On Wednesday 06 July 2005 19:48, Rick Reumann wrote:
Hi,
Daniel Perry wrote the following on 7/6/2005 12:49 PM:
> Hah, it's the business use of web/email they fire you for. Go read
> your terms of employment, and the reference to "IT acceptible use
> policy" that you inadvertantly agreed to.
(the below has nothing to do with Mark)..
For the record, I'm not against an employer firing an employee for
'whatever' reason they deem fit. If they don't like the way you wear
your hair, I think they should have the right to fire you if they
want. (The public also has a right to know about it based on the use
of the press etc).
Now though I'm clearly not in the position to get fired anytime soon,
I still think as long as I'm doing my job right and don't blame the
company I work for, what I do in my leisure time is not my
employer's business. Including my haircut, age, religious beliefs
or whatever. What I sell are my skills, work performance and
last but not least a significant part of my lifetime, but neither
my soul nor my private life. In Germany, it's not quite that easy
to get rid of someone who, lets say, just got older because of
working for you. And I think this is just. Stealing silver spoons,
including deliberately breaking company rules in terms of
e-mail usage and the like is another issue.
Personally, if I owned a company and someone was using the company
email domain name to post on sites such as "swingers" or
"transvestitepride," I think I should have right to terminate his or
her's employment. What I have a problem with is ...
1) The inconsistency in what is protected. For example everyone today
talks about "tolerance." But what does this mean? What it ends up
meaning is "There are no moral absolutes so the only valid belief
system protected is one that doesn't espouse moral judgments." But
what about being tolerant to the idea that someone might feel
otherwise? Why is state sanctioned secularism the only valid
religion (and yes secularism is a belief system - a religion). It's
sort of funny that those whom often claim to be the most 'tolerant'
are often the most vicious when it comes to attacking someone that
disagrees with their view of "tolerance." There are many views I
could state that would get me labeled as being 'intolerant,' yet,
somehow it's supposedly not offensive to state "All views on X,Y,orZ
are equally acceptable." To me, and many others, that later position
can be considered extremely offensive. Why is only one view (secular
humanism) considered 'non offensive' but other religious views are
some how bigoted and intolerant. It's pure hypocrisy.
In Germany, in a major part thanks to the US (I mean it!), religious
freedom, for instance, is granted to everyone in our Constitutional
Law (Art. 4 GG). Getting fired just because of one's religious views
is impossible by law. So I, who believes in Jesus Christ as my personal
saviour and follows the Bible as his above-all-worldly-wisdom guide
can happily work together with Hindus and common atheists, in-
cluding my boss. I can even tell them if they're on the road to
eternal doom, the same as they may tell me I'm ridiciously wrong,
and still keep my job. And in fact, the Bible is quite intolerant when
confronted with modern secularism, but what's my choice? As
for general opinions and secular beliefs, we have Art. 5 GG
which grants freedom of speech. So there's no need for
hypocrisy here at all. On the other hand, I definitely never
would use a company e-mail address for anything other
than business communication, and whoever deliberately
chooses to do otherwise may just have to face the fruits
of his dauntness. Or his dumbness, if you will.
2) Someone taking the time on the list to 'complain' to someone's
employer. Sure you have the right to do so, but I think it's lame.
Quality never goes out of style, but good manners may. Possibly
a matter of education and attitude. I won't judge.
-- Christian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
