|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can your boss run your life?
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I'm wondering about this.
Can employers really contract to run employees’ personal lives? I’m anecdotally aware that many employers apparently decide against hiring certain job candidates based on contents of credit reports, length of unemployment (!), and candidates’ Facebook pages, but the practice strikes me as dodgy. I’m also vaguely aware of various i-net news stories where employees have allegedly been fired over Facebook revelations.
But this contractual obligation -- that the teacher agrees “to respect the moral and religious teachings of the Catholic Church in both her professional and personal life” -- seems both too broad and too vague, and could easily be misused. I mean, couldn’t she be fired for missing Mass on a Sunday when she wasn’t too sick to attend?
After all, she could have sought and received an abortion shortly after confirming the pregnancy, with no-one the wiser (though obviously she hasn’t), and that might have been an even more egregious violation of her contract in this particular employer’s eyes. Of course, you can't fire someone for her actions if you're ignorant of them.
Really, how far can employers go in running their employees’ personal lives? How far should we let them? What, if anything, can be done to halt the progress of employers going to unseemly lengths to control employees’ activities which have no appreciable effect on employers’ missions or bottom lines?
Please, let's try not to, um, mount the eagerly panting deceased nag, and just stick to the employer-employee problem.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lilac
Shipmate
# 17979
|
Posted
They're forgetting the Virgin Mary got pregnant outside wedlock. It's been suggested that this explains why Jesus was forgiving about adultery, unlike some. Moslems believe Mary was an unmarried virgin too. But then the angel Gabriel came to her in the form of a man...
--------------------
Seeking...
Posts: 62 | From: Birmingham / Coventry Area, UK | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
For all they know, she could have been sexually assaulted.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Really, how far can employers go in running their employees’ personal lives? How far should we let them? What, if anything, can be done to halt the progress of employers going to unseemly lengths to control employees’ activities which have no appreciable effect on employers’ missions or bottom lines?
It depends if part of your job is being a role model. It would be unreasonable to add such terms after someone had taken a job but it doesn't seem entirely out of place if part of the employer's mission is for staff to set an example of RC good behaviour and that's in the job spec.
When I had a job in the defense industry (during the Cold War period) I was told that in the unlikely event that I got a Russian girl friend I would get the sack. I didn't think the rule was unreasonable - though I regret never meeting one of those stunning Soviet temptresses we were warned about.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
It depends if part of your job is being a role model.
Surely it could be argued that, in not terminating the pregnancy, she is being a role model? I am not terribly familiar with RC teachings in this area, but I believe (and am happy to be corrected if I believe wrongly) that this employer wants to prohibit contraceptive use (this employee has apparently either complied with said teaching or her chosen contraceptive method let her down), and also prohibits pregnancy termination, a teaching with which she has likewise complied.
Plus Lilac's comment above. Also Doublethink's.
[ 05. February 2014, 15:05: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I am not terribly familiar with RC teachings in this area, but I believe (and am happy to be corrected if I believe wrongly) that this employer wants to prohibit contraceptive use (this employee has apparently either complied with said teaching or her chosen contraceptive method let her down), and also prohibits pregnancy termination, a teaching with which she has likewise complied.
The teaching that she has failed to comply with is the one about not having sex outside of marriage. If she had been using (successful) contraception then that might technically have been two sins, but the school would never have found out about it because they'd never have seen any evidence of it.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Surely it could be argued that, in not terminating the pregnancy, she is being a role model? I am not terribly familiar with RC teachings in this area, but I believe (and am happy to be corrected if I believe wrongly) that this employer wants to prohibit contraceptive use (this employee has apparently either complied with said teaching or her chosen contraceptive method let her down), and also prohibits pregnancy termination, a teaching with which she has likewise complied.
I know next to nothing about RC doctrine but surely you aren't supposed to have sex outside of marriage? It's a bit like a burglar who takes care not to damage his victim's property, sure you get a brownie point but you weren't supposed to be there in the first place.
Or what Marvin posted while I was typing.
[ 05. February 2014, 15:27: Message edited by: que sais-je ]
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Well, no, you aren't supposed to have sex outside marriage. But IF you do, then you aren't supposed to use contraception or have an abortion if you fall pregnant. Of course, someone who isn't bothered about following the Catholic Church's teaching will ignore the bans on contraception and abortion as well.
