Man fired over Packers tie in Chicago

[Amaris]

That's terrible. I'm serious. Getting fired for drinking something that you like because it's not a product of the company you work for? Well, I'm sorry, but unless Coke is buying my drink for lunch, they can cram it with walnuts. I have a right to drink what I like as long as it isn't a beverage that would cause impairment while on the job.

What happened to the man drinking the Bud light on his own time, and what happened to the worker at the Coke bottling plant is inexcusable. A corporation has no right to control what I eat or drink as long as it does not impair my abilities. Corporate fascism has no excuse. None.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Story here

Sound like the Boss was looking for an excuse or he's a sore loser..

No, it sounds like the employee was stupid to take a stand with his job on the line over such a silly thing. Though it was the catalyst for the issue, wearing the Green Bay tie in and of itself wasn't the problem, it's that by both his account and that of his boss he refused to remove it once asked (they differ only on the number of times he was asked). A boss has the right to determine dress code standards and the employees have to follow them within reason depending on the type of job it is. It's not like he flipped out on the guy for wearing a Green Bay tie, he fired him for not following orders.

As far as the tie itself goes, in a situation like car sales I can understand how you'd rather have your employee talking to the customers about the car rather than spending a good chunk of his time jesting with the customers (jokingly or not) about the fact that he's wearing Green Bay colors in Chicago after their loss. I doubt any of the customers are really going to take it personally or anything, but it's just a needless distraction from doing your job.

From the article:

The boss's side of the story -

Roberts, fearing unhappiness from customers who were likely to be fans of the Bears and not their Super Bowl-bound arch-rivals, told the Sun-Times he offered Stone five chances to remove the tie but he refused and was fired.

The employee's side of the story -

"He said, 'You have two options. Remove the tie or you are fired.' When I didn't, he said, 'You can leave, you're fired.' Does that sound fair to you?" Stone said.

Yes. A little abrupt, if it actually happened that quickly and not being asked five times like the boss said, but perfectly fair. Either way, by his account he refused to follow orders over a minor issue. See ya.

 

[Trekker4747]

This is where I fall out of step with the "At-Will Employment" thing. Honestly this kind of dress-code restriction should not really be so easily tolerated. If the tie has offense language or imagery on it that's one thing. If it conflicts with his job (say wearing Pepsi imagery while working as a Coke vendor) that's one thing. But just wearing it as a tie? Bullshit and it really shouldn't be "tolerated" so easily.

Yes the boss has the right to fire the guy over it. (I assume Chicago is At-Will Employment.)

Yes the boss gave the guy several chances.

But it's a damn tie. Some rubes probably would have gotten upset over it over the course of the day but that's also part of the good-natured ribbing of sports fans.

This man should be, on some level, applauded for standing up for, well, his right to expression. Does it really make sense, does it really seem fair to fire the guy over a tie? Being asked to remove it aside (because there was no logical reason for the tie to be removed.) Does it seem fair?

And I don't buy it was "looking for an excuse" because in At-Will states a boss can fire an employee for any reason he wants so long as it doesn't violate Civil Liberties.

 

[Franklin]

That's terrible. I'm serious. Getting fired for drinking something that you like because it's not a product of the company you work for? Well, I'm sorry, but unless Coke is buying my drink for lunch, they can cram it with walnuts. I have a right to drink what I like as long as it isn't a beverage that would cause impairment while on the job.

What happened to the man drinking the Bud light on his own time, and what happened to the worker at the Coke bottling plant is inexcusable. A corporation has no right to control what I eat or drink as long as it does not impair my abilities. Corporate fascism has no excuse. None.

I don't know how excusable it is consume the rival product in your employer's plant on company time. An offense worth firing the guy over? That I don't know. Maybe there was more behind it.

At the same time, there has to be limits. Consider if you ran a Coke plant, would you want one of your employees (wearing a Coke uniform) walking into a supermarket to make a delivery while drinking a Pepsi? Would you want people to see that employee driving the Coke truck while drinking a Pepsi? Would you want people seeing the person getting a Pepsi from a vending machine?
If he has some Pepsi products in his refrigerator at home, that's one thing. But on the clock, that's probably another.

The situation of the guy at the Brewers game is more problematic. If he wasn't there on any official business for Miller, then they probably should've let it go. At the same time, Miller products were available. So, it probably was poor judgement on his part. Kind of like cheating on someone, and not getting away with it.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

This is where I fall out of step with the "At-Will Employment" thing. Honestly this kind of dress-code restriction should not really be so easily tolerated. If the tie has offense language or imagery on it that's one thing. If it conflicts with his job (say wearing Pepsi imagery while working as a Coke vendor) that's one thing. But just wearing it as a tie? Bullshit and it really shouldn't be "tolerated" so easily.

I don't even know if this is an at-will employment issue, regardless of Illinois being an at-will employment state or not. You can get fired for disobeying your boss anywhere so long as it's a reasonable request, and I think this qualifies.

Anyway, using your example, it was a little like wearing Pepsi imagery while working for Coke, given the dealership's extensive advertising tie-ins with the Bears:

Roberts said the dealership had staged promotions involving the Bears in the past and he did not want to risk alienating potential customers, especially one day after the Packers prevented the Bears from reaching the Super Bowl.

"We spend 20,000-dollars a month on advertising with the Bears on (radio) during the season... and here was a salesman openly undoing that work," Roberts told the newspaper.

You work retail. If your store was running a big promotion for, let's say 'Tron' DVDs later this year and you said "fuck it, I like 'Green Hornet' better, so I'm going to wear that on a t-shirt;" would they be within their rights to ask you to change your shirt? Don't get hung up on the technicalities of whether you can wear t-shirts or whether your store would actually do that, just think about the scenario and whether it's a reasonable request from the store manager.

 

[Trekker4747]

Well, agreed, but then he goes on to say this:

"If he had worn the tie on Saturday I wouldn't have minded."

What a difference six days makes, huh?

 

[Holdfast]

If at-will legislation allows us to rid the world of people wearing sports ties, cartoon character ties, christmas ties and all the other "novelty" ties in the world, I'm all for it.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Well, agreed, but then he goes on to say this:

"If he had worn the tie on Saturday I wouldn't have minded."

What a difference six days makes, huh?

Six days later the promotions would be over and the focus would be less on the Bears' loss and more on Green Bay's going on to the Superbowl, in which case it would be perfectly fine for a fan to wear his team's colors.

If at-will legislation allows us to rid the world of people wearing sports ties, cartoon character ties, christmas ties and all the other "novelty" ties in the world, I'm all for it.

I think I'd be the first put up against the wall in one of your ruthless fashion pogroms.

 

[Amaris]

I don't know how excusable it is consume the rival product in your employer's plant on company time.

None of their business, as long as it's not a beverage that causes impairment.

An offense worth firing the guy over? That I don't know. Maybe there was more behind it.

There is a chance that something was behind it, but the options for it being any reason other than absurd are unlikely.

At the same time, there has to be limits. Consider if you ran a Coke plant, would you want one of your employees (wearing a Coke uniform) walking into a supermarket to make a delivery while drinking a Pepsi?

It doesn't bother me. What right do I have to control what he likes or dislikes? He may think Coke tastes like shit, and if he wants to drink a Pepsi instead, what right do I have to force him to drink my product?

Would you want people to see that employee driving the Coke truck while drinking a Pepsi?

Sure, doesn't bother me. What right do I have to control his right to put what he wants in his body as long as it doesn't impair his performance? What if he can't drink Coke? Do I make him drink it anyway?

Would you want people seeing the person getting a Pepsi from a vending machine?
If he has some Pepsi products in his refrigerator at home, that's one thing. But on the clock, that's probably another.

If he's having lunch, he's not on the clock. Now, if he were outside with a Pepsi, telling people to stay away from Coke because it causes birth defects, he'd be in front of my desk. If he's having a Pepsi on his lunch break, I don't give a damn, because I have no right, even as his employer, to force him to consume my product. That is highly unethical.

The situation of the guy at the Brewers game is more problematic. If he wasn't there on any official business for Miller, then they probably should've let it go. At the same time, Miller products were available. So, it probably was poor judgement on his part. Kind of like cheating on someone, and not getting away with it.

So it's his fault for not drinking a product he may not like, on his time, with his money. That's ridiculous.

 

[Franklin]

^^^^^^^^
You can't compel the person to use the product. A lot of people working for tobacco companies don't smoke. I'm sure there are t-totalers in distilleries.
You can't make an employee like Coke or Miller Lite (or be a Packer fan). But that doesn't mean the person should be allowed to fly in the face of his employer by using (or promoting) a rival. Coke and Miller are providing these people with a living. Shouldn't they expect some loyalty to the product in return?

Further, what does it say to consumers if it gets out that their own employees consume the rival, and they don't care? Is that good for business? Doesn't that contradict their advertising? Use our product, even if we let our own employees use our rival? I guess the Coke bottler should have a Pepsi machine in its lunch room. Just to be fair.

As far as the car salesman goes. What his boss said makes perfect sense from a business point of view:

"We spend 20,000-dollars a month on advertising with the Bears on (radio) during the season... and here was a salesman openly undoing that work," Roberts told the newspaper.
"If he had worn the tie on Saturday I wouldn't have minded."

 

[Holdfast]

If at-will legislation allows us to rid the world of people wearing sports ties, cartoon character ties, christmas ties and all the other "novelty" ties in the world, I'm all for it.

I think I'd be the first put up against the wall in one of your ruthless fashion pogroms.

Oh, you're on the list.

But it's a long list, and I am but one man, so you probably have a while to go yet.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

If at-will legislation allows us to rid the world of people wearing sports ties, cartoon character ties, christmas ties and all the other "novelty" ties in the world, I'm all for it.

I think I'd be the first put up against the wall in one of your ruthless fashion pogroms.

Oh, you're on the list.

But it's a long list, and I am but one man, so you probably have a while to go yet.

That's why you need Fashion Death Squads to enforce the dress code.

 

[Amaris]

^^^^^^^^
You can't compel the person to use the product. A lot of people working for tobacco companies don't smoke. I'm sure there are t-totalers in distilleries.
You can't make an employee like Coke or Miller Lite (or be a Packer fan). But that doesn't mean the person should be allowed to fly in the face of his employer by using (or promoting) a rival. Coke and Miller are providing these people with a living.

These people are providing Coke and Miller with their valuable time and effort in return for that paycheck. It's not a one way street. As for being "allowed", well god forbid a human being not change their life around for the company.

Shouldn't they expect some loyalty to the product in return?

No. As long as you do your work well, on the clock, you owe nothing else to the company.

Further, what does it say to consumers if it gets out that their own employees consume the rival, and they don't care? Is that good for business? Doesn't that contradict their advertising? Use our product, even if we let our own employees use our rival? I guess the Coke bottler should have a Pepsi machine in its lunch room. Just to be fair.

They don't have to provide an alternative, but you shouldn't be fired for having one yourself. It's not that difficult a concept.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Workers are under no obligation to patronize the services they work for. I work in one grocery store, for example, but if I feel like shopping in another one, then I'll damn well do it (I would never walk in there with my work clothes on though). I don't care who sees me, it's my own fucking business where I shop. Of course I would never actually do this, because I get an employee discount at my store.

Same thing with this Miller guy. Just because he works for Miller, does that dictate what kind of beer he's allowed to drink? Does it mandate that he root for the Brewers? Of course not. As long as he's not wearing his employee gear, he can drink whatever the fuck he likes.

As for the tie guy, that's considered part of the uniform, I think. So I can understand that.

 

[Trekker4747]

Workers are under no obligation to patronize the services they work for. I work in one grocery store, for example, but if I feel like shopping in another one, then I'll damn well do it (I would never walk in there with my work clothes on though). I don't care who sees me, it's my own fucking business where I shop. Of course I would never actually do this, because I get an employee discount at my store.

Be glad you don't have our store director. He found out one of the guys in our store shopped at a competitor (I think by finding one of their bags sitting in the car or something) and the SD told the guy that the next time he goes in there he can ask for an application. Not an isolated incident, either, same SD found out another employee shopped at a competitor once and gave the guy a whole new asshole for spending money at a competitor's store.

 

[Amaris]

Workers are under no obligation to patronize the services they work for. I work in one grocery store, for example, but if I feel like shopping in another one, then I'll damn well do it (I would never walk in there with my work clothes on though). I don't care who sees me, it's my own fucking business where I shop. Of course I would never actually do this, because I get an employee discount at my store.

Be glad you don't have our store director. He found out one of the guys in our store shopped at a competitor (I think by finding one of their bags sitting in the car or something) and the SD told the guy that the next time he goes in there he can ask for an application. Not an isolated incident, either, same SD found out another employee shopped at a competitor once and gave the guy a whole new asshole for spending money at a competitor's store.

I'd report him for harassment.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ yeah, what the hell was he doing spying on employees' CARS?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Same thing with this Miller guy. Just because he works for Miller, does that dictate what kind of beer he's allowed to drink? Does it mandate that he root for the Brewers? Of course not. As long as he's not wearing his employee gear, he can drink whatever the fuck he likes.

In my book, it's not that he drank it that is the biggest problem...it's that he got in the newspaper with it. I'm pretty sure the photographer has to get permission from the people he takes a picture of (under normal circumstances) to publish that in the paper. Actually allowing his picture to be published with that is pretty careless.

I mean, I may have to use our competitor's product or go in their store for some reason, but I sure wouldn't let some news person publish a picture of me in there.

 

[Trekker4747]

^ yeah, what the hell was he doing spying on employees' CARS?

He probably parked next to him and saw the bag lying in the car.

 

[Finn]

Workers are under no obligation to patronize the services they work for. I work in one grocery store, for example, but if I feel like shopping in another one, then I'll damn well do it (I would never walk in there with my work clothes on though). I don't care who sees me, it's my own fucking business where I shop. Of course I would never actually do this, because I get an employee discount at my store.

Be glad you don't have our store director. He found out one of the guys in our store shopped at a competitor (I think by finding one of their bags sitting in the car or something) and the SD told the guy that the next time he goes in there he can ask for an application. Not an isolated incident, either, same SD found out another employee shopped at a competitor once and gave the guy a whole new asshole for spending money at a competitor's store.

I'd report him for harassment.

The store director could easily say he passed or parked right by the guy's car, since some places have a designated parking area for employees.