[mindvirus]

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.

[IAmGraydon]

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.

[Spooky23]

The problem is that the line is very arbitrary and capricious.

I work for a government entity, and am subject to a variety of ethics laws that dictate certain aspects of my behavior outside of work. It’s onerous and heavy handed, but at least there are rules and case law to provide some level of due process and fairness. It still sucks - I actually have a social life, and I have to be very careful about who I’m around and that there is no problematic perceptions.

With private sector employers, especially entities that aren’t publicly traded, you don’t always know where you stand and the rules are subject to the whims of people whom you may not even know.

If you aren’t in a public facing role authoritatively representing the company or using the company to promote your outside activity, it should be a non issue. How many gays were drummed out and persecuted before the law protected them?

[flandish]

Well, in some nation states one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

A properly managed corporation would instill that mindset, stop things from being hostile, remind others of that “right” and then go from there.

The problem is that all corporations ignore this right and hedge proposed changes in profit at the expense of the working class employee’s means to life or insurance or both.

[lgkk]

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.

[seesawtron]

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]

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.

[pi-e-sigma]

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]

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.

[insickness]

> 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.

[SnorkelTan]

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]

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]

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

[from-nibly]

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.

[AdrianB1]

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.

[Dwedit]

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

[AdrianB1]

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.

[loa_in_]

As judged by whom?

[AmVess]

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]

> 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.