ISTM that she has a pretty good case against them, on the grounds that she is showing respect for the Church's teaching on contraception and abortion - but IANAL.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
There's also the possibility, raised by Doublethink, that the pregnancy could have resulted from an action she neither sought nor willingly participated in. While perhaps not be the case in this individual's situation, it's at least a theoretical possibility in others.
Could she be fired for becoming pregnant as the result of sexual assault? ISTM the contract language is waffly enough for an employer to attempt this.
And going back to Lilac's point, Mary was a willing participant in her impregnation.
I'm thinking here, of large-scale (but not necessarily church-affiliated) US employers trying to get out of subsidizing contraceptives for their employees under the ACA. Will they be able to fire women who become pregnant? It could be argued that temporarily (or permanently) replacing someone out on maternity leave does affect their bottom line.
Are we headed back to the 1950s for female employees?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I am acquainted with a teacher employed by the local RC board (in Ontario, these are funded by enrolled RCs' school taxes) who became pregnant last year as a result of an excess of comradely sentiment with a colleague and was not only not fired, but took advantage of maternity leave provisions after the birth, and one of her school's nuns stood as godmother at the baptism. The teacher told me that, in a similar situation at that school a few years earlier, the teacher was transferred to administrative duties, likely to avoid children's potential enquiries about the absence of a husband.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lilac:
They're forgetting the Virgin Mary got pregnant outside wedlock.
[tangent]
Reportedly heard in a Cardiff shop in the 60s:
"Our Sian is getting married."
"Married - I didn't know she was pregnant."
"She's not."
(Admiringly) "Oooh! There's posh!"
[/tangent]
[code]
[ 05. February 2014, 17:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Employers certainly do drug and alcohol testing on workers in some settings where intoxication is related to safety. They also do other medical assessments in the same vein. My understanding is that they may be required to provide some appropriate guidance/treatment/assessment to assist the person with such troubles because it's in the realm of medical problems that may be interpreted as a disability. -- this is what I understand in Canada.
Pregnancy and RC? A little flip of me to say it, but this is rather typically a major reason to get married, that there's a kid on the way.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Would a teacher in an RC school lose his or her job for seeking a divorce?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
*snip*
Pregnancy and RC? A little flip of me to say it, but this is rather typically a major reason to get married, that there's a kid on the way.
Since my post, I made a discreet enquiry and learned that the father was divorced and unable (ecclesiastically) to marry again. In any case, marriage might not have been on the agenda.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Would a teacher in an RC school lose his or her job for seeking a divorce?
Thirty-odd years ago, my brother-in-law's partner was told that it was OK to be divorced, but not OK to have a live-in lover. But I'm not sure whether what used to be called the Catholic Teacher's Contract can any longer be enforced in the UK. Or perhaps it is but enforceable, in my (admittedly limited) experience, very few RC schools are actually using it.
If you didn't live in the immediate locality, how would the school know about your private life?
ETA: More mundanely, I have another brother-in-law who used to work for one of the big 4 banks. You were told what areas of town you could live in, what local schools you should send your children to, and what kind of car you could drive to work. If you were an underling, you weren't allowed a better car than the Manager, even if dear old Uncle Charlie left you the Roller in his will.
[ 05. February 2014, 18:32: Message edited by: QLib ]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
Married Catholic-school teachers have been fired for getting pregnant via IVF which is also against Catholic doctrine, apparently.
I remember hearing a case on the radio a couple years ago where a teacher had been fired for unmarried pregnancy after having been raped, but some Googling is failing to turn it up.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Could she be fired for becoming pregnant as the result of sexual assault? ISTM the contract language is waffly enough for an employer to attempt this.
Leave it out, Porridge. If she had really been raped and as a result of this fell pregnant and decided to carry the child to term she would be a Catholic heroine! Why on earth would her employers want to sack her?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Indeed, Chesterbelloc. Given that by school spokesperson accounts, she is an excellent teacher, why would they want to sack her?
Yes, she had sex outside of marriage, which her employer forbids (but has the employer any actual right to do this?). But in not using contraception, and in not terminating the pregnancy, she is adhering to employer expectations. So why isn't she a Catholic heroine?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Employers certainly do drug and alcohol testing on workers in some settings where intoxication is related to safety.
