemmy Lemmy:

And that's why I think the courts are going to have to draw the line.

I think so. Also a good endorsement of the need for unions. We had buddy here in BC a couple of years ago got caught on video beating an animal. Multi-millionaire company owner. Guess what--he didn't fire himself.

Nice try but not even remotely the same thing. If this guy worked for himself we could make a comparison. But then he wouldn't fire himself either.

I just don't feel an overwhelming need to hand corporations more power than they already have. Why should rich people get to be able to smoke crack on camera and keep their jobs, and workign shmoes get laid off because the company decides that they want to be able to control their staff 24/7.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

[But in cases like this, I can see the employers side - why should their company suffer because of what an employee gets up to?

Like voting NDP?

Edit: Seriously though, I can see the employer's side of this one too. Still don't agree wiht it though.