leg 500 assig 2
* Ellen started a blog to protest the CEO’s bonus, noting that no one below director has gotten a raise in two (2) years and portraying her bosses as “know-nothings” and “out-of-touch”.
Ellen started a blog to protest the CEO’s bonus. The employer would need to make sure that Ellen’s post had not been commented on by other employees who were in agreement with her. The company should also look to its’ social media policy if it has one. The employer could be covered if the policy states that employees cannot speak derogatorily about their boss or coworkers online. The “National Labor Relations Act states that workers have the right to discuss their wages and conditions of employment”; however, “griping or ranting by a single employee is not protected” (Rogers, 2013). Ellen stepped across the line by criticizing the CEO of the company and calling him names. This could cause a rift in the company and lower morale. The company would be justified in firing Ellen. I would do this based on Deontology which focuses on rights and duties, telling the truth and fairness (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p17).
* Bill has been using his company-issued BlackBerry to run his own business on the side.
Bill was given the company-issued BlackBerry to use for work. As I read in most articles, it is expected that in this digital age employees will use their employers’ equipment for some type of personal use. Most companies have policies on the use of company equipment. If Bill is a good employee, there is no loss of productivity, and the majority of his personal business is taking place during off-time, Bill should not be fired, and it would not be deemed legal, unless the company’s policy says something different. The company’s policy should be “clearly communicated to all employees and” and be “consistently enforced” as well (BizFilings, 2012).
Bill should be aware that the employer ”generally can monitor, listen in and record employee phone calls on employer owned phones” to include
Ellen started a blog to protest the CEO’s bonus. The employer would need to make sure that Ellen’s post had not been commented on by other employees who were in agreement with her. The company should also look to its’ social media policy if it has one. The employer could be covered if the policy states that employees cannot speak derogatorily about their boss or coworkers online. The “National Labor Relations Act states that workers have the right to discuss their wages and conditions of employment”; however, “griping or ranting by a single employee is not protected” (Rogers, 2013). Ellen stepped across the line by criticizing the CEO of the company and calling him names. This could cause a rift in the company and lower morale. The company would be justified in firing Ellen. I would do this based on Deontology which focuses on rights and duties, telling the truth and fairness (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p17).
* Bill has been using his company-issued BlackBerry to run his own business on the side.
Bill was given the company-issued BlackBerry to use for work. As I read in most articles, it is expected that in this digital age employees will use their employers’ equipment for some type of personal use. Most companies have policies on the use of company equipment. If Bill is a good employee, there is no loss of productivity, and the majority of his personal business is taking place during off-time, Bill should not be fired, and it would not be deemed legal, unless the company’s policy says something different. The company’s policy should be “clearly communicated to all employees and” and be “consistently enforced” as well (BizFilings, 2012).
Bill should be aware that the employer ”generally can monitor, listen in and record employee phone calls on employer owned phones” to include
References: Www.corporatefindlaw.com retrieved on July 31, 2014 Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2012). Law & ethics in the business environment (7th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.