Actually, here in the US it's common for job candidates (people not yet in any relationship to the employer, contractual or otherwise) to be required to undergo drug testing for jobs like "sales associate." While the employer pays the testing costs, it seems to me an incredible invasion of privacy for a prospective employer like Wal-M*rt or the like to demand this when they haven't even offered you a job yet.
What's worse, these tests have little efficacy except for screening out really heavy duty users of hard drugs, or those who use pot occasionally (apparently evidence of pot stays in the body for a few days after use, while evidence of the harder drugs can disappear in a few hours).*
*I know none of this from experience; I read about it in Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed.
After all, US police can't simply stop any citizen they please and demand that the citizen pee into a cup. They can't even do this with citizens who seek help from them -- "Officer! Help me find my child!" or "Officer! How do I get to South Maple Street?"
They can only do this when they've arrested someone, and for that, probable cause is needed.
Why should our civil rights be surrendered at our employers' threshholds?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Yes, she had sex outside of marriage, which her employer forbids (but has the employer any actual right to do this?). But in not using contraception, and in not terminating the pregnancy, she is adhering to employer expectations. So why isn't she a Catholic heroine?
Come on, this really isn't hard to understand.
If she'd been stealing from the school but giving the money to the local food bank that wouldn't make her a Catholic Heroine, nor would it mean she shouldn't be fired. Adhering to employer expectations in all areas bar one still means she's not adhering to that one.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Why should our civil rights be surrendered at our employers' threshholds?
It has escaped many that corporations own and run governments, get laws and policies passed to effect their wishes. Whether right to work union busting, or destruction of environmental regulations, if it creates jobs* it is Good, Godly and the Right Thing.
*"create jobs": gov't corp-speak for increases profit.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Actually, here in the US it's common for job candidates (people not yet in any relationship to the employer, contractual or otherwise) to be required to undergo drug testing for jobs like "sales associate." While the employer pays the testing costs, it seems to me an incredible invasion of privacy for a prospective employer like Wal-M*rt or the like to demand this when they haven't even offered you a job yet.
for many jobs it is required to get a copy of your criminal record (i.e. a background check) at one's own expense before the interview, even. in the cases where I've had to do it, it was $50-some for 3 sheets of blank paper. (I'm really boring, legally speaking) these reports would show all criminal activity, misdemeanor and felony, despite the law at least here that you do not have to disclose a misdemeanor.
the extra bummer of this is that if you've been unemployed long enough, $50 shelled out to even apply for a job can get very expensive. prohibitively, even. and in my experience, this has to be repeated for every job that asks for it, you can't just carry around your 3 pages of blank paper to each job application.
Further - my arrests are protected because I was a minor when they happened, so I'm lucky. I was arrested for protesting in political movements - what is to stop an employer from deciding that someone like me is not the type they want to hire either a) because their politics don't match or b) because they were political at all many years ago?
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
What's worse, these tests have little efficacy except for screening out really heavy duty users of hard drugs, or those who use pot occasionally (apparently evidence of pot stays in the body for a few days after use, while evidence of the harder drugs can disappear in a few hours).*
my understanding is different than this - 30 days or so for pot and some harder stuff is a lot longer - like YEARS for acid. I have a lot of friends who enjoy their recreational substances, and have heard lots of conversations about how to "flush" the system before the seasonal tests for tour bus drivers*. However, this is all anecdotal from a bunch of potheads, so take it for what it's worth.
*if I were the employer I'd start testing for seriously elevated levels of niacin.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275
|
Posted
On the general question of what an employer can expect of its employees outside work I won't claim to know exactly where the law lies. Most employers will have no reason to put any restrictions on out of work activities in place as long as the employee turns up for work on time and sober.
If the employer is campaigning on an issue then an employee who publicly declares a contrary position would be anything from an embarrassment to a liability. Presumably the employer would try to only take on staff who were in agreement with its point of view but if a rogue gets through they will probably want to get rid of them. This may be difficult in law and the amount of difficulty will no doubt vary between countries. I understand that in the UK an employee can be dismissed for any or no reason within the first two years** (used to be one year) and someone would have to be pretty good to get through that amount of time without revealing their true beliefs. Or they could just change their mind.
If a "normal" employer has someone who kills on the payroll then I suspect that they can be dismissed for not turning up because they are in prison. If the crime does not attract a custodial sentence can the employee be dismissed for bringing down the good name of the employer? And what about someone who is accused of murder and then acquitted in court?
