Off work orders

[filiain]

What is the name of your state? Indiana

A friend of mine and her boyfriend both work at the same fast food restaurant I do. They do not fool around at work, but on the days they are not working and they come in to eat (not in uniform), they are told by managers not to hug, touch, hold hands, or show any public display of affecton. My question is, can your boss order you to act in a certain way and give you orders when you are not working for them or in uniform at the time? It just seems wrong to me.

 

[justalayman]

well, since this is private property, the management can restrict the actions of anybody within the establishment or forbid them access to the establishment as long as it does not fall under illegal descrimination.


You might take notice that in the great state of Michigan just to your north, there is an employer that does not allow any employees to smoke, even when not at work and so far has been accepted as legal.

Indiana is an employment at will state so the boss can fire either or both of them for any, or no reason so I would suggest if the desire to remain employed at the restaraunt, they should refrain frm getting touch-feely at the restaraunt.

 

[filiain]

Thanks, and they thank you as well.

 

[pattytx]

Yep, they can alway bypass BK and go to McD's.

 

[quincy]

justalayman - It is true that Weyco company in Michigan fired several employees in 2005 for violating their no-smoking policy, which included no smoking even during non-working hours, however in response to this policy, a bill was introduced in Michigan's legislature this past March. The bill, which has passed both the House and the Senate, creates a new act under Michigan's fair employment practices which prohibits the termination of employees based on legal conduct by these employees that occur during non-working hours. Weyco got a LOT of grief for their policy, and a LOT of bad press. No other company in Michigan, to my knowledge, has tried to regulate off-hour conduct of employees, and, with luck, it will soon be illegal in Michigan to do so.

 

[Betty]

CNN 8-2007 - In 2005, Michigan-based health care firm Weyco introduced a policy banning its staff from smoking - even away from the workplace. The firm implemented the ban to keep health costs down. Weyco gave its staff an ultimatum at the end of 2004 - either stop smoking completely or leave their jobs. Four workers refused to take the test and left their jobs voluntarily, although the company said it was preparing to dismiss them.

Chicago Tribune 9-2007 - Same info above plus: Weyco Inc., the suburban Lansing-based firm that drew national attention in 2005 when it fired four employees who used tobacco, has expanded the health insurance requirement, penalizing employees whose spouses smoke or chew tobacco. Penalties are $50 per employee paycheck. Gary Climes, vice president and general manager of Meritain Health Michigan, which now owns Weyco, noted the firings didn't violate Michigan law and that the 150 employees at the Okemos-based company have, over time, accepted the new rules.

The Cleveland Clinic, on Sept. 1, started nicotine testing in pre-employment physicals. If nicotine is found, applicants will not be hired

Weyco performs random testing every three months, usually covering about 30 employees, Climes said. They'll get a call at their desks asking that they come to a room and blow into a Breathalyzer-like device that measures carbon monoxide levels. If the reading is higher than a certain level, employees will be directed to submit to a urine test. If they fail the urinalysis twice they will be dismissed. One person was fired in 2006, Climes said, and none this year.

Political critics of the Weyco firings have launched an effort in the Michigan legislature to outlaw the practice, but it faces stiff resistance from the state's business community, led by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce

 

[quincy]

Betty - The bill prohibiting employers from terminating employees for off-work legal conduct has passed both the Michigan House and Senate. The bill has the support of the ACLU and many union groups. And Michigan's business community is currently shrinking , and, therefore, so is the opposition to the bill. I expect Weyco will soon be violating a new Michigan law.

 

[justalayman]

I could find very little on it although I did find a bill the did not allow descrimination for some heath related reasons.


Although I am not a smoker and I do understand the reasoning behind Weyco's actions, I still find it wrong. If this is allowed, where will it stop? Fire somebody because they drink whole milk? They do not practice the same exercise regime as the boss? It opens a door that should not be opened.

 

[quincy]

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[cbg]

Since the OP is not in Michigan, any laws passed regarding the Weyco decision are meaningless.

And frankly, I see a significant difference between a manager telling a couple of employees that public displays of affection are inappropriate (a concept with which I entirely agree and cannot quite understand why this was even a question) and a company refusing to hire smokers.

 

[quincy]

There is no difference in that both Weyco and the fast-food employer are both trying to dictate the off-work behavior of their employees. While I believe it is the wise employee who behaves off-work in a manner that does not threaten his/her employment, I am disturbed by the apparent trend by employers to reach into the private lives of their employees to control what they do when they are off-the-clock.

 

[las365]

Respectfully, Quincy, I disagree. The situation at hand pertains to being in the workplace while not working. I would venture to say that if the manager felt the need to dictate appropriate behavior to this young couple, it was because they had exhibited inapproprite behavior.

The manager didn't say that if they were seen making out in a public place outside the workplace they would be fired, unlike the Weyco example where apparently if an employee is seen smoking a cigarette miles away from work, s/he would be subject to having employment terminated.

 

[quincy]

las365 -

I can certainly see your point, however, would this same fast-food employer approach another non-employee couple and tell them to knock off their behavior? I don't think so. Not if he valued his business. I can certainly understand that how an employee behaves when not at work can affect his employment and, as I said, it is the wise employee who conducts himself off-work in a way that will not reflect badly on his place of employment. Just as I can understand a no-smoking policy at work, and the firing of an employee who smokes at work, I can understand an employer telling an employee not to behave inappropriately in the workplace while on the job. I continue to object to these employers dictating off-work behavior, however.

 

[pattytx]

And since the question was regarding public displays of affection by employees in the workplace, even though they aren't working at the time, we've gotten WAY off track here.

 

[las365]

would this same fast-food employer approach another non-employee couple and tell them to knock off their behavior? I don't think so. Not if he valued his business.

S/he might, and might actually get a hearty thank-you from the other customers! Heh.

I don’t think our views are that far apart. My perspective is that when you are at your place of employment, particularly when you are in the service industry, you are representing your employer to a degree whether you are on the clock or not, and the employer has a right to say how you represent them in the workplace.

Let’s say a customer comes in and orders from the young lady at the counter. She bags and hands him his food. She then clocks out, changes out of her uniform, meets up with her boyfriend, sits at the table next to the customer and proceeds to mack down with BF. The customer is probably going to associate her behavior with her employment.

Let’s use a different example and say that this employer has told employees that they cannot be in the restaurant when they are off the clock if they are drunk. Would you feel differently about that than about not being able to be in the restaurant if they are making out?

I will say I think the prohibition against holding hands is a little extreme, but I assume it is due to the slippery slope nature of a little PDA being okay...