First message C
by WB
hey guys! C
Just wanted to check if that thing here works. C
To do my duty: I would fire people for racism. H
"Posted on Nov 15, 2000, 8:52 AM"
Employers have a right to protect their corporate image R
by KW
I believe that employers have the right to take action against employees for conduct occurring outside the workplace. P+
"For example, if an employee makes racially incensitive comments outside the office which causes harm to the corporation's reputuation then I believe that the corporation has the right to take action against the employee." R
"That said, I do not believe that companies should be able to use this as a means to discrimate against individuals who do not share their beliefs." N
"Rather, I believe that the corporation needs to demonstrate that it has been harmed by the employees conduct prior to taking action." R
"Posted on Nov 16, 2000, 1:36 PM"
..Some employers may take this too far R
by AS
I agree with //KW that A
C
//employers have a responsibility to protect their corporate image and something that an employee does outside of work can have a profound effect on the corporation. R
Who was the sportscaster that was caught in a compromising S & M situation? R?
"Anyway, couldn't have looked too good for the network." R
"I think this is particularly true for so-called public figures, " R
"//such as TV personalities, CEOs and spokespeople." R
I think Seagrams dropped Bruce Willis after he received some bad PR. R
"However, I also believe that employers could easily use this as an excuse to dump employees that ""embarass"" them or do things they don't agree with." R
"Some examples might be a line worker that likes to cross-dress, or a gay attorney." R
The conduct outside of work has nothing to do with his/her job performance R
// but I would bet some employers would jump at the chance to fire these employees. H
This brings to light an interesting question. E
"If important clients of a law firm had a problem working with a gay attorney and refused to let her take their case, is that grounds for dismissal due to the lost revenue and future unproductive relationship?" R?
I say no. R
"If the firm hired this attorney in the first place, and she has done a good job for them in the past, they have no right to let her go because of a bigoted client." R
Sometimes money needs to take a back seat to doing the right thing. R
Another question: C
//Should an employer fire an employee for making racist comments outside the workplace even if it has no effect on the company? N?
"For example, if ""Bob"" is involved in an Aryan supremicist group on his own time (and everybody knows it) but is otherwise a good employee?" R
"My opinion is no, " R
"//he should not be let go, however heinous his views may be." N
The only time the company should consider firing him is if it harms other employees or hinders productivity. N
"And this is a very touchy subject, " E
//because legal issues come into play. R
"Posted on Nov 18, 2000, 11:37 PM"
....Racism can be a good reason to fire someone R
by WB
AS C
// you brought up a good point. E
In terms of racism it gets particularly difficult to draw a line between what is sufficient to fire someone and what not. N
"Even though the company might not be harmed, is it right to employ someone who for example beats other people up in his sparetime, because they have a different skin color?" R?
Is firing this person part of the company's social responsibility? R?
In Germany for instance it is. R
"If you belong to a Neo-Nazisitc group and your employer finds out, you will be fired." R
The legal justification is (a bit simplified) that employing Neo-Nazis can strongly damage the company's relations with partners from foreign countries. R
As you see from a legal point of view this is not easy to justify. R
Nevertheless in the same situation I would fire this person too. H
P.S.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is from Austria.
//(see banner on top)
"Posted on Nov 19, 2000, 2:13 PM"
......I'll be back... C
by AS
"Did somebody bring up Arnold, "
//or was it in a banner ad?
"I haven't seen that one, "
//I'll look out for it.
"It seems like no matter how many times it is mentioned, people still keep thinking he is German."
(I'm assuming that is what you are referring to.)
//People are so unable to see beyond their own noses...
"By the way, anyone else think it is bizarre that there are banner ads on a Web site used for ""educational purposes""?"
I suppose that is an entirely other ethical topic.