In the case linked to in the OP the school did not generally look at what their staff did out of hours but this time they couldn't help noticing. Is it the job of a school to lay down what "moral rules" must be obeyed? Or should they be teaching children to make their own minds up. Also, Christianity is about forgiving people who fall short, not getting rid of them.
So in general I can see situations where an employer might want to dictate certain rules for outside work but I don't see this particular case as being one of them.
** You mustn't dismiss because of a prejudice, though.
--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?
Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I seem to remember a number of cases in the late 1980s about whether LEAs (Local Education Authorities) can require teachers not to advocate views, mainly about either educational theory or dead horse issues, which conflicted with those the LEA wanted people to think. I can't, though, remember what the ultimate result was, which views they could restrain, and which were regarded as an unreasonable interference with a teacher's freedom of speech.
Irrespective of the RCC position, I can see that if you're trying to discourage teenage girls from getting pregnant, a school has a legitimate interest in expecting unmarried teachers not to do so. It's rather more job-relevant for teachers than it would be, say, for staff in a research laboratory.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Yes, she had sex outside of marriage, which her employer forbids (but has the employer any actual right to do this?). But in not using contraception, and in not terminating the pregnancy, she is adhering to employer expectations. So why isn't she a Catholic heroine?
Come on, this really isn't hard to understand.
If she'd been stealing from the school but giving the money to the local food bank that wouldn't make her a Catholic Heroine, nor would it mean she shouldn't be fired. Adhering to employer expectations in all areas bar one still means she's not adhering to that one.
Last time I checked, stealing was a crime, and as far as I know, most democratically-governed communities (as opposed to other kinds of organizations) have statutes on the books about it. Had she been stealing, she'd be answering for that crime to the duly-designated authorities as well as getting fired, or at least put on leave until she'd been found guilty or acquitted.
Getting pregnant, at least for nubile females, is not only not illegal, it's pretty much par for the course. Most women of child-bearing age eventually get pregnant at least once. The authorities have no reason to get involved in most such situations; human beings have the right to reproduce.
However, if we're going to argue the role-model issue, this school has still screwed up. They could have placed her quietly on leave until after the birth, then restored her to her position (if she wished to continue in it). Instead, by firing her and thereby inviting a lawsuit, their decision gets headlines.
I thought Christianity taught forgiveness. Shouldn't the school be modeling that behavior for their students?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Last time I checked, stealing was a crime, and as far as I know, most democratically-governed communities (as opposed to other kinds of organizations) have statutes on the books about it.
Category error, I think. Stealing is both a crime and (usually) immoral. Extra-marital nookie is perfectly legal, but at least according to the RCC is immoral.
Were she fired for being a thief, I would say that that was a moral issue as well. The school would not wish to employ a thief as it would not wish to present that example to the children. Schools are rather less likely to fire employees who are convicted of crimes that don't involve moral turpitude - careless or reckless driving, for example.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Could she be fired for becoming pregnant as the result of sexual assault? ISTM the contract language is waffly enough for an employer to attempt this.
Leave it out, Porridge. If she had really been raped and as a result of this fell pregnant and decided to carry the child to term she would be a Catholic heroine! Why on earth would her employers want to sack her?
Are you saying employers only do things that make sense? How many jobs have you had?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If she'd been stealing from the school but giving the money to the local food bank that wouldn't make her a Catholic Heroine, nor would it mean she shouldn't be fired. Adhering to employer expectations in all areas bar one still means she's not adhering to that one.
Once she was pregnant, yes, she screwed up (pun intended), but at that point that's sunk costs. What should she do now? Let's see, what are the options? She needs her job, but the school is going to fire her if she has the kid. The school is saying, in huge letters that cannot possibly be missed, "Unmarried? Pregnant? Want to keep your job? Get an abortion."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edith
Shipmate
# 16978
|
Posted
And, as ever, the discussion is about a pregnant unmarried woman. What about an unmarried father or man who has been having sex outside marriage? And how could any employer or anyone else, for that matter, know what the unmarried bloke has been up to,?
--------------------
Edith
Posts: 256 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
In the United States, the State gives a great deal of deference to institutions run by religious organizations, even if they violate laws against discrimination. It is difficult to challenge such behavior, even when the organization receives public funding. Absent such funding, it's a balance between the protection against discrimination and religious freedom. You can see this tension in the new complicated American health insurance where religious organizations are exempted from having to provide insurance that includes contraception for employees who may not be members of the religious organization.
