How do you feel about companies being political?

[SereneHome]

32 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

In my mind the line should be drawn based on the nature of the job.  If the job requirement is having a positive effect on the community, like teaching, therapy, youth leaders etc, then I think an ethics clause should definitely be in there.

My son's high school principal was fired for extremely bad behavior.  It was a small town.  His wife was a teacher at the school.  It came out that this was the third school to fire him for the same behavior, but the district hadn't checked beyond making sure he actually had worked at the other schools.  For the high schoolers, it was a clear case of "do what I say, not what I do" behavior and it negatively impacted how they thought about the principal and teacher.  It shook the integrity of the school and the respect for the authority there.
The teacher, his wife, wasn't fired.  But it was mentioned to her, and not the first time I'm sure she'd heard it, that it might be better not to return the next year.

So.....I don't know.  I think if a person's off-duty behavior negatively impacts their on-duty performance, that an ethics clause is needed.

 

I've given those type of situations a lot of thoughts and had a lot of debates with my husband about it.  I still don't think I have a very clear defined stand...

In theory I think our leaders and people in certain positions and jobs- on national, state, local levels (including schools and community places) should have the best and highest of the morals.  But in reality I have wondered if a person can be a great at their jobs while still having "bad behaviour" in his private life. And while it seems we want to punish those bad behaviors and do punish them - I don't see our morals and values are getting any better.

Would a man who cheats on his wife still be honest in his business dealings?

Would a woman who goes to bars and gets drunk on weekends still be a great elementary school teacher?

Would a firefighter who is a pedophile be any less effective in running into burning buildings and save lives?

Would a doctor who got DUI still be a great surgeon or diagnostician?

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Local(ish) teachers who have been fired for bad conduct were doing illegal things (like child abuse) or were doing questionable things while on duty (in one case while as a chaperone for a trip).  I have heard of some who were fired for stupid social media stuff posts but it was partly because they had students as "friends" on the social media sites so the line was blurred between work and home in the sense that they were still in contact with students even off duty.  Because of those blurred lines, lines of authority became blurred as well.  Or at least that was the rationale given. 

[DawnM]

18 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

Oh, the principal was definitely doing illegal stuff.  It took quite a bit of our small police force to take him down and deal with him until sobriety hit.  So I guess maybe there's the difference?  I'll have to think on this more.  I don't look too kindly at schools that fire teachers for doing perfectly legal things, I guess. 

Through the years I have known some teachers who have done very illegal things.  One is still in jail serving a 28 year sentence.  Another superintendent's wife went to jail for having sex with multiple football players on the high school team. 

 

A story of a teacher who was fired for being gay (not being in a relationship) from a church-run school comes to mind.

I still thing privately funded schools have the right to hire and fire who they wish.  So, if they were upfront about not hiring gay teachers and the teacher was not honest about it, it is within their right to fire.  

LOL The ideal part of my mind (which thinks ethics clauses aren't necessarily bad) is competing with the practical side that says that maybe we should just expect people to come to work and go home.  But I don't know which side would win if say, my kid's teacher was moonlighting as a stripper.  It's legal, but it would make me uncomfortable and I feel that would be a detriment to his/her day job.  But I don't know if that feeling's enough to put that on someone else's life and employment status.

my thoughts in green

Edited July 22, 2019 by DawnM

[SKL]

Regarding what people "do" (vs. think / vote for) in their private life ... first of all, if it's illegal, that risks the person being jailed and unavailable for work.  So that is a legitimate reason to fire IMO.  Secondly, if the person is in a position to influence young people, they need to keep their public persona appropriate for that role.  Do what you want (legally) in private, but don't post it on fb or otherwise parade it out in public.  If a person can't figure out how to keep private things private, that is an issue of good judgment IMO.

I did have an art teacher who, I knew, was behaving in a way my folks would not have liked me to behave.  (It involved intimate relations with a mom who was either divorced or separated from her husband.)  I knew about it because it was a small town and I had older brothers who knew from social contacts.  Anyhoo ... while I was not brought up to approve of his choices, as a young teen I was able to compartmentalize and still respect him as a teacher.  I admit this does not help clarify where the line falls.  When my mom was in high school, two of her married teachers were having an affair and the students knew it.  For my mom, this was completely upsetting to the point where she told off the male side and ended up flunking his class (eventually dropping out of school without ever completing it).  In that case, I think firing the teachers would have been justified.

[gardenmom5]

21 hours ago, StellaM said:

 , why you are all not out agitating for hugely increased compensation for workers at all levels as a result ?

'cause we understand the reality of economics that the money has to come from somewhere.

I live in an area with a generally higher minimum wage for low-skilled entry workers because the law of demand is: more jobs, fewer workers - low-skilled jobs will pay more to attract more applicants.  

 artificially raising the minimum wage always leads to inflation - because the money to pay them has to come from somewhere.  sea-tac was one of the first places to implement the $15 minimum wage - workers hours were cut, and they ended up making less money since their majority small employer couldn't absorb that into their overhead.