Amazon reconfigures its Kindle site; reviewers call it "creepy"

[Skibble]

As the one who unintentionally started this debate, I should note that in the case of the BBQ teacher, she did not "complain" about her termination -- by which I mean cause a stink, protest, go to the press, etc. She did vent to her friends about the fact that someone posted the photo of her without permission, and went on quite a tirade about the dangers of social networking even when you don't have a social networking account yourself, but I can't say that I ever heard her speak of contract unfairness. That doesn't mean she didn't feel it was unfair, of course, but at least I can vouch that I never heard her talk about it.

That being said, it's been over a year since I last spoke to or saw her. (I moved, and she was more of an associate than a close friend.) Who knows how her views have changed since then, or what she's doing now.

Apologies for making this thread take a 90 degree turn. My intention in my original post was more to point out that sometimes we can't predict how social networking will effect us than it was to start a debate on employer contracts.

[afa]

This is MobileRead. How could you not know it would veer off into an off-topic debate??

Regarding your acquaintance's situation - in this case, I would agree with anamardoll. The employer should not have been allowed to terminate her employment.

If she was flaunting her violation of the rules, or even if the photos were on her own FB account, then it would make sense. The employer could argue that she was 'promoting' her behaviour.

But if it was on someone else's account, then an argument could be made that the employer overreacted. It's one thing to control your information, but how can one control how their information is used by others?

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's my identical internet cousin, but if it were me... where is the inconsistency? I worded my statement very carefully, specifically because I foresaw the inevitability of this question arising. Not to mention that he (my cousin) wouldn't dream of crying foul later on if he were ever to run into legal problems because of his activities. He understands the consequences fully.

Sorry, but it is somewhat hypocritical to talk about having the integrity to not sign certain agreements with provisions you won't follow while at the same time cheerfully disregarding other agreements you have made. Although - I want to quickly add - it's not something particularly blameworthy: abstract principles rarely fit into real life very well.

There is another issue that is relevant to the original topic. For one, in most of the US, employees are "at will," meaning that they can be fired for (almost) any reason - or for no reason. So for the vast majority of employees, you can't avoid being "facebooked" by not signing a contract with a clause you don't like: there tends not to be a contract. The vacationing teacher, at least, had the benefit of a contract.

It would also be interesting to see what the exact provision of the contract are. "Morals clauses" in contracts are enforceable, but they have to be clear - ambiguous provisions are construed against the party who drafted the contract. Having an inappropriate relationship with a student would clearly trigger a morals clause, as would robbing a bank. Drinking, however, is not illegal, nor immoral, so I do have to wonder exactly what the contract provisions she is said to have violated states.

[Elfwreck]

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.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

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.

I am of the belief that contracts are meant to be negotiated. You are not required to sign any contract "as is." You have to state what terms are acceptable to YOU. Moral clause requiring BS that you don't feel is legal? Draw a line through it, refuse that portion of the contract, don't sign it. Moral clause obscure? Require them to be specific IN WRITING.

I cannot understand signing a contract that would bind me in such a manner. And yes, I have walked away from jobs due to contracts before (not moral, non-compete). It was hella difficult. I learned a lot about myself during that time period, including how to make $10 worth of food last a whole week and that I look like a crack-head if my weight drops below 130 pounds.

So yes, it's hard as hell to make those types of decisions. This is not any type of high horse or feeling that someone needs to do as I do. This is what I was taught from a child. Never sign anything without reading it first and never sign anything that you do not plan on following through. I still do it today - and it annoys the hell out of people.

And don't forget. McDonald's is almost always hiring.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I am of the belief that contracts are meant to be negotiated. You are not required to sign any contract "as is." You have to state what terms are acceptable to YOU. Moral clause requiring BS that you don't feel is legal? Draw a line through it, refuse that portion of the contract, don't sign it. Moral clause obscure? Require them to be specific IN WRITING.

So: Don't take a job where the employer won't spell out exactly what they mean by "moral." Easy to say when one has a security net; harder when a person's been living off credit cards for two years and is about to be evicted because they've maxed out the ability to pay one card with another.

Most place with morals clauses refuse to describe them in detail. The claim is "moral people know what moral behavior is; if you don't, we don't want you working here."

So yes, it's hard as hell to make those types of decisions. This is not any type of high horse or feeling that someone needs to do as I do. This is what I was taught from a child. Never sign anything without reading it first and never sign anything that you do not plan on following through. I still do it today - and it annoys the hell out of people.

In a lot of morals-clause firings, the employee *believed* they understood what moral behavior was, and were caught off-guard by the employers' expectations. And a lot of them have different standards for men and women, which employees, especially the women, aren't informed about beforehand.

I don't consider it unethical to sign a legally-unenforceable contract. If the person presenting the contract couldn't be bothered to keep it within the bounds of the law, I'm not obligated to inform them of their lack, nor to follow something that restricts behavior more than I'm legally required to do.

If the contract says, "female employees are required to wear sexy underwear on Fridays," I won't feel a whit of guilt by signing it and breaking it. I'm not morally obligated to hand over a job to someone who is either uneducated enough to think that it's legal for an employer to require sexy underwear (for an office job; I'm assuming this isn't a strip club performer), or someone who's willing to comply with it even though it's not legal.

Demanding equitable working conditions doesn't mean "put up with illegal demands until employers run out of people who'll comply with them." It sometimes involves saying, "yes, I see that you're demanding that... and I'm not going to give it to you, and you have to do business with me anyway."

The whole point of civil rights activism is that some rights are not allowed to be subject to market demands or business-owner biases. Whether some kinds of "immoral behavior" are in that category is a different issue from whether a person should comply with a contract that makes demands not allowed by law.

And don't forget. McDonald's is almost always hiring.

They're not hiring 40-year-old people with degrees in sociology and education. They don't like "over-qualified" employees--because those leave as soon as they find something better.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

They're not hiring 40-year-old people with degrees in sociology and education. They don't like "over-qualified" employees--because those leave as soon as they find something better.

This.

Also, some people (*cough* Ana! *cough*) have health problems that absolutely require regular health care. I don't have the privilege to just live on $10 of baked beans for a week -- without modern health care, I would be permanently confined to bed for life.

If my current employer decided to re-negotiate our contracts, I would have to sign whatever they tell me... or face being permanently crippled and never leaving my bedroom again. Yeah, that's a great choice, and I'm going to think long and hard over my moral obligation to my employer to put me over the barrel with a "morality clause" or similar unethical demands over my moral obligation to myself.

(Ask me how I feel about American health care... in the HARDENED DEBATERS forum. )

And, oh yeah, I wouldn't be able to work at McDonald's anyway BECAUSE of said health condition.

So, yeah, privilege. Everybody has some; not everyone has noticed it before. Being able to survive on $10 of baked beans and work a minimum-wage hard-labor job? That's privilege, of a kind. People with chronic health care problems, very young children, very old parents, etc. may not have that privilege.

[carpetmojo]

Face book = journal of pioneering plastic surgeon.
Twitter = just what it says.

Innit ?

[RoxyJ]

Originally Posted by disney_mommy

This! I hate coming across an underlined part in a book, especially when it's usually something I think is inconsequential. And I hate that little message at the bottom of the screen "click the x button to see how many people have highlighted..." I don't care.

Ha Ha, yeah me too, except I usually go back and read it a few times to see if there was anything I was missing, like some deep meaning, or something. Usually there isn't.