In dead horses there's an item about Firing of a gay teacher who married his partner by a non-diocesan Catholic Private School. It falls within the religious freedom even if many find it reprehensible.
I'm not sure whether the poster is thinking of this as legal but morally reprehensible or that it should be illegal. It does seem uncharitable to fire a pregnant employee.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Could she be fired for becoming pregnant as the result of sexual assault? ISTM the contract language is waffly enough for an employer to attempt this.
Leave it out, Porridge. If she had really been raped and as a result of this fell pregnant and decided to carry the child to term she would be a Catholic heroine! Why on earth would her employers want to sack her?
Are you saying employers only do things that make sense? How many jobs have you had?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If she'd been stealing from the school but giving the money to the local food bank that wouldn't make her a Catholic Heroine, nor would it mean she shouldn't be fired. Adhering to employer expectations in all areas bar one still means she's not adhering to that one.
Once she was pregnant, yes, she screwed up (pun intended), but at that point that's sunk costs. What should she do now? Let's see, what are the options? She needs her job, but the school is going to fire her if she has the kid. The school is saying, in huge letters that cannot possibly be missed, "Unmarried? Pregnant? Want to keep your job? Get an abortion."
Nope: the school is saying you broke the terms of your contract (*). The specific reason to some extent isn't material: in the view of the employer the behaviour concerned was contrary to their expectations.
[* Thought: I suppose if you push it, it might be construed as them saying don't have pre marital sex].
As to the OP question - the answer for most of us in the UK is that our contracts contain a "conduct and capability" clause. If you behave in a way outside work that brings disrepute to your work or employers then, technically, under the conduct clause you can be dismissed. Examples might be a senior employee who is persistently arrested for being drunk, a teacher posting racy pics on an (open) facebook account etc. So then, the answer is a kind of yes ....
Mind you as an employer I'd be fairly unhappy about avoidable behaviour in someone's private life causing issues which meant that they weren't performing at work or in a fit state to work. One real life example is the person turning up for work still suffering from the effects of the previous night's party - they were very fortunate to be sent home on the spot with a verbal warning. They were no use at work at all and their behaviour caused issues in the team who all had to carry a bigger load (and increased risk and responsibility) as the result of one person's stupidity ... so yes, I've reacted to a person's private life at work.
Well you might say that in this example they could have phoned in sick - true but if they admitted to being sick because of being drunk then that'd be a written warning; if they told a lie and it got found out (which it would've done - they weren't the only person from the office at the party that night), then it's good bye job on the spot: instant dismissal and rightly so - if someone lies about something that important then trust is out the window.
Now if it something they can't help - bereavement, divorce e.g - then it's a different matter. Many people go through that and with help from their work as well as others, move through it. It's a matter of degree.
A job pays you - not much in some cases for very hard work but there's a commitment beyond just being there. It's all generally laid out in your contract: if you don't like it, don't take the job and if you don't read it, well you've only got yourself to blame. Desperate? Well, then that should make you want to keep the job .....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
So in general I can see situations where an employer might want to dictate certain rules for outside work but I don't see this particular case as being one of them.
Most modern contracts prohibit you from seeking other work as a 2nd job, unless you have the permission of the employer. That's 100% the case for finance related jobs - seeking a 2nd job is seen (perhaps wrongly) as someone being short of cash -- which in the employers eyes poses an increased fraud risk.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
ETA: More mundanely, I have another brother-in-law who used to work for one of the big 4 banks. You were told what areas of town you could live in, what local schools you should send your children to, and what kind of car you could drive to work. If you were an underling, you weren't allowed a better car than the Manager, even if dear old Uncle Charlie left you the Roller in his will.
Yes that was the case IME too - you weren't allowed to have a mortgage on a detached house if you were a Assistant Manager. You also had to live within 15 miles or 20 minutes of your office - I was once refused a mortgage on a house 400 yards beyond 15 miles.
[code]
[ 06. February 2014, 07:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
However, if we're going to argue the role-model issue, this school has still screwed up. They could have placed her quietly on leave until after the birth, then restored her to her position (if she wished to continue in it). Instead, by firing her and thereby inviting a lawsuit, their decision gets headlines.
