Should employers pry into Private Lives - RE Oxfam scandal

Employers Prying into Private Lives, Should they be Able too? EG Oxfam

It seem to be the norm now for all employers to extend their code of conduct into our private lives. If we are to earn a living, we forfeit our right to a private life.

For example, the Oxfam aid workers going with prostitutes.

If those workers did it in their own time, with their own money, with women of legal age who chose that profession. Then it should not be a problem.

Politicians can hardly hold the moral high ground with their track records.

If the aid workers misused charity money or broke the laws in the country's they operated in, then fair enough. Otherwise their private lives should remain private.

It seems our civil freedoms get eroded away time and time again.

Employers Prying into Private Lives, Should they be Able too? EG Oxfam

 

It seem to be the norm now for all employers to extend their code of conduct into our private lives. If we are to earn a living, we forfeit our right to a private life.

 

For example, the Oxfam aid workers going with prostitutes.

 

If those workers did it in their own time, with their own money, with women of legal age who chose that profession. Then it should not be a problem.

 

Politicians can hardly hold the moral high ground with their track records.

 

If the aid workers misused charity money or broke the laws in the country's they operated in, then fair enough. Otherwise their private lives should remain private.

 

It seems our civil freedoms get eroded away time and time again.

I've avoided news for going on 8 months now, but this bold stood out. (I allow myself QT and reading the titles of the top 10 BBC stories, for info)

I wrote about this years ago online (2005 written but posted 2007 online) - it was amongst my predictions about how the interpretations about facts being diluted/altered/ for the sake of a cause will spread faster than ever in the future - a world of information where everyone has access to info, but in fact sticks to 'their mates' (modern term, social media). Though it's vague, it pretty much predicted fake news.

What did I get for that? You're paranoid, stupid, thick.

The link in this is basically how rules (and all laws too) alter because the majority react wildly to a very small percentage of morons, and it's the majority that will suffer by their own actions, and they don't seems to learn from a history of this repetition.

-

So to the bold: regardless of whether we like it or not: 'employers WILL pry, depending on the position'; and should they be able to? - is then a pointless question. It will happen in more and more positions until there is a database on everyone.

If you were an employer, (or to change that around) - if I was employing someone to look after the children - would I want access to their history? - yes.

If was a recruitment person for a government run thing - like NHS, if I was responsible for the actions of recruiting someone, they would I want access to their history? - yes.

If I was a political party recruiting someone, would I want to know everything they've ever written online? - yes

(the point I was making at the time and said it for years in here, is that politicians will only get worse, as no one in their right mind will take on a position where they get death threats by the thousand and [even] BBC reporters running after them in the street) - and I said we'll end up with people like that blonde repulsive woman who's name I can't recall. Donald Trump anyone?!

etc.

In my writing I used the analogy of insurance companies, because although this above hadn't happened at the time, I saw it in the insurance company algorithms, and it's spread to the rest of society now.

I've avoided news for going on 8 months now, but this bold stood out. (I allow myself QT and reading the titles of the top 10 BBC stories, for info)

 

I wrote about this years ago online (2005 written but posted 2007 online) - it was amongst my predictions about how the interpretations about facts being diluted/altered/ for the sake of a cause will spread faster than ever in the future - a world of information where everyone has access to info, but in fact sticks to 'their mates' (modern term, social media). Though it's vague, it pretty much predicted fake news.

 

What did I get for that? You're paranoid, stupid, thick.

 

The link in this is basically how rules (and all laws too) alter because the majority react wildly to a very small percentage of morons, and it's the majority that will suffer by their own actions, and they don't seems to learn from a history of this repetition.

 

-

 

So to the bold: regardless of whether we like it or not: 'employers WILL pry, depending on the position'; and should they be able to? - is then a pointless question. It will happen in more and more positions until there is a database on everyone.

 

If you were an employer, (or to change that around) - if I was employing someone to look after the children - would I want access to their history? - yes.

 

If was a recruitment person for a government run thing - like NHS, if I was responsible for the actions of recruiting someone, they would I want access to their history? - yes.

 

If I was a political party recruiting someone, would I want to know everything they've ever written online? - yes

 

(the point I was making at the time and said it for years in here, is that politicians will only get worse, as no one in their right mind will take on a position where they get death threats by the thousand and [even] BBC reporters running after them in the street) - and I said we'll end up with people like that blonde repulsive woman who's name I can't recall. Donald Trump anyone?!

 

etc.

 

In my writing I used the analogy of insurance companies, because although this above hadn't happened at the time, I saw it in the insurance company algorithms, and it's spread to the rest of society now.

But other than all that, is everything OK?

Employers Prying into Private Lives, Should they be Able too? EG Oxfam

 

It seem to be the norm now for all employers to extend their code of conduct into our private lives. If we are to earn a living, we forfeit our right to a private life.

 

For example, the Oxfam aid workers going with prostitutes.

 

If those workers did it in their own time, with their own money, with women of legal age who chose that profession. Then it should not be a problem.

 

Politicians can hardly hold the moral high ground with their track records.

 

If the aid workers misused charity money or broke the laws in the country's they operated in, then fair enough. Otherwise their private lives should remain private.

 

It seems our civil freedoms get eroded away time and time again.

It was a crime in the country that they were in. I don't think that any company should have to accept that you can go out after hours and commit crimes and that it's not there business.

