Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> Kwyjibo wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Kwyjibo wrote
>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Craig Welch wrote
>>>>>> Alan Parkington <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> wrote

>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...007132,00.html

>>>>>>> A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
>>>>>>> after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation
>>>>>>> and get her job back.

>>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.

>>>>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>>>>> character of its employees?

>>>> They probably are allowed,

Nope, not with what the employees can get up to in their own time they arent.

>>>> but as far as I am aware no such standards have been set or published.
>>>> What is the employees moral standard to be measured against?

>>> Whatever moral standard Telstra wants to set for itself from time to time.

Telstra doesnt get to do that with what employees do in their own time.

>> Are you suggesting that people should be sacked based on a whim?

> No. And no-one gets sacked on "whims".

Plenty do.

> Only an insane employer would sack an employee just for the hell of it.

You dont have to be insane to do that. Plenty operate like that.

> I'm suggesting Telstra (or any other business) should be able to sack an
> employee if that employee behaves in such a way which, in the company's
> opinion, reflects badly on the company or might cause the company harm.

Welp, legally they cant. And its completely silly to claim that they should
be able to sack someone who doesnt say attend church or is into some
fruit loop cult as long as that doesnt interfere with their work etc.

> Furthermore, in some situations, a company must be seen to take
> disciplinary action lest "doing nothing" be seen as tacit approval.

Wrong with what is done in the employee's own time.

'tacit approval' isnt even relevant.

Telstra cant for example sack someone because they choose not to
bother with marraige or because they are a cricket tragic etc etc etc.

>>> Are you suggesting that in order to apply a moral standard, a
>>> company (be it Telstra, Woolworths, Adelaide City Coucil, or John
>>> Smith & Son Stationery Supplies Pty Ltd) must first publish it?

>> If people are to be measured against it, surely they must be notified as to what
>> they are being measured against. Even more so given the grey nature of 'morals'.

> What form of "notification" would you suggest (assuming you don't agree
> that it always must be an after-hours moral free-for-all for all employees)?

That last is precisely what it is, legally.

>>> Unfortunately, it's nigh on impossible to codify morality (at least with any specificity).

>> It's not a 'standard' then, is it, and any attempt to measure
>> someone against something that does not exist is nonsensical.

> Yes it is. Everyone has moral standards. They're just impossible to write
> down in a way that will prevent someone who wants to breach them.

And telstra gets no say what so ever on the moral standards of any employee outside the workplace.

>> BTW - Most companies *do* codify their moral standards in a 'Code of
>> Conduct" or similar statement.

> And they're always expressed in airy-fairy language that's of no use
> when an actual, but unusual, real life dispute about morality has arisen.

And they cant even do that with what individuals do in their own time anyway.

> It's easy to cover the common ones (alcohol, drugs, criminality -- though
> often these are included for reasons of safety rather than morality).

> The problems arise when you get even slightly unusual behaviour.

And telstra gets no say what so ever about what any employee does in that
regard in their own time, whether thats taking part in the Mardi Gras parade,
or being stupid enough to bother to listen to the dud waffling on Aust Day etc.

>> AFAIK, no "Code of Conduct" mentions people having sex outside of working hours.

> No "Code of Conduct" mentions naked employees smearing animals
> turds over their body while being photographed for magazines either.

And telstra gets no say what so ever on an employee of theirs doing that in their own time.

Or attending the cricket either.