Case Application 4: Off-the-Job Behaviors

484 Words2 Pages
1. Do you believe Oiler’s employee rights were violated? Explain your position. Personally, I believe that Oiler’s employee rights were violated because they have invaded his privacy. Oiler being a homosexual was not a valid reason to terminate him since he never had done anything to destroy the company’s image. As said in the case, he had an impeccable and unblemished work record and he was punctual, trustworthy, and an exceptionally productive employee. I don’t see a good reason for them to fire him and also, I can’t seem to understand how being a cross-dresser off-duty could affect the company since was just a truck driver. Maybe I would have a second thought if he was in a really big position, but no, he is not. A company should only be allowed to fire someone if their off-duty behavior directly impacts their performance at work or the image of the company due to that person’s position within the company. In my opinion he was doing his job and his position within the company was that of one in which someone would not have necessarily recognized him, he was a truck driver and not the manager of Winn-Dixie Stores. 2. What do you see as the consequences of organizations that punish employees for certain off-the-job behaviors? Explain. The consequences for this employer action are: First, there would be a negative publicity. Second, it lowers employee morale. And last, it increases employee turnover. There would be a negative publicity on the side of the company because Oiler was just a truck driver and not a manager then they easily fired him for being a cross-dresser which I think is too much since he did very well during work. Most people would think that the company is discriminating homosexuals. It lowers employee morale. Employee morale is based not on how employees are performing, but how they feel about their performance and their role in the

More about Case Application 4: Off-the-Job Behaviors

Open Document