[mindvirus]

One big viewpoint shift I've had over the past 5 years is that it should be very hard to fire people for their actions outside of work. By and large things that aren't criminal, don't involve employees of the company or their customers, and are not done under the guise of being an employee of the company should be that person's business alone. I get that there are a lot of grey areas, but it feels to me we've gone way too far the other way.

[IAmGraydon]

While I agree in principle, the fact remains that certain things you publicly do in your free time will change the way people view you and their respect for you as a professional. In the end, it affects your ability to do your job when you lose respect of your colleagues and clients.

In a perfect world, this wouldn’t be a problem, but we’re far from that.

[Spooky23]

The problem is that the line is very arbitrary and capricious.

I work for a government entity, and am subject to a variety of ethics laws that dictate certain aspects of my behavior outside of work. It’s onerous and heavy handed, but at least there are rules and case law to provide some level of due process and fairness. It still sucks - I actually have a social life, and I have to be very careful about who I’m around and that there is no problematic perceptions.

With private sector employers, especially entities that aren’t publicly traded, you don’t always know where you stand and the rules are subject to the whims of people whom you may not even know.

If you aren’t in a public facing role authoritatively representing the company or using the company to promote your outside activity, it should be a non issue. How many gays were drummed out and persecuted before the law protected them?

[rayiner]

> I have to be very careful about who I’m around and that there is no problematic perceptions

That seems like society working as intended!

[Spooky23]

It is - but the key thing is there are rules and due process. When your boss decides your swimsuit pictures are too titillating for you to be an accountant for a car dealership, different story.

[flandish]

Well, in some nation states one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

A properly managed corporation would instill that mindset, stop things from being hostile, remind others of that “right” and then go from there.

The problem is that all corporations ignore this right and hedge proposed changes in profit at the expense of the working class employee’s means to life or insurance or both.

[lgkk]

In a perfect world I think that people wouldn’t be resorting to OF or porn.

Imo people today do that to make fast money and well… I don’t personally know why I should be forced to accept or approve that kind of way of money making. I don’t respect drug dealers, corrupt businessmen, nor YouTube scammers. I also don’t respect people who perpetuate mental harms by producing porn and contributing to these issues. I do respect startup founders that solve actual problems, teachers who help improve failing schools, or scientists who don’t accept corporate funding to paint an inaccurate picture.

I value persistence, virtue, and meritocracy and no amount of social force will make me accept certain behaviors.

Just being honest with my opinion.

And people are free to disagree with my pov as well, and do whatever they want.

[maxbond]

If I told you that I had moral views about the legal and consensual stuff you get up to in your private life (whatever that may be), and I told you I thought it was reprehensible and that you should lose your job over it, would you perhaps think I was being overbearing and that I should mind my own business?

Eg, if you were a person of faith (I have no idea if you are), and I was a militant atheist (to be clear I'm agnostic), and I told you that I thought all religion was harmful and said something disrespectful like, if you believe in an imaginary friend who grants wishes you aren't qualified to be a doctor/engineer/etc (this is not a position I actually endorse or an appropriate way to talk about religion) - can you see how you might tell me to get lost?

[lgkk]

Are you causing harm through your actions? That’s really the only metric I use, and it’s pretty simple. If my actions were increasing mental issues, leading to people getting sick via inaccuracies, or causing pension funds to be misallocated then sure. You should call me out on it.

Money isn’t the end all be all. Id say if someone can make porn and publish it they can surely do something else with that “creative” energy.

[spigottoday]

I agree! They could be making movies like Winnie the Pooh, Blood and Honey or maybe the Saw movies. Lots of creativity there and no law against it. Probably wouldn't have been fired. But people-a husband and wife pleasuring each other? Intolerable! And while we are at it, you know that statue of David? Put some pants on it!

[RHSeeger]

> But people-a husband and wife pleasuring each other? Intolerable!

Exactly this. There are plenty of couples out there making videos of themselves having sex, and it's not my place (or anyone else's) to tell them they can't.

[flandish]

The “frustrating” part is that a corporation only feels “harm” via financial impact and not the kind of harm we really speak of when discussing the actions of humans.

