|
>25 years ago
>you're fired without sympathy.
Your logic here is, essentially, that a policy should not exist today, because it was once a different way at an earlier time.
Keep rewinding that clock and applying that logic, and you'll reach a point where that reasoning chews up everyone who isn't a wealthy, land-owning white male.
So no, that's not a valid or sound argument
>Whenever you sign an employment contract you agree to rules
>and regulations of that business entity.
This is about whether or not those rules should exist at all.
Do you have a reasonable, rational argument that they shouldn't exist?
>moonlighting as a porn star should not keep their job.
A, "moonlighting"?
That terms comes with a ton of baggage, and being critical of someone for "moonlighting" at all is essentially advocating for complete employer control over someone's ability to earn money.
You could mean it in a colloquial sense, without that baggage, but given the rest of your post, I doubt that.
>even get me started on anyone working for a religious entity
>in any capacity.
Oh, do start. The "any capacity" portion of this is what's problematic, to be clear.
>People get fired for less every day.
Do you think getting fired for less is fair, or even reasonable?
If anything, the reasonable societal adjustment should be that we fire less people for a smaller list of reasons, not using lesser offenses as the barometer for what constitutes a fireable offense.
We've too long been at a point where too many people respect corporate entities at the expense of the actual human beings with real names and lives and families, and you come across as though you land on that side of this fence.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
, but there have been a spat of stories about people losing their jobs because their employer learns they have an onlyfans account. 
(11 votes)
(2 votes)
(5 votes)