That would still be sending the message that there's nothing wrong with extra-marital sex.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Once she was pregnant, yes, she screwed up (pun intended), but at that point that's sunk costs. What should she do now? Let's see, what are the options? She needs her job, but the school is going to fire her if she has the kid. The school is saying, in huge letters that cannot possibly be missed, "Unmarried? Pregnant? Want to keep your job? Get an abortion."
The message the school is sending is quite clearly "Unmarried? Want to keep your job? Then don't fuck anyone." You're saying the "Unmarried? Pregnant?" part as if there's no moral aspect to that combination of factors, but as far as the RCC is concerned it is evidence of a serious moral failing, and one that they do not want their teachers to be modelling for their kids.
For what it's worth, I disagree with them about sex outside marriage being immoral. But given that they believe that, their actions are perfectly justified.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
And I still wonder about the legality of employers inserting into their contracts terms which restrict the human and/or civil and/or and legal rights of citizens of the government which permits the employers to carry out their business.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The message the school is sending is quite clearly "Unmarried? Want to keep your job? Then don't fuck anyone." You're saying the "Unmarried? Pregnant?" part as if there's no moral aspect to that combination of factors, but as far as the RCC is concerned it is evidence of a serious moral failing, and one that they do not want their teachers to be modelling for their kids.
For what it's worth, I disagree with them about sex outside marriage being immoral. But given that they believe that, their actions are perfectly justified.
Here's the thing, though: there's a "role model" involved only insofar as the issue is known.
Handled discreetly (that is, before it's obvious she's preggers), the school could place her on leave (out of daily sight of her students). Sure, there'd be rumors, but there would be anyway, even if she went on leave as a missionary to Alpha Centauri. Rumors can be ignored.
By firing her, the school pretty much guaranteed the matter would go public. Surely they could anticipate being sued. Lawsuits, unlike rumors, can't be ignored. So now we have several role model possibilities, including the school's efforts to restrict an excellent employee's human rights and failing to meet the forgiveness standard their religious affiliation sets them.
Isn't that a serious moral failing? Isn't that what the school is now modeling for their kids?
[code]
[ 06. February 2014, 21:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Teachers at a school near me have to sign a contract to say that they are 'in sympathy with' church teaching - and the teaching at that church is very strict, so it includes not living with a boyfriend.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
And I still wonder about the legality of employers inserting into their contracts terms which restrict the human and/or civil and/or and legal rights of citizens of the government which permits the employers to carry out their business.
Don't take the job then ....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
That hardly answers the problem, unless you're independently wealthy and don't need to work.
The problem is that employers -- at least in the US, where I live -- routinely restrict the rights of their employees. Some examples:
1. Restricting speech freedoms by telling employees not to discuss wages with other employees (a real problem for women, regularly paid 77 cents on the dollar compared to male peers -- but how is she supposed to find this out and attempt to rectify the situation if neither she nor coworkers can discuss pay rates?)
2. Invading the privacy of people who don't even work for them by demanding pre-hire drug screenings, access to candidates' Facebook pages and credit reports. Once granted access to such info, which personnel can see this? How is the info stored and/or safeguarded (if it is)? For how long is such info kept?
3. Invading privacy by searching the purses / pockets (and in some cases, even the persons) of employees even when there's no suspicion of theft.
4. Attempting to control the private activities / choices of employees when they are not on employer premises or during hours not contracted for by the employer, or in situations where the employee's connection to the employer isn't obvious.
What gives employers the right to deprive employees of their rights under the law? Is this some sort of "inalienable right" employers somehow acquire from on high merely by virtue of being employers?
Of course, we'd expect an employer to sack a worker who trash-talks the company, just as one citizen has the right of redress when slandered or libeled by another.
Of course an employer is going to fire an employee who deliberately damages or appropriates company property. If the neighbor drives through your fence or makes off with your coin collection, he's wronged you and you'd seek compensation or criminal complaint.
But one citizen doesn't have the right to demand (and expect) silence of another, or demand certain behavior, or require that other behavior be avoided, or have the right to private (but not necessarily work-related) information about you.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Handled discreetly (that is, before it's obvious she's preggers), the school could place her on leave (out of daily sight of her students). Sure, there'd be rumors, but there would be anyway, even if she went on leave as a missionary to Alpha Centauri. Rumors can be ignored.