"Anyway, I'm glad you brought Germany into this discussion," C
//WB C
// because it brings up some interesting discussion points we can comment on. E
"Given German history, I can see how the government and companies would be extremely sensitive to how they are perceived in the global community, and watch carefully any Neo-Nazi activity." R
One could make the same case for the U.S. and our slavery history. R
We could argue that government and firms should do the same thing for similar reasons. N
"But, for better or worse, the U.S. is all about the Individual Right To (Fill in the Blank), whereas Germany is more of a social welfare kind of environment." R
"I was in Nrnberg this summer on an internship, " X
"//and had an interesting discussion with my landlord," X
//who is a doctor. X
"He believes that sometimes Germany is too tolerant of those who don't want to work, " X
"//and the system will support them longer than he thinks it ought to, very comfortably." X
"But then again, we both agreed that" X
//the U.S. doesn't do enough for it's disadvantaged people. X
"But, I digress." C
I think it is hard for U.S. companies to do the right thing (firing a racially violent employee) because of the fear of legal retaliation. R
"Posted on Nov 19, 2000, 5:05 PM"
....When does protecting the image begin? R?
by GR GR
"In light of the argument that a corporation has the right to protect its image through employee practices, the question I have is ""when does this right begin?"" " R?
It seems to me that a point could be made for hiring only people with certain beliefs. R
"If the company has the right to protect its image, then they should be able to refrain from any action that could hurt that image, " N
//such as hiring people with beliefs that don't mesh with the company's desired image. R
"Posted on Nov 20, 2000, 5:31 PM"
......What sort of beliefs are we talking about? R?
by AS
"I think a majority of personal views aren't ""knowable"" in the interview process, " R
//and only become apparent once a person begins to work for a firm. R
"Posted on Nov 22, 2000, 9:08 PM"
"........Beliefs aren't evident, " R
//but can be uncovered R
by GR
You are right that E
// these beliefs don't become apparent until after employment. R
"My point was, if it is okay for the company to fire someone for those beliefs, should it then also be okay for them to attempt to uncover those beliefs before hiring?" N?
"Is it acceptable to ask ""do you belong to any race supremist groups?"" on a job application, " R?
"//and consequently not hire that person, if that person could be fired later for said membership?" R?
"Posted on Nov 26, 2000, 10:59 AM"
..........Not okay to uncover beliefs in an interview R
by AS
"I think attempting to uncover beliefs in a job interview is NOT okay, " R
//because it leads to discrimination. R
And how incredibly boring to work in a place with people who all think alike. R
"I stand by my original opinion," N
"// that co.'s can only fire if it interferes with productivity in some way, e.g. if the employee is harassing other employees." R
"Posted on Nov 26, 2000, 5:20 PM"
..........No way R
by MC
I think in no way should employers try to ask this kind of questions in an interview- R
// it will lead to discrimination. R
"In addition, the behavior and/or beliefs we are talking about are not so clear cut that thay can be ""uncovered"" with interview questions." R
"Posted on Nov 29, 2000, 10:16 AM"
............Isn't firing based on beliefs discrimination? R?
by GR
MC and AS - C
I completely agree that A
//companies should not be allowed to discriminate in their employment practices. N
"However, I am trying to point out the slippery slope that this topic raises." R
"If a company has the right to fire an employee for being racist or some other ""belief"", then shouldn't they have the right not to hire that person in the first place?" N?
And shouldn't they have the right to identify those beliefs in the process? N?
(which I agree with) A
"//Now, if your position is that a company should only fire employees for ""actions or circumstances that impact performance negatively"" , then this all becomes irrelevant - because beliefs should not impact performance." N
"But, if a company has a right to protect its image, then that right belongs in the hiring process as well as the firing process." R
"Posted on Nov 29, 2000, 7:21 PM"
..............Beliefs vs. behavior R
by MC
My position is indeed that a company should only fire employees for actions and circumstances that impact performance negatively. R
Beliefs should not be the basis for hiring and/or firing someone. N
This is not the company's business UNLESS performance is affected. R
(//as I said before) C
"Posted on Nov 30, 2000, 10:24 AM"
..............Difficult to Measure Beliefs E
by JP
I don't think that we want to go down the route of corporations deciding to hire based on beliefs. R
"I think the corporation has a obligation to create a working environment that allows each person regardless of internal beliefs (racist, homophobic, etc) to have the chance to make a living." R
"The one caveat is that once those beliefs affect another employee or outside stakeholder (customer, supplier, etc.) through actions (with tangible evidence that can be verified or proven), the company has the obligation to take action against that employe" R
"Posted on Dec 6, 2000, 10:08 AM"
Who determines what is acceptable conduct? R?
