rollwithit Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Employers Prying into Private Lives, Should they be Able too? EG Oxfam It seem to be the norm now for all employers to extend their code of conduct into our private lives. If we are to earn a living, we forfeit our right to a private life. For example, the Oxfam aid workers going with prostitutes. If those workers did it in their own time, with their own money, with women of legal age who chose that profession. Then it should not be a problem. Politicians can hardly hold the moral high ground with their track records. If the aid workers misused charity money or broke the laws in the country's they operated in, then fair enough. Otherwise their private lives should remain private. It seems our civil freedoms get eroded away time and time again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Employers Prying into Private Lives, Should they be Able too? EG Oxfam It seem to be the norm now for all employers to extend their code of conduct into our private lives. If we are to earn a living, we forfeit our right to a private life. For example, the Oxfam aid workers going with prostitutes. If those workers did it in their own time, with their own money, with women of legal age who chose that profession. Then it should not be a problem. Politicians can hardly hold the moral high ground with their track records. If the aid workers misused charity money or broke the laws in the country's they operated in, then fair enough. Otherwise their private lives should remain private. It seems our civil freedoms get eroded away time and time again. I've avoided news for going on 8 months now, but this bold stood out. (I allow myself QT and reading the titles of the top 10 BBC stories, for info) I wrote about this years ago online (2005 written but posted 2007 online) - it was amongst my predictions about how the interpretations about facts being diluted/altered/ for the sake of a cause will spread faster than ever in the future - a world of information where everyone has access to info, but in fact sticks to 'their mates' (modern term, social media). Though it's vague, it pretty much predicted fake news. What did I get for that? You're paranoid, stupid, thick. The link in this is basically how rules (and all laws too) alter because the majority react wildly to a very small percentage of morons, and it's the majority that will suffer by their own actions, and they don't seems to learn from a history of this repetition. - So to the bold: regardless of whether we like it or not: 'employers WILL pry, depending on the position'; and should they be able to? - is then a pointless question. It will happen in more and more positions until there is a database on everyone. If you were an employer, (or to change that around) - if I was employing someone to look after the children - would I want access to their history? - yes. If was a recruitment person for a government run thing - like NHS, if I was responsible for the actions of recruiting someone, they would I want access to their history? - yes. If I was a political party recruiting someone, would I want to know everything they've ever written online? - yes (the point I was making at the time and said it for years in here, is that politicians will only get worse, as no one in their right mind will take on a position where they get death threats by the thousand and [even] BBC reporters running after them in the street) - and I said we'll end up with people like that blonde repulsive woman who's name I can't recall. Donald Trump anyone?! etc. In my writing I used the analogy of insurance companies, because although this above hadn't happened at the time, I saw it in the insurance company algorithms, and it's spread to the rest of society now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontarian1981 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 I've avoided news for going on 8 months now, but this bold stood out. (I allow myself QT and reading the titles of the top 10 BBC stories, for info) I wrote about this years ago online (2005 written but posted 2007 online) - it was amongst my predictions about how the interpretations about facts being diluted/altered/ for the sake of a cause will spread faster than ever in the future - a world of information where everyone has access to info, but in fact sticks to 'their mates' (modern term, social media). Though it's vague, it pretty much predicted fake news. What did I get for that? You're paranoid, stupid, thick. The link in this is basically how rules (and all laws too) alter because the majority react wildly to a very small percentage of morons, and it's the majority that will suffer by their own actions, and they don't seems to learn from a history of this repetition. - So to the bold: regardless of whether we like it or not: 'employers WILL pry, depending on the position'; and should they be able to? - is then a pointless question. It will happen in more and more positions until there is a database on everyone. If you were an employer, (or to change that around) - if I was employing someone to look after the children - would I want access to their history? - yes. If was a recruitment person for a government run thing - like NHS, if I was responsible for the actions of recruiting someone, they would I want access to their history? - yes. If I was a political party recruiting someone, would I want to know everything they've ever written online? - yes (the point I was making at the time and said it for years in here, is that politicians will only get worse, as no one in their right mind will take on a position where they get death threats by the thousand and [even] BBC reporters running after them in the street) - and I said we'll end up with people like that blonde repulsive woman who's name I can't recall. Donald Trump anyone?! etc. In my writing I used the analogy of insurance companies, because although this above hadn't happened at the time, I saw it in the insurance company algorithms, and it's spread to the rest of society now. But other than all that, is everything OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Employers Prying into Private Lives, Should they be Able too? EG Oxfam It seem to be the norm now for all employers to extend their code of conduct into our private lives. If we are to earn a living, we forfeit our right to a private life. For example, the Oxfam aid workers going with prostitutes. If those workers did it in their own time, with their own money, with women of legal age who chose that profession. Then it should not be a problem. Politicians can hardly hold the moral high ground with their track records. If the aid workers misused charity money or broke the laws in the country's they operated in, then fair enough. Otherwise their private lives should remain private. It seems our civil freedoms get eroded away time and time again. It was a crime in the country that they were in. I don't think that any company should have to accept that you can go out after hours and commit crimes and that it's not there business. It's not a civil freedom that is being eroded to commit crime when you're not at work is it. It's also possible for someone's private life to be incompatible with the job that they do. For example, if you were responsible for animal welfare as part of your job, but in your off time liked to hunt foxes, or maybe a bit of badger baiting, these would be morally incompatible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 For example, the Oxfam aid workers going with prostitutes. If those workers did it in their own time, with their own money, with women of legal age who chose that profession. Then it should not be a problem. If it had been any other organisation, I'd have turned a blind eye. But Oxfam aren't "any other organisation" are they? Their entire ethos is about protecting vulnerable people. Have you even been put on a major charity's mailing list? You should sign up for some. Every single natural disaster or man-made atrocity and you're inundated with phone calls, emails and post asking you to donate and save vulnerable people from hunger, disease and exploitation. Now Oxfam's aid workers can't be seen to be doing those things they've been accused of, which is the very thing Oxfam is trying to prevent, can they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENG601PM Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 I didn't have you down as a prude Joker. I might have missed something but I'm still unconvinced that the Oxfam affair is a sackable offence until the people are convicted of an offence by the authorities. But taking a job does involve a contract signed by 2 parties. If that contract says that the employer has certain standards in and out of work then the employee should abide by those contracted standards or be fired. However, there should be a legal reasonableness test for whether that employer is entitled to insist on any kind of behaviour. What a person does in their private life is an individual's private affair until it negatively affects an uninvolved party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 I didn't have you down as a prude Joker. I might have missed something but I'm still unconvinced that the Oxfam affair is a sackable offence until the people are convicted of an offence by the authorities. Well if it’s any consolation, I didn’t have you down as the type of sleazy opportunist who would give somebody aid on the condition they’d let you have sex with them. Because that’s one of the accusations Oxfam is currently facing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 I didn't have you down as a prude Joker. I might have missed something but I'm still unconvinced that the Oxfam affair is a sackable offence until the people are convicted of an offence by the authorities. But taking a job does involve a contract signed by 2 parties. If that contract says that the employer has certain standards in and out of work then the employee should abide by those contracted standards or be fired. However, there should be a legal reasonableness test for whether that employer is entitled to insist on any kind of behaviour. What a person does in their private life is an individual's private affair until it negatively affects an uninvolved party. There is a good point here about being found guilty of something before being sacked. But imagine this situation: charity rents a house and staff bring sex workers back to the house. Staff then admit to it and in doing so admit to illegal acts in the country they were in. In a lot of organisations (though not all admittedly) that would probably be enough for disciplinary processes to begin regardless of any legal or criminal proceedings. The issue then is how the organisation responds. Do they inform the law. I’ve worked at a company that shopped an employee to the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENG601PM Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 Well if it’s any consolation, I didn’t have you down as the type of sleazy opportunist who would give somebody aid on the condition they’d let you have sex with them. Because that’s one of the accusations Oxfam is currently facing. There's the magic word - "accusation". Where's the evidence of the Bread For Blowjobs campaign? It may be there but I've only seen insinuations and extensions of thinking, possiblys, maybes, what ifs, etc. I clearly set out above how I feel and there's no way you can accuse me of sleazy opportunism. I do quite like to see justice done properly instead of by the mob though. ---------- Post added 13-02-2018 at 10:08 ---------- There is a good point here about being found guilty of something before being sacked. But imagine this situation: charity rents a house and staff bring sex workers back to the house. Staff then admit to it and in doing so admit to illegal acts in the country they were in. In a lot of organisations (though not all admittedly) that would probably be enough for disciplinary processes to begin regardless of any legal or criminal proceedings. The issue then is how the organisation responds. Do they inform the law. I’ve worked at a company that shopped an employee to the police. We were talking about this last night over a beer and I quickly decided that, if I were their boss at Oxfam, the local law should have been involved and let it find its own solution which may have contractual issues too. There's an entirely different question about the legality of prostitution (I don't think it should be illegal) but as a responsible Oxfam boss I would have little choice as a key NGO in that country in that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 If those workers did it in their own time, with their own money, with women of legal age who chose that profession. Then it should not be a problem. This is very different from, say, Asda workers going to Amsterdam and visiting the red light district. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now