Question

CASE 2, FIRED FOR DRINKING THE WRONG BRAND OF BEER Row Hopkins, 41, ordered a Budweiser at a Denver the photo appeared in the "On the Town" section of bar after while relaxing on a Saturday night. The the local newspaper. His bosses saw the photo and waitres mistakenly brought him a Coors. Not want fired him the following Monday, Aguero claims that ing to wait, he sipped the Coors. Also at bar that he was never told not to drink Budweiser and that night was the son-in-law of the majority shareholder nothing in the employee handbook said he should of his employer, American Eagle Distribution Com avoid certain drinks. His employer would not com pany. The next Monday Hopkins was fired. Ameri ment on the circumstances of his dismissal. can Eagle is the local distributor of Budweiser, and Hopkins' bosses did not like his supporting the DISCUSSION QUESTIONS competition. They stated that he failed to avoid a 1. Is it morally permissible for employers to fire conflict of interest with his responsibilities at Amer at will employees for legal behavior off duty? ican Eagle, Isac Aguero, 24, can empathize with Why, or why not? Explain. 2. Were American Eagle and CW justified in Hopkins, since he was fired from CJW, Inc. for the terminating Hopkins and Aguero? Why, or why same reason. Aguero was a forklift operator at CJW, not? Explain the local Miller Brewing Co. distributor in Racine, 3. Should there be legal protection for workers Wisconsin. Aguero was photographed during Ra. to prevent them from being fired for legal, cines annual Mardi Crawl enjoying a Bud Light, and off-duty behavior? Why, or why not? Explain. Send a chat
no one is answering my question i post that question 2 days ago and again i am reposting it.

Answer 1

1.

No, It is not morally permissible for employers to fire employees at will , for legal behaviour off duty.

In the both cases, they are off duty, which means they are not acting as the employees of their respective organisations.instead they both are just consumers of certain products (in this case it happened to be the proudct of their employers' competitors). Employers do not have any right on the employees' choices of interest.

In case 1, waitress mistakenly bought coors even though hopkins ordered budweiser, he clearly chose his employers' brand to his competitors'. But due to the mistake of waitress and lack of patience to wait for another 5-10 mins, he chose to go with coors(which happened to be their competitor). He neither did indulge in any kind of activity of devaluing budweiser brand nor did he promote the brand of coors by his action of drinking coors on that night.

In case2, Aguero too has his personal choices. Working for a employer does not necessarily mean that employees must use the brand of their employer. Employer is paying for only the services of employee and he has rights on employee only pertaining to work related matters. Aguero was just a fork lift operator of CJW and the photo appeared in newspaper is not to be treated as a promotion for budweiser brand.

2

American eagle and CJW are not justified in terminating Hopkins and Aguero

Clearly in both the above cases, neither their actions are damaging the brand value of their respective employers' products nor they are promoting their competitiors' products.

Instead of firing, they could have atleast asked them not to do such activities again. Even after asking not to do such things, its still employees' personal choice as to what he chooses to drink. Both these companies could have been in a better position of justification if they had a written agreement as to whether they can use their competitors' products in public place and if this agreement had been signed by hopkins and aguero ,terminating them would have been justified......or after these incidents instead of firing, they could have asked to sign the agreement now (Even though its morally not right to ask emplyoyees to sign such agreements)

3

Yes, there should be certainly legal protection for workers to prevent them from being fired for off duty illegal behaviour

Having a legal protection gives the employees freedom of their choice. They can act accordingly as per their will. With the legal protection introduced employers would refrain from such activities and it will keep check on their immoral terminations, instead they focus on their products more and this act should also benifit the employers by restricting employees from actions resulting in promotion of their competitors brand publicly.(In both the above cases their actions do not come under promoting activities, they are just acting according to their will)