Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
I'm confused... which one was I doing by expecting people to read a contract and make a conscious, well thought-out decision on whether or not they see any potential stumbling blocks with the terms of the contract before signing it?
|
A contract that demands "no immoral behavior that would set a bad example for students" is only reasonable if people agree on what "immoral behavior" is.
I would not think that going to a party, as an adult, and having a beer, was a "bad example." I would expect kids to realize that, when they are adults, they will be free to engage in similar behaviors. There's nothing illegal about it, and nothing immoral, as most of the US counts morality.
If there are specific behaviors not allowed, it's reasonable to list those. However, most morals clauses--including
some being thrown at authors--are horribly vague. Attempts to get them to spell out the clause wind up in being turned down, not details--there's no law, currently, that says a company has to define its morality.
And while you may be in a position to say, "I just wouldn't take ANY job with a morals clause," some people are stuck with "I can take this... or I can be homeless." Living with the hope that the company's concept of "morality" is close to your own is not a ridiculous choice, and finding out you were wrong doesn't mean it's okay for the company to have mislead you.
We can check whether the policy is fair by assuming a different basis for "morality"--if a company has a bland, standard morals clause, but starts firing Christians for "praying to a death-god and teaching children they don't have to face the consequences of their actions because Jesus takes those away"--we'd quickly see a range of lawsuits for religious discrimination.