Yes, because those organisations aren’t committed to equality; they’re committed to “equality”, and are in fact openly discriminatory. Remember that judge a couple of years ago who decided to set the precedent that it’s OK to chuck Jews off the jury merely for being Jewish if the defendant’s a Muslim? Bet he’d say he’s committed to equality. If we’re going to have all this prejudice in our state services, I’d rather we have a balance of different prejudices battling it out than that it all go in one direction while telling us it doesn’t exist.

> if you leave your beliefs at the door fine, if you don’t then fuck off and get another job.

Absolutely, yes.

> Employer didn’t hire on the grounds that he needed smart people to work for him, not dumbasses … the profile wasn’t *directly* relevant to the job.

Eh? What could be more relevant?

Then again, one of the early facebook/no-job stories was about a teen job hunter whose profile was fake-gangsta crap about smoking blunts and having sex. Employer didn’t hire on the grounds that he needed smart people to work for him, not dumbasses, and the FB stuff showed that the potential hire was definitely in the latter camp. Which seems reasonable to me even though the profile wasn’t *directly* relevant to the job.

It’s a tough one…

Sometimes there’s a difference; sometimes not so much. It’s easy enough to come up with examples. What if you start running a cafe as a family business, and your thirteen-year-old daughter helps out at weekends, and you hire a guy who is perfectly pleasant at work but who you later discover via Google is a big fan of rape fantasy cartoons? You’d be insane not to fire him. What if you run a small business and only have one employee and that employee turns out to be a keen supporter of Hamas, who have killed three members of your family? You’ve got to spend all your working days with this guy and give him the only wages you’re giving out? Fuck that. What if you accidentally hire someone who reads The Guardian?

OK, that’s a joke (probably), but there’s a serious point about deciding what to with your money. The Co-operative bank get lauded for their ethical investment policy, but would be breaking the law if they fired one of their employees because it turned out he was donating 10% of his wages to one of the causes they refuse to invest in.

> The majority of people who piss me off at work seem to be pure as snow.

You work for a large company. Most companies are small businesses, and, by their nature, need to operate more like a close-knit family unit if they’re going to work at all. Large companies tend to be in favour of anti-discrimination legislation and other regulations that make it hard to fire people precisely because it’s not a big problem for them but makes life prohibitively difficult for small businesses.

There’s a big difference between someone who is a pain in the arse and someone who does things in their spare time that you disapprove of. The majority of people who piss me off at work seem to be pure as snow.

>>They aren’t claiming it’s produced by Pfizer

No, but they are using Pfizer’s name to promote their product. That is arguably against the company’s interest as well as potentially bringing them into disrepute.

>>Disney employees could be fired for turning up at the local market wearing their uniform or name tag.

It’s a bit of an overreaction, but if you are wearing your company uniform then, yes, you are still representing your company. You had the choice to remove the uniform before you left work, so if you choose not to then you are choosing not to divorce yourself at that point from the company. A recent example was when I was in a DIY store wearing a company T-shirt. A bloke started asking me advice on buying a PC. I was well within my rights to tell him to piss off but I didn’t as I knew that I was wearing company livery that I chose to continue to wear so it was my own fault.

>>It’s been my experience that that’s simply not true in a corporation and most CEO’s would probably agree with me (even if superficially). Every employee is a representative of the corporate image and code of conduct on or off site is part of the agreement.

Really? You honestly think that there isn’t a difference between a low-level employee’s influence on the company’s reputation and a senior executive? If I was to commit mass-murder then it would probably have no influence on the share price – even if I did it at work. If my CEO farts incorrectly it would make the tech news at the very least.

The only difference between the idea of a corporate code of conduct which covers all out of work activity and slavery is that you can choose poverty with the code of conduct.

I’m always interested in seeing interviews with guys like Mick Fleetwood, ’cause they got into a band with a bunch of mates to have fun and ended up as their bosses. Most bands have that dynamic: someone ends up in charge. And then, if they have a long career, they sometimes have to fire people. Has Mick Fleetwood fired guitarists for reasons entirely unrelated to their guitar-playing ability? Yes. Should he have? Yes. You have to be able to get on with the people you work with. It seems obvious, I think, when you look at the example of a band, but, just because it’s less obvious in, say, an insurance company, doesn’t mean the same principle doesn’t apply.

When I worked at [censored], there was a bit of a bad episode where one of the employees was suddenly and unexpectedly stabbed in the neck by one of his colleagues. Turns out the attacker was literally insane and thought that he was some sort of military intelligence black operative and the attackee was his target. The attacker should definitely never have been hired, for reasons entirely unrelated to his ability to do the job. An extreme example, but still.

not really. There’s no law (here) against those things or those claims. The only thing you can’t do is claim it was approved by the FDA. So is it an abuse? They aren’t claiming it’s produced by Pfizer, and the chemist could be making it out of dried up bits of oatmeal in his kitchen so there’s nothing “technically” wrong about that.

>>if you are above a certain level in a corporation, your character may be linked directly to the fortunes of the company, so you should be expected to act with a certain amount of discretion.

It’s been my experience that that’s simply not true in a corporation and most CEO’s would probably agree with me (even if superficially). Every employee is a representative of the corporate image and code of conduct on or off site is part of the agreement. The idiot that had his snogging appointment on our doorstep is a great example – he earned a low level hourly wage and it was the first axe that began to do him in and I was highly pressured to fire him at that time.

