THE LURE of the forbidden entices everybody! Despite it often-spelling disaster, no one is immune to the charm of the unknown. Even Adam and Eve fell prey to the allure of the forbidden fruit. And look where it got them - shown unceremoniously out of Eden.
Before you wonder where my ramblings are leading - I am hinting at the employer's urge to find out what the employees are doing when they are not working. Yes, when they are on their own time.
People are entitled to their privacy. A person's private life is off-limits to everyone - boss included. However, with the plethora of advanced technological tools, it is quite easy to keep tabs on anybody and everybody. In fact, nothing is sacred anymore and holding a job by itself becomes a gross invasion of privacy. The boss wields the baton and calls the shots in the workplace, but the equation changes once you step outside. The monitoring cannot and should not cross the line and permeate into an employee's off-the-job life. Intruding into the hallowed turf - his private life is a blatant abuse of power. Not only does it ruffle feathers with screams of `None of your business', but also invites the wrath of the law. After all, you cannot fire someone because he likes bungee jumping or plays golf, can you?
Once the arc lights are switched off...
An employee's lawful conduct while off-duty and away from the workplace is beyond the purview of the employer. His personal preferences and activities are none of their concern. The management cannot spy, question or videotape his conduct when not on the job. His private relationships, recreational activities and political or religious affiliations are strictly that --private. They cannot be used as grounds for disciplinary action or termination. Even moonlighting is permissible unless he is working for the competition or the management has explicitly restricted secondary employment. Fortunately though, should the moonlighter be charging for his services at his second job and does not declare the additional income to the revenue authorities, he can be prosecuted for tax violations with his original employer being the whistle blower.
The employees are entitled to a reasonable expectation of solitude and can do what they wish. But, what if an employee is imprisoned because of `drinking and driving'? And, what if he picks up an argument with his supervisor in the local pub? The course of action in the face of illegal drug abuse, public drunkenness or criminal charges is up for debate, though jurisprudentially it is met merely to include such clauses in the employment contract to serve as a means to terminate employment.
The overriding rule of thumb is that the employer can probe into the off-duty conduct and take action only if the said conduct affects the employee's job performance, tarnishes company reputation or jeopardises job credibility. Like, an accountant can be fired if found guilty of embezzlement even if the embezzlement is not carried out on his company but on another organisation during his free time.
But, smoking, dating, consuming alcohol or even gambling is permissible. After all, moral policing is not an activity that a company can indulge in. On the other hand companies can ban certain activities on legally violative grounds like moral turpitude and being dangerous to fellow workers.
Stir a hornet's nest
Trespassing on an employee's private life is the ultimate faux pas. The overall morale in the organisation will take a nosedive, if the employees perceive a loss of privacy on the job. Unreasonable intrusion is also illegal unless there is a very good reason for it.
Managements need to think long and hard before making a decision based on off-duty conduct. They should base their judgments on performance and attitude but not on what the employees are doing in their free time. An arbitrary reason for dismissal with little or no direct connection to work can be actionable. Evolved managements should give up the thought of needlessly monitoring and probing into an employee's private life. As it is famously said, `Curiosity killed the cat'. Which company would want to be that cat?
Before you wonder where my ramblings are leading - I am hinting at the employer's urge to find out what the employees are doing when they are not working. Yes, when they are on their own time.
People are entitled to their privacy. A person's private life is off-limits to everyone - boss included. However, with the plethora of advanced technological tools, it is quite easy to keep tabs on anybody and everybody. In fact, nothing is sacred anymore and holding a job by itself becomes a gross invasion of privacy. The boss wields the baton and calls the shots in the workplace, but the equation changes once you step outside. The monitoring cannot and should not cross the line and permeate into an employee's off-the-job life. Intruding into the hallowed turf - his private life is a blatant abuse of power. Not only does it ruffle feathers with screams of `None of your business', but also invites the wrath of the law. After all, you cannot fire someone because he likes bungee jumping or plays golf, can you?
Once the arc lights are switched off...
An employee's lawful conduct while off-duty and away from the workplace is beyond the purview of the employer. His personal preferences and activities are none of their concern. The management cannot spy, question or videotape his conduct when not on the job. His private relationships, recreational activities and political or religious affiliations are strictly that --private. They cannot be used as grounds for disciplinary action or termination. Even moonlighting is permissible unless he is working for the competition or the management has explicitly restricted secondary employment. Fortunately though, should the moonlighter be charging for his services at his second job and does not declare the additional income to the revenue authorities, he can be prosecuted for tax violations with his original employer being the whistle blower.
The employees are entitled to a reasonable expectation of solitude and can do what they wish. But, what if an employee is imprisoned because of `drinking and driving'? And, what if he picks up an argument with his supervisor in the local pub? The course of action in the face of illegal drug abuse, public drunkenness or criminal charges is up for debate, though jurisprudentially it is met merely to include such clauses in the employment contract to serve as a means to terminate employment.
The overriding rule of thumb is that the employer can probe into the off-duty conduct and take action only if the said conduct affects the employee's job performance, tarnishes company reputation or jeopardises job credibility. Like, an accountant can be fired if found guilty of embezzlement even if the embezzlement is not carried out on his company but on another organisation during his free time.
But, smoking, dating, consuming alcohol or even gambling is permissible. After all, moral policing is not an activity that a company can indulge in. On the other hand companies can ban certain activities on legally violative grounds like moral turpitude and being dangerous to fellow workers.
Stir a hornet's nest
Trespassing on an employee's private life is the ultimate faux pas. The overall morale in the organisation will take a nosedive, if the employees perceive a loss of privacy on the job. Unreasonable intrusion is also illegal unless there is a very good reason for it.
Managements need to think long and hard before making a decision based on off-duty conduct. They should base their judgments on performance and attitude but not on what the employees are doing in their free time. An arbitrary reason for dismissal with little or no direct connection to work can be actionable. Evolved managements should give up the thought of needlessly monitoring and probing into an employee's private life. As it is famously said, `Curiosity killed the cat'. Which company would want to be that cat?
PAYAL AGARWAL
No comments:
Post a Comment