Completely impractical. When my eldest was in school, I would run into her teacher on a regular basis in the grocery store.
Unless you actually ship the pregnant teacher off to the country, people are going to see her. Then, according to you, she's going to lose the baby weight, stop lactating and then return to school and nobody is going to see her at a local zoo with her child at the weekend.
I think the chances of being able to "pretend it didn't happen" are very close to zero.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
4. Attempting to control the private activities / choices of employees when they are not on employer premises or during hours not contracted for by the employer, or in situations where the employee's connection to the employer isn't obvious.
I'm confused by this. Is your case that a person who is shacked up with a partner outwith the bonds of holy matrimony is only being immoral whilst engaged in the coital act itself? Because that's nonsense.
[ 07. February 2014, 03:05: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
That hardly answers the problem, unless you're independently wealthy and don't need to work.
The problem is that employers -- at least in the US, where I live -- routinely restrict the rights of their employees. Some examples:
1. Restricting speech freedoms by telling employees not to discuss wages with other employees (a real problem for women, regularly paid 77 cents on the dollar compared to male peers -- but how is she supposed to find this out and attempt to rectify the situation if neither she nor coworkers can discuss pay rates?)
2. Invading the privacy of people who don't even work for them by demanding pre-hire drug screenings, access to candidates' Facebook pages and credit reports. Once granted access to such info, which personnel can see this? How is the info stored and/or safeguarded (if it is)? For how long is such info kept?
3. Invading privacy by searching the purses / pockets (and in some cases, even the persons) of employees even when there's no suspicion of theft.
4. Attempting to control the private activities / choices of employees when they are not on employer premises or during hours not contracted for by the employer, or in situations where the employee's connection to the employer isn't obvious.
What gives employers the right to deprive employees of their rights under the law? Is this some sort of "inalienable right" employers somehow acquire from on high merely by virtue of being employers?
Of course, we'd expect an employer to sack a worker who trash-talks the company, just as one citizen has the right of redress when slandered or libeled by another.
Of course an employer is going to fire an employee who deliberately damages or appropriates company property. If the neighbor drives through your fence or makes off with your coin collection, he's wronged you and you'd seek compensation or criminal complaint.
But one citizen doesn't have the right to demand (and expect) silence of another, or demand certain behavior, or require that other behavior be avoided, or have the right to private (but not necessarily work-related) information about you.
Taking your examples:
1. is clearly wrong but that's not control outside the workplace as in the OP. If you had proper unions in the US then it would help.
2, 3, 4 In the UK, depending on the work involved, all can be legal. It's a question of proportionality: having worked for various Government agencies, I expected a different level of vetting compared to working for a corner shop.
If it's disproportional then I'd expect people not to do it - if I find out then my lawyer sharpens his pencil. It's happened that way - and in the UK we have Data protection laws that I've even caught statutory agencies under.
If, in the US, workers were prepared to unionise whatever the initial cost then it would be different. Until your collective bargaining power is collective then expect employers to keep running over you.
When I'm employing 'ability to do the work I pay them for, therefore I will undertake certain checks. I have no hesitation in doing so subject to the rider of it being proportional to the job and legal to do. (It's not my fault that the law might be rubbish, if it is).
If you take Facebook for example, someone who posts comments abut previous employers and/or who seems to be a bit of a party dude tells me something. Now, these things wont make the decision to employ or not by themselves but they give me an indicator: in the first case, behaviour is often serial so do I want me and/or my company maligned on facebook? In the second, statistical evidence suggests that those who drink a bit too much can be loose with their tongues or more likely to be absent through party induced hangovers. I can't afford either.
If it comes down to a choice or I'm shortlisting, I'll take a chance, make a judgement call, be biased and sift the aforementioned groups.
The bottom line is that for some people, there's little commitment to work - they will do the least possible and quite often will have a negative impact on a team. The interview and appointment process should find the best people and reveal those for whom work will truly be hard work - for everyone around them.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I'd be inclined to let church authorities do as they see fit with teachers, as a matter of religious freedom-- however much I may disagree personally or suspect that they are ultimately shooting themselves in the foot by dismissing gifted people.
It should be a different matter, however, regarding employees of corporations, especially public corporations. Those making hiring decisions are themselves employees. They should be serving the interests of the owners/stockholders, not indulging personal prejudices. Furthermore, since a corporate charter confers certain desirable advantages enforceable by the state, the state may insist on some respect for the public interest in its operations as a condition of enjoying it.