It's not a civil freedom that is being eroded to commit crime when you're not at work is it.

It's also possible for someone's private life to be incompatible with the job that they do. For example, if you were responsible for animal welfare as part of your job, but in your off time liked to hunt foxes, or maybe a bit of badger baiting, these would be morally incompatible.

For example, the Oxfam aid workers going with prostitutes.

 

If those workers did it in their own time, with their own money, with women of legal age who chose that profession. Then it should not be a problem.

If it had been any other organisation, I'd have turned a blind eye.

But Oxfam aren't "any other organisation" are they?

Their entire ethos is about protecting vulnerable people.

Have you even been put on a major charity's mailing list? You should sign up for some.

Every single natural disaster or man-made atrocity and you're inundated with phone calls, emails and post asking you to donate and save vulnerable people from hunger, disease and exploitation.

Now Oxfam's aid workers can't be seen to be doing those things they've been accused of, which is the very thing Oxfam is trying to prevent, can they?

I didn't have you down as a prude Joker. I might have missed something but I'm still unconvinced that the Oxfam affair is a sackable offence until the people are convicted of an offence by the authorities.

But taking a job does involve a contract signed by 2 parties. If that contract says that the employer has certain standards in and out of work then the employee should abide by those contracted standards or be fired. However, there should be a legal reasonableness test for whether that employer is entitled to insist on any kind of behaviour.

What a person does in their private life is an individual's private affair until it negatively affects an uninvolved party.

I didn't have you down as a prude Joker. I might have missed something but I'm still unconvinced that the Oxfam affair is a sackable offence until the people are convicted of an offence by the authorities.

Well if it’s any consolation, I didn’t have you down as the type of sleazy opportunist who would give somebody aid on the condition they’d let you have sex with them.

Because that’s one of the accusations Oxfam is currently facing.

I didn't have you down as a prude Joker. I might have missed something but I'm still unconvinced that the Oxfam affair is a sackable offence until the people are convicted of an offence by the authorities.

 

But taking a job does involve a contract signed by 2 parties. If that contract says that the employer has certain standards in and out of work then the employee should abide by those contracted standards or be fired. However, there should be a legal reasonableness test for whether that employer is entitled to insist on any kind of behaviour.

 

What a person does in their private life is an individual's private affair until it negatively affects an uninvolved party.

There is a good point here about being found guilty of something before being sacked.

But imagine this situation: charity rents a house and staff bring sex workers back to the house. Staff then admit to it and in doing so admit to illegal acts in the country they were in. In a lot of organisations (though not all admittedly) that would probably be enough for disciplinary processes to begin regardless of any legal or criminal proceedings.

The issue then is how the organisation responds. Do they inform the law. I’ve worked at a company that shopped an employee to the police.

Well if it’s any consolation, I didn’t have you down as the type of sleazy opportunist who would give somebody aid on the condition they’d let you have sex with them.

 

Because that’s one of the accusations Oxfam is currently facing.

There's the magic word - "accusation". Where's the evidence of the Bread For Blowjobs campaign? It may be there but I've only seen insinuations and extensions of thinking, possiblys, maybes, what ifs, etc.

I clearly set out above how I feel and there's no way you can accuse me of sleazy opportunism. I do quite like to see justice done properly instead of by the mob though.

---------- Post added 13-02-2018 at 10:08 ----------

There is a good point here about being found guilty of something before being sacked.

 

But imagine this situation: charity rents a house and staff bring sex workers back to the house. Staff then admit to it and in doing so admit to illegal acts in the country they were in. In a lot of organisations (though not all admittedly) that would probably be enough for disciplinary processes to begin regardless of any legal or criminal proceedings.

 

The issue then is how the organisation responds. Do they inform the law. I’ve worked at a company that shopped an employee to the police.

We were talking about this last night over a beer and I quickly decided that, if I were their boss at Oxfam, the local law should have been involved and let it find its own solution which may have contractual issues too.

There's an entirely different question about the legality of prostitution (I don't think it should be illegal) but as a responsible Oxfam boss I would have little choice as a key NGO in that country in that situation.

If those workers did it in their own time, with their own money, with women of legal age who chose that profession. Then it should not be a problem.

This is very different from, say, Asda workers going to Amsterdam and visiting the red light district.

There is a good point here about being found guilty of something before being sacked.

 

Oxfam have said four members of staff were dismissed. It seems to be our media complaining about Oxfam, not the charity workers and their countries law enforcement.

There may be more than what is being reported, but it will make a good story until we know the facts.

I didn't have you down as a prude Joker. I might have missed something but I'm still unconvinced that the Oxfam affair is a sackable offence until the people are convicted of an offence by the authorities.

 

But taking a job does involve a contract signed by 2 parties. If that contract says that the employer has certain standards in and out of work then the employee should abide by those contracted standards or be fired. However, there should be a legal reasonableness test for whether that employer is entitled to insist on any kind of behaviour.

 

What a person does in their private life is an individual's private affair until it negatively affects an uninvolved party.

And there you probably have the crux of the matter - legal or illegal the representatives of an aid foundation paying (allegedly) ladies for sex impacts negatively on them.

"We" assume they are whiter than white as they're risking their lives,providing support and aid - they're obviously not, and if "paying" prostitutes is the only bit they dare admit to i wonder what else is behind the scenes.

I've never donated to Oxfam and now i never would