by MC
One of the issues with firing empolyees based on their condust outside work is who determines what is an acceptable conduct. R
There are many gray areas in someone's conduct. R
"It is difficult to determine which actions affect the reputation of the firm to the extent that it is ""reasonable"" to fire someone and which which actions do not affet the reputation to that extent?" R
"Also, will the same parameters be applied to all employees?" R?
"Posted on Nov 19, 2000, 4:28 PM"
..Anyone have any examples of this from their own experience? X?
by AS
I wonder if unreasonable conduct would be more tolerated in a high-level employee. R
"Actually, now that I think about it, I KNOW that it is." R
"I used to work at an ad agency, " X
"//and there was one particular guy who was a brilliant creative person, but a total misogynist." X
"He had a legendary temper, " X
"//and it would mostly flare up when he was working with a woman, especially if she was below him in the chain of command." X
"I witnessed some of these outbursts, " X
//and they were very scary and emotionally abusive. X
You were never sure if he was going to go from yelling to hitting. X
"Anyway, the company kept telling him ""The next time you do this you're fired...""" X
//but kept giving him more and more chances X
//because he kept winning awards for them and making the clients happy. X
"He was finally fired, after the 14th such incident." X
"I know this has nothing to do with conduct OUTSIDE of work, " R
//but it is an example of how the same parameters are not applied to all employees. R
"Posted on Nov 19, 2000, 5:13 PM"
..The company has the right to set the standard R
by GR
I believe that the employer has the right to set the guidelines as to what is acceptable behavior. R
The qualifier in my argument is that these standards must be explicitly stated N
//and the employees must be aware of them to be enforced. N
"An employer should not have the right to say ""we have never told you this, " N
//but that action was unacceptable. R
"//You are fired.""" R
" However, if the standards are clear, the company has the right to set whatever they desire." R
"Posted on Nov 20, 2000, 5:34 PM"
....I agree with// you A
C
by MC
I agree with you in that A
"// if employees are so concerned with conduct outside work, then it should set the guidelines and standards of macceptable and unacceptable conduct and communicate them to the employees." N
"Posted on Nov 21, 2000, 10:24 AM"
....Hmmmmmmm........ C
by AS
"Maybe I am splitting hairs here, " E
//but can an employer really make employees aware of EVERYTHING that could possibly be unacceptable? R?
"I think it is one of those ""what a reasonable person would consider unacceptable"" that keeps cropping up in judicial rulings." R
"Posted on Nov 22, 2000, 9:10 PM"
......Definition of a reasonable person? R?
by GR
"OK, that is the standard that keeps popping up in the legal arena." R
"However, I would like to make two points on that: " C
"//1) I don't believe the legal scene is necessarily tied to the ethical one, so are we debating legality or ethics of the company?" R?
"2) I really dislike the ambiguous term ""reasonable person.""" R
//Only in very clear cases can we agree what that reasonable person would do. R
Look at the votes in Florida - R
//reasonable people have completely different views. R
(//sorry to bring the election into this) C
This can happen in any situation. R
"So, I guess my question is, who decides what the reasonable person is?" R?
And do we want the courts to be the ones deciding for us? R?
"Posted on Nov 26, 2000, 10:55 AM"
........Always gotta ask the hard questions... E
by AS
"You're right, though, " E
//I was getting too caught up in the legal aspects. R
We should leave that behind if ethics is our only consideration. N
"My short answer to your questions is no, " R
"//we don't want the courts deciding, " R
"//and companies shouldn't be trying to just toe the legal line, " N
//although it is something they need to consider when making decisions. R
"But, if our argument is that companies can only fire employees for conduct outside of work if the employee was aware that