A bit of a better example than Pfizer: Walt Disney built the Disney empire and it’s customer service standard other corporations seek to attain based on the entire premise that every single employee (on or off stage) represents the character and values of the company. Their code of conduct over the decades has reached very, very deeply into its employees personal choices and lives. The idea around Disney is that the guy who sweeps up the garbage on Main Street is equally responsible for the reputation of the brand and the company as the president. Up until very, very, very recently (and only due to budget cuts), Disney employees could be fired for turning up at the local market wearing their uniform or name tag. So if a Disney employee’s child was seriously ill and they had to stop at the store for medicine, they could be fired if caught standing there in uniform (and I”m not talking about the Mad Hatter suit here, I’m talking about someone working in a shop or scooping ice cream).

I absolutely see a benefit for a code of conduct and one always has the option of not participating it and seeking employment where it doesn’t matter. There’s one of two choices – the way I see it. Choice 1 is to have freedom of personal choice at the expense of professional choice. Choice 2 is to have professional choices at the expense of personal ones. I don’t think that’s very nice, but neither is it anything new.

Code of Conduct isn’t unusual and the only time I’ve seen exemptions for certain people are where monetary gifts or insider trading rules apply. So should a person exhibit a violation of a code of conduct prior to even being hired, it would not be a surprise if they never were hired in the first place.

The only time that I can see that the personal morality should have any bearing on it is if it either directly relates to the job if that job is a position of trust based on that morality (extreme example being a paedophile in a nursery) or if the job is based entirely on the perceived morality or character of the person. A judge, for example, could not perform their job as well if it were known that their activities outside of work where generally considered immoral (hence the expression “Who are they to judge”. ;-) ) or a celebrity who gets done for taking steroids endorsing sports kit. In these instances, they do have to be saints. That is what they are being paid for. Otherwise it shouldn’t matter. Note I’m saying shouldn’t rather than doesn’t. It’s not unusual for people to find people being forced out of jobs due to rumours of out of work impropriety. Also, if you are above a certain level in a corporation, your character may be linked directly to the fortunes of the company, so you should be expected to act with a certain amount of discretion. Your salary would also reflect that. Someone claiming that Steve Jobs molests goats, for example, could have a huge impact on Apple’s share price, so he would have to, if he wanted to remain in his position, have a squeaky-clean goat record.

>>But, if the chemist who made the drugs also sells home-made viagra with slogans like, “Developed by a Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Chemist!” then that erodes the perception of quality of the product I’m legitimately selling.

That’s not the same thing though. In your example the chemist is willfully abusing his position with the company for personal gain potentially at their expense. It works both ways. If your employer has to respect your rights then you have to respect theirs. It’s not a good example though. The chemist would probably be breaking the laws pertaining to pharmaceuticals so would be risking his job anyway. Non regulated though – I fix PCs. If I was to do that in my free time (as long as it wasn’t to my company’s clients or to potential corporate customers as I am contractually bound not to steal business from my employer) it is none of their business. If I sold the service using my company’s name then I’d deserve to get into trouble.

I’m interested in that – doesn’t the potential for a conflict of interest exist at levels that have nothing to do with obvious public roles or trust? In the spirit of “none of my employers business,” shouldn’t basic social values/morals be applied equally to all? Perhaps the consequences of breaking those social structures are greater depending on your role, but the expectation should, imo, be the same unless we subscribe to a “they should be saints but I don’t have to be” philosophy.

The paddle spanks both ways on this: If I’m a pharmaceuticals rep, I have the same right to privacy as the chemist who made the drugs I’m selling. But, if the chemist who made the drugs also sells home-made viagra with slogans like, “Developed by a Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Chemist!” then that erodes the perception of quality of the product I’m legitimately selling.

I think the reality is there are far less jobs that DON’T require what you do in your free time aren’t taken into account – particularly if controversial enough.

The thing to remember is that in hiring/firing/promoting the number one reason a person gets a job or loses one is whether or not the people in charge actually WANT to work with them. Now if I’m a randy ol man running a small business where I’m the big boss, I obviously want to hire the lady who sells bust cream. But outside of those hopefully unusual situations, two people equally qualified will be separated by who is the greater miscreant. Every recruiter says the same thing: you have to be able to sell yourself as a team player, be flexible and likable. I’ve been told that from being a filing clerk to a consultant. It also flies in the face of other employment norms (in the US anyway), which is the vast majority of jobs are attained through networking. By that very method of getting your foot in the door, your reputation is what is getting you the job, not your resume or applications.

I don’t disagree with the way things would be in a perfect world, but I do disagree that some should be held to a higher standard than others – mainly because I pity the fool who gets to decide what that heirachy’s line is drawn at.

It’s a bit like saying, “I was working on a Saturday in the office and Joe Smith came staggering into the parking garage with two hookers and shouting racial profanities at people passing by. But since he did that on his own time, I won’t let it affect my professional regard for him.” That would be the right thing to do I suppose, but, it’d also be a complete lie if I said I could do that. Reminds me of an employee I had who would sit on the hood of his street-racing car and make out with some neighborhood girl right in front of the building entrance. Public road and access, every right to be there legally but it killed his career and he was the laughing stock of the company for it (as was I as the boss who had to deal with it).

The tough question for me is, is what you put out on the internet private even if it’s public and should not be held to the same standard as a personal public encounter with a boss or co-worker?

The field of Human Resources is filled with the way things SHOULD be, which is directly in conflict with the way things are. If you’re the one hawking a bottle of viagra displayed in your cleavage, you can’t un-ring that bell and the best you can hope for is to do damage control or that your professional or academic talents are so extraordinary no one will care.