I don't suppose this is the way things work now, but if I were Caesar... ;-)
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
And I still wonder about the legality of employers inserting into their contracts terms which restrict the human and/or civil and/or and legal rights of citizens of the government which permits the employers to carry out their business.
Don't take the job then ....
Not always an option. If you're currently unemployed and do this you'll be sanctioned, which potentially means no food or housing. Not really a viable option. People are effectively forced into jobs in this situation. Therefore it's not as simple as "well don't take the job."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
By firing her, the school pretty much guaranteed the matter would go public.
Presumably they judged that to be less bad than compromising their position by covering up what they consider to be a grave violation of their moral code.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Handled discreetly (that is, before it's obvious she's preggers), the school could place her on leave (out of daily sight of her students). Sure, there'd be rumors, but there would be anyway, even if she went on leave as a missionary to Alpha Centauri. Rumors can be ignored.
Completely impractical. When my eldest was in school, I would run into her teacher on a regular basis in the grocery store.
Unless you actually ship the pregnant teacher off to the country, people are going to see her. Then, according to you, she's going to lose the baby weight, stop lactating and then return to school and nobody is going to see her at a local zoo with her child at the weekend.
I think the chances of being able to "pretend it didn't happen" are very close to zero.
You're right, of course, assuming the teacher lives in the community where she works. That's often not the case here, and people routinely commute long distances to work. Several of my friends commute daily -- up to three hours each way -- to work in other states.
I have no idea whether this particular teacher lives in the employer's community.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I do not know about other places but a recent conversation (at my west end coffeehouse) with a clerical acquaintance/minion of the Scarlet Lady™ touching on this topic elicited the observation that abortion in Ontario being so easily accessible and not-really-frowned-upon-even-by-RCs, Separate School authorities try to be supportive of employees who find themselves in the family way, even by means of uncanonical enterprise. As they don't want to "complicate catechesis," unmarried pregnant teachers are often put on administrative duties once they begin showing but are sometimes left at their school. He said that they have pushed the Value Life and Respect Life agenda so much that they lean toward adopting a position that this trumps other considerations.
"Who am I to judge?" I quoted at him. Precisely, he answered. Happily, we were soon on to other topics, such as how he should deal with packing as lightly as possible, and the best churches to hit on the way to Santiago.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
Is the school trying to contract her to never sin during her entire employment?
Sex takes less than half an hour. You could spend longer gossiping, over-indulging on chocolate, or yelling at someone. Unless the school is seriously planning to fire someone on the grounds of "On 4:38, 5th of March, you committed the sin of gluttony", then they need to judge their employees based on the overall pattern of behaviour.
In the case of this employee, her overall pattern of behaviour seems to be that after having sinned (by having sex), she took the appropriate course of action (keeping the baby rather than having an abortion). That should be a good thing.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
For what it's worth, I disagree with them about sex outside marriage being immoral. But given that they believe that, their actions are perfectly justified.
Well, quite.
If you don't agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church, perhaps being a Catholic teacher just isn't for you?
[ 09. February 2014, 20:45: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Is the school trying to contract her to never sin during her entire employment?
Well, that's the question, isn't it? As religious bodies, I suppose church-affiliated schools can attempt to proscribe sin, and not just for teachers.
Where do employers, qua employers, get the right to expect an employee to contract away a basic human right to have sex (if so minded and the opportunity in the form of a willing partner presents) or babies?
I don't question the rationale behind this effort (though I disagree with it). Religious bodies of all sorts try to persuade adherents to engage in some behaviors and eschew others as immoral. That one major undertaking the religions I know of do, and religious freedom would likely have us turn a blind eye to potential conflicts between rights and moral prohibitions. In part, this is because we assume that adherents act from choice.
Employers do this too: they want certain tasks performed in certain ways at certain times to certain standards; that's what employers pay for. We seem to take for granted that potential conflicts between rights and workplace prohibitions/requirements are rightfully resolved in favor of the employer, and to hell with these pesky items called "rights."
How did employers achieve such sweeping powers? AFAIK, this teacher may not even belong to the religious body with which the school is affiliated. And while we continue to pretend that workers take jobs out of free choice, that simply isn't the case in this recession.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
