Chrysler forbids employees from texting while driving

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:22:24 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
wrote:

> http://www.detnews.com/article/20091...1361/Chrysler-
> forbids-employees-from-texting-while-driving
>
> Last Updated: December 15. 2009 11:32AM
> Chrysler forbids employees from texting while driving
>

Bull****. No company has the legal right to incorporate a policy as a
criminal law. What a driver does in his own personal car on his own time is
none of the company's business.

"richard" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:22:24 -0600, Speeders & Drunk
> Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>
>> forbids-employees-from-texting-while-driving
>> Last Updated: December 15. 2009 11:32AM
>> Chrysler forbids employees from texting while driving
>>
>
> Bull****. No company has the legal right to incorporate a policy as a
> criminal law. What a driver does in his own personal car on his own time
> is none of the company's business.
>
Didn't Henry Ford search his employees' houses looking for whiskey?

On Dec 20, 9:19*pm, Steve Sobol > wrote:
> In article <096783e7-ddd1-48c0-a8d4-520591cf7944
> @v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> > Companies most certainly *_do_ *have the right to dictate your private
> > time practices. *A common example is phohibiting taking any
> > intoxicating substances twelve hours before you report for duty.
>
> Stuff like that has the potential to affect your performance and
> behavior at work. There's still a limit to what they can do.

If an employee is willing to agree to it in order to get the job,
companies can mandate quite a few things outside the workplace by
making them part of the employment contract. It's less than what it
was back in say the 1950s when the corporation was your total life.

Generally speaking these non-workplace requirements would tend to
apply to the high executives or highly paid people, such as
entertainers, or when an corporate or professional 'image' is at
stake. It's not usually stuff the cubicle dweller needs to worry
about.

Years ago a public scandal was suicide for a politician's, actor's or
athlete's career; the general public usually did not like extra
marital affairs or trouble with the law and would not buy tickets or
their votes. Today the public generally is much more tolerant, but
there are exceptions. Years ago a scandal might be covered up but the
offender still terminated.

In article <c8d57c33-1d93-4205-a613-a8a231a79409
@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> On Dec 20, 9:19*pm, Steve Sobol > wrote:
> > In article <096783e7-ddd1-48c0-a8d4-520591cf7944
> > @v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, says...
> >
> > > Companies most certainly *_do_ *have the right to dictate your private
> > > time practices. *A common example is phohibiting taking any
> > > intoxicating substances twelve hours before you report for duty.
> >
> > Stuff like that has the potential to affect your performance and
> > behavior at work. There's still a limit to what they can do.
>
> If an employee is willing to agree to it in order to get the job,
> companies can mandate quite a few things outside the workplace by
> making them part of the employment contract.

Absolutely, even though there are still limits.


> Years ago a public scandal was suicide for a politician's, actor's or
> athlete's career; the general public usually did not like extra
> marital affairs or trouble with the law and would not buy tickets or
> their votes. Today the public generally is much more tolerant, but
> there are exceptions. Years ago a scandal might be covered up but the
> offender still terminated.

It's interesting... South Carolina's governor isn't facing possible
impeachment and criminal charges for adultery, even after all the crap
he's pulled; he's facing possible impeachment and criminal charges for
misappopriating state resources for private use.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA