Obligations to follow a former boss’ orders?

[Mark_A]

Again, I really do not understand the boss' concern. Therefore, I'm here to see if people better familiar with the law can understand the boss' claim.

There are a lot of reasons, having nothing to do with the law, as to why a manager might not want a terminated employee talking to the their other employees who are remaining with the company. I don't want to speculate what the reasons might be in this particular case, but your former boss is very unlikely to have any valid legal basis for what he told you.

 

[stealth2]

Given that the former co-workers responded with pictures of themselves at work, maybe he really just wants you/them to not text/email when they're supposed to be working...

 

[commentator]

I worked for a very insecure woman once who would not permit what she called "visiting" between employees during work. Which was of course, stupid, unenforcible (I checked with HR) demeaning and unnecessary. Of course, we talked constantly on the phone to each other after hours, and even sometimes at lunch we'd call each other. Unless you work at a very private government facility, this isn't a rule that can happen, more of an idle threat. I have seen many a former employer who'd call and demand that we cut someone's unemployment benefits off because of something they were doing after being terminated, like "speaking badly of their business."

 

[Zigner]

I would assume: one worker mentioned to the boss that John Doe texted him or her. The boss got upset about it (why, I still don't know). Then the boss asked all employees if John Doe texted them. And when these workers acknowledged that John Doe did in fact text them, the boss insisted on seeing the text conversations.

This is the problem with hypotheticals. You can add (or change) facts on the fly.
In your original post, you stated a number of things that had happened and then asked if the former employee was under any obligation to follow the "orders" of a former boss. Now you are saying certain things already happened when my suggestion was followed.
I'm out.

 

[quincy]

This is the problem with hypotheticals. You can add (or change) facts on the fly.
In your original post, you stated a number of things that had happened and then asked if the former employee was under any obligation to follow the "orders" of a former boss. Now you are saying certain things already happened when my suggestion was followed.
I'm out.

In defense of JDD25, I asked him if he had anything to add to what he said previously. Nothing he added changes the responses he previously received, however.

 

[JDD25]

This is the problem with hypotheticals. You can add (or change) facts on the fly.
In your original post, you stated a number of things that had happened and then asked if the former employee was under any obligation to follow the "orders" of a former boss. Now you are saying certain things already happened when my suggestion was followed.
I'm out.

I'm sorry, I don't fully follow you here. But I'm going to copy & paste below what I wrote. Please be sure to read the words which I have put in bold:

I would assume: one worker mentioned to the boss that John Doe texted him or her. The boss got upset about it (why, I still don't know). Then the boss asked all employees if John Doe texted them. And when these workers acknowledged that John Doe did in fact text them, the boss insisted on seeing the text conversations.

 

[Zigner]

In defense of JDD25, I asked him if he had anything to add to what he said previously. Nothing he added changes the responses he previously received, however.

He responded directly to my post by adding information.

 

[cbg]

Can we all agree that, based on the facts we have, Joe Doe has no legal obligation to obey the former boss?

Can we also all agree that, based on the facts we have, this is not a guarantee that John Doe will suffer no consequences?

Can we further agree that additional facts could, but are unlikely to, change the answer?

 

[Zigner]

I'm sorry, I don't fully follow you here. But I'm going to copy & paste below what I wrote. Please be sure to read the words which I have put in bold:

I would assume: one worker mentioned to the boss that John Doe texted him or her. The boss got upset about it (why, I still don't know). Then the boss asked all employees if John Doe texted them. And when these workers acknowledged that John Doe did in fact text them, the boss insisted on seeing the text conversations.

Then you misunderstood my post. Let me lay it out more clearly.

The guy who has no control over you (the former boss) messages you and says "blah blah blah, don't do that ever again." You respond "ok." Now, how would he ever know you did it after that? Or, perhaps, you could just block him.

 

[quincy]

Can we all agree that, based on the facts we have, Joe Doe has no legal obligation to obey the former boss?

Can we also all agree that, based on the facts we have, this is not a guarantee that John Doe will suffer no consequences?

Can we further agree that additional facts could, but are unlikely to, change the answer?

I can agree with that.

 

[stealth2]

I'm feeling rather agreeable... and my one beagle (not the avatar one) expressed her agreement by licking the screen.

 

[quincy]

I'm feeling rather agreeable... and my one beagle (not the avatar one) expressed her agreement by licking the screen.

I thought your post looked smudgey.


oooh, my emojis are back!

 

[JDD25]

Then you misunderstood my post. Let me lay it out more clearly.

The guy who has no control over you (the former boss) messages you and says "blah blah blah, don't do that ever again." You respond "ok." Now, how would he ever know you did it after that? Or, perhaps, you could just block him.

I still don't understand you. And I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think you understand me.

John Doe never said "okay" to the boss' email (ordering him not to speak to former co-workers). John Doe never responded to that email at all.

How would the former boss ever find out if John Doe contacted the former employees again after the email? The workers could simply inform their boss.

 

[JDD25]

Can we further agree that additional facts could, but are unlikely to, change the answer?

If you want to ask any questions for additional facts, then I will be happy to answer them.

 

[quincy]

I still don't understand you. And I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think you understand me.

John Doe never said "okay" to the boss' email (ordering him not to speak to former co-workers). John Doe never responded to that email at all.

How would the former boss ever find out if John Doe contacted the former employees again after the email? The workers could simply inform their boss.

Zigner was saying that John Doe could respond with a simple “okay” to his former boss’s email, to end the exchange. Or John Doe could do as he has and not respond to the former boss at all.

Unless you are leaving out some pertinent facts, there is no reason why John Doe has to communicate with his former boss and there is no reason why John Doe cannot continue to communicate with his former coworkers.