FHRITP

According to this, in New York, it's illegal to fire someone based upon their political activities, and in the link to it to another page, four states have laws for that.

HR Magazine: Off Duty, Out of Work

In some states, such as California, it is illegal to fire based upon lawful conduct.

Off-Duty Conduct and Employee Rights | Nolo.com

And here's an article that lists a whole bunch of lawsuits for firings for out of work conduct, some of which was as a result of criminal activity, but the courts ruled the employer wouldn't be impacted.

When Can You Fire for Off-Duty Conduct? - HBR


So, depending on the state, Starman's response should have been: Unemployment insurance will be a nice supplement to the lawsuit.

 

They're crazy serious about this.

Coke and Pepsi too.

 

How is this not harassment?

What was he going to to if he did have a vibrator? If she's "lucky" that they don't have one, isn't the implication that they would use it on her/assault her with it if they did?

That's a threat. That's harassment.

And, it's only because she's a woman. A guy reporter doing the same job wouldn't get bothered at all most likely, and even if a couple of drunks did decide to make fools of themselves, it would be by making sexual threats/comments.

Fuck this guy.

 

Sounds believable.

Starman is known for his vague and diplomatic posts.

 

I suspect the Starman we experience and the Starman the real world experiences are very different creatures ...

 

Fuck him right in the paycheck ...

 

I didn't say it wasn't harassment. I find say that people shouldn't be fired, or threatened with firing, for doing something legal off the clock.

You mentioned Coke and Pepsi. Like I said, unless there's some sort of employment agreement, I wonder what would happen if someone was fired for drinking the rival's product during off-time, then sued. Like I said with other examples, would a newspaper person be fired for buying a copy of another paper? Or what about a teen who was hanging out with friends at another fast-food joint? Same exact thing as Coke-Pepsi.

ADD: Coke had fired a deliveryman for drinking a Pepsi when on the job. The Teamsters union said it was in retaliation for union organizing.

The cola wars get personal - Jun. 16, 2003

On the Teamsters web site, the guy did get his job back from what a headline said but the story had disappeared from the site.

 

Should he have gotten a 2-week non-paid suspension first?

He was drunk, at a game. Unless he has a crappy work record, the lesson could have been served with a suspension and the guy writing an apology to the reporter.

 

Didn't you say this guy, the guy in the video who did get fired, should not have been fired?

Instead of getting bogged down in silly analogies, please clarify your opinion in this particular case.

As for the Coke/Pepsi and Bud/Coors thing, these are pretty rare examples. They are well understood by the people that work there. They are ubiquitous products, differentiated mostly by brand loyalty. Drinking one, when the other is available is an implicit endorsement of a competing brand of your own employer's brand. That's a no-no. And, at these companies, even if only one brand is available, and it's not yours, you take a pass.

 

I wasn't referring to the guy in particular. Right above my first post was the woman who was making a fuss at the memorial. Stupid? Yes. Fireable? I don't think so.

The original story brought up the guy, but was also using other examples, some of which was about companies trying to control workers off the clock. That is what I was also referring to.

And the silly analogies are the same exact thing as the real-life examples that I have posted. And yet, nobody has seemed to want to answer whether or not they agree that those examples would be fireable offenses.

 

This doesn't clear it up for me.

Should the guy in the video referenced in the original post have been fired? Yes, or no?

 

Baron, what you're failing to realize is that an awful lot of behavior that used to be private, i.e. not reflective of your employer, wife, friends, etc., is not private any more.

Once you're caught on video, it is a public act that an employer is perfectly within his/her rights to deem an inappropriate reflection of the company and punish you for it, or decide it's not worth doing business with you in the future. Doubtful any punishment would be doled out if you just said it around three buddies at a home poker game.