> The separation is necessary is there to protect people from being fired for having unpopular opinions because it's not an argument we want to follow to it's logical conclusion.
We can follow it to it's logical conclusion because it happens all the time. People get fired for unpopular opinions frequently. This case is interesting because the unpopular opinion is "political" to some. I would contend that breathing is political.
I can't answer any of the hypotheticals you present because they are exactly that: hypotheticals. It would require additional context for me to give a personal opinion on any of them. Even with that, your or my opinion on the situation would be irrelevant to the employees who are actually part of the organizations in question. They would be taking action to fix something within their organization that they found to be uncouth. Why shouldn't they be able to?
I am getting the impression that you see a clear line between what belongs at work and what belongs at home. How do you define it?
> We can follow it to it's logical conclusion because it happens all the time. People get fired for unpopular opinions frequently.
In most of the Western World that would be illegal and you'd have a clear cut wrongful termination case.
> I am getting the impression that you see a clear line between what belongs at work and what belongs at home. How do you define it?
Most of it is incredibly clear, what I do at home or while I'm not representing the company is none of the companies business, what I do at work is the companies business, there are only a few places where the line is blurred. The first is posting from company property (like I'm doing now), I'd say this should be either completely prohibited or allowed, and if it's allowed they shouldn't be able to police what I say. The second is on social media, companies and governments have definitely pushed beyond what should be allowed here, anything I post on facebook is only relevant to the company if I'm representing them or divulging private information. The third is lunch room or water cooler chatter, I'd argue people should be allowed to share their opinions here, but it's blurry enough that most people just stay away from anything remotely controversial in these environments.
The distinction being made that I see is that a CEO of an organization has different expectations placed upon them than any other employee. So, this home vs. work separation makes sense in most cases, but not when it comes to the CEO role.
He was fired for something he did several years before being CEO. Your standard is that the CEO can't have personal opinions not only while they are CEO bit the can't have held a controversial opinion in their life.
We can follow it to it's logical conclusion because it happens all the time. People get fired for unpopular opinions frequently. This case is interesting because the unpopular opinion is "political" to some. I would contend that breathing is political.
I can't answer any of the hypotheticals you present because they are exactly that: hypotheticals. It would require additional context for me to give a personal opinion on any of them. Even with that, your or my opinion on the situation would be irrelevant to the employees who are actually part of the organizations in question. They would be taking action to fix something within their organization that they found to be uncouth. Why shouldn't they be able to?
I am getting the impression that you see a clear line between what belongs at work and what belongs at home. How do you define it?