This is why “my own time” should be my own time. If I cause harm to an individual, there are already laws to deal with that.

If I have yet to cause financial harm to a corporation and they cannot articulate how my actions during time in which they do not pay me they should not be allowed to even consider firing me.

Things, imho, will improve when the default to seeing a video/post is to think “that’s AI, not Jim.”

Can’t prove it’s me? Can’t fire me.

[RHSeeger]

> Are you causing harm through your actions?

1. I would argue the bar should be "more harm then good", otherwise most of human activity would be banned.

2. Since you've given no compelling evidence that that is the case, you don't have much of an argument for preventing it.

[maxbond]

> You should call me out on it.

Well, I was using thought experiments to avoid calling you out, but if you want me to be forthright, I can do that. I don't want to get into an argument though, honestly I don't even want to get into a debate, so I'm gunnuh say my piece and you can take it or leave it. I just don't have the energy to get into a debate. (Not to say you aren't free to respond however you see fit, I just probably won't respond if you defend your position.)

I do think you are taking a position which is harmful. For more reasons than I can get into in an HN comment, but the highlights are, you're exaggerating the potential for harm; you're projecting flat narratives in your head onto real people and using that to justify removing their bodily autonomy (eg, not everyone makes porn because they're desperate - some people are exhibitionists [no, I don't understand why either], some people enjoy that kind of work, some people do it for reasons neither of us have imagined); generally you're trying to impose your moral standards on to others.

[_a_a_a_]

You said:

> I don’t personally know why I should be forced to accept or approve that kind of way of money making.

but if there's no harm, and porn is consensual, all is good - right?

> Id say if someone can make porn and publish it they can surely do something else with that “creative” energy.

why should they if it, by your metric, is doing no harm?

[GuB-42]

I don't share your opinion.

But besides that, if you think about it. Firing people for doing porn as a side job is effectively forcing people into doing porn as a full time job. OnlyFans doesn't fire people for having a regular day job, so guess what remains as a revenue source.

[nullstyle]

I'm curious: "no amount of social force will make me accept certain behaviors." Why is "accept" the verb used in this statement? Why not "tolerate" or "allow" or "grudgingly ignore"?

To state my perspective by way of personal anecdote: I find it shitty that I have neighbors who like to run their errands with pistols strapped to their waists like they want to be Wyatt Earp when they grow up, but my acceptance or non-acceptance of the situation is irrelevant. I don't feel like I'm forced to accept the situation just because I have no right or power to change it by myself. As an aside: I bet if I tried to go get those neighbors of mine fired for their open-carry, I would end up shot.

[CogitoCogito]

I don't approve of many things that other people do, but I do accept the vast majority. I could go around decrying the mental harms caused to some by porn just as I could go around decrying the mental harms caused to some by religion. In the end, however, I find it easier to instead live and let live. I would hope you choose to the do the same instead of bothering others about their private lives.

[hfhdjdks]

Let's say you collect stamps. I think it's a stupid and morally irresponsible way of using your free time (you should be socializing or doing sports or learning something new). Just being honest with my opinion.

This is all ok. The problem is when we start firing people or shunning them for stuff we don't like.

[bediger4000]

If I chose not to hang around someone who continually brings their politics or their religion into whatever is going on, am I shunning them?

Let's say I read paleontology for fun. Can I avoid Young Earth Creationists socially, or am I shunning them?

[whstl]

That's a very strange question.

Not hanging out with someone is obviously fine, and it's your choice.

Firing or publicly shunning someone is a totally different matter.

[bediger4000]

"Not hanging out with someone" is the very definition of shunning, public or otherwise.

Why is firing a different matter? If I'm an employer in an at will state, I most certainly can fire someone who's not a member of a protected group, like atheists, say.

[Clubber]

Let's take an example that's not a softball. What if your daughter's male elementary school teacher had a porn site and everyone in the class knew about it? How about your son's female middle school teacher? Apply to your therapist, or masseuse or whatever.

Do you not see a conflict of interest? How much of a distraction would that be? That's not so black and white to me.

[RHSeeger]

This falls into the category of "effects their ability to perform their work" and (to some extent) "more harm than good" (because it impacts their ability to to do their work. And, in that case, it may be reasonable to no longer employ them for that role. I expect it's similar to sportsball players that have ethical clauses in their contracts; the point of their job is to bring in money for the team and, if people despise them for their actions, they may not be able to do that.

[seesawtron]

This would not be possible to implement in a lot of businesses where the "public image" of the employee (even during non working hours) matters to the company and its business.

But I agree with the argument "Judge the art, not the artist".

As Camus attempted to portray in "The stranger", the protagonist was on "a trial that judged his character and the ways in which he integrated in the society, not on a trial for killing an Arab".

[whstl]

I think it's two different topics here.

Businesses themselves rarely fire people out of principle, but rather because of pressure.

(at least in the case outlined by GP, where the cause is "not criminal, not involving employees/customers, not done under the guise of being an employee")

The pressure often comes from the outside, and it's indeed very difficult for a business to fight it.

I don't think GP is arguing for it, I also don't know if I am arguing for it... but... IMO for those cases the only simple "solution" I can see is to legally protect those people from being fired for unrelated reasons, so that business has legal plausible deniability, and hopefully doesn't suffer the consequences itself.

[Jensson]

> The pressure often comes from the outside, and it's indeed very difficult for a business to fight it.

In the rest of the world where you can't fire without a valid reason, it is very easy for them to say "We can't legally fire them for things they do unrelated to their job".

[pi-e-sigma]

If it's a rank and file employee then sure. This is about a university chancellor, though. I think it changes the optics significantly.

[cykros]

This is the crux of the matter. If you're the face of an institution, different rules apply. And your compensation and benefits should reflect this.

Most importantly, it should be in BLACK AND WHITE in your contract when you start. If you're someone who needs to abide by a code of conduct different from the norm outside of work hours, that absolutely should be something you're made crystal clear about, and are agreeing to.

For both your sake, and the sake of the institution having to clean up the mess otherwise.

[insickness]

> it should be very hard to fire people

At will employment exists for good reason. You can quit your job at any time for any reason and your employer can fire you at any time for (almost) any reason. There are a very narrow set of circumstances for which your employer cannot fire you, and this is by design. The government should have as little control as possible over who you hire and fire and why.

[SnorkelTan]

Do you mean we’ve become to lenient or too strict? I feel like image outside of work has always been something that employers have concerned themselves with and anything legal but untoward has been perilous for anyone in a highly paid career that’s image conscious. I guess what I’m asking, was it ever not like this? The internet has just made it easier for the overly image conscious to purge the ranks of unseemly people.

[whstl]

IMO: the majority of people has become stricter. Not everyone, but most people.

But here's the catch: different people have become more strict about different things.

[kjkjadksj]

Of course it was never always like this. The CEOs todays CEOs look up to were having olive and martini lunches and finding company on paid business trips

[from-nibly]

Yes, and we should force people to shop at places who hold views they don't agree with. And I mean force. You can't stop buying from them. You have to give a fundamental reason why it's a worse place to shop. Otherwise it'd be illegal to not shop there.

[AdrianB1]

Trust does not depend only on things that are illegal. For example you would not trust an obsessive liar, even if it is jus outside of work. For now. Because you will be convince it is a huge risk it will happen at work, sooner or later.

Same, you will not want to hire a famous womanizer. It will create chaos in your company or with clients. And you can find a huge number of examples to confirm that if what people do outside of work something that is considered negative, even if it is legal, it is a problem to hire them; maybe to keep them.

[Dwedit]

Okay, but then what about people who start making racist or antisemetic tweets during their off-hours?

[AdrianB1]

Free speech is fine in most cases. People can have opinions that other people dislike, even most people dislike. The problem is what they do (act), not what they say.

[loa_in_]

As judged by whom?

[AmVess]

Morality clauses are common in positions of greater responsibility. They exist to keep the degenerates from destroying the reputation of the business or institution that employs them.

[junon]

> the degenerates

I've never heard of a free-time pork actor ruining the reputation of a company on its own.

Also, doing something you like doing isn't being a degenerate. That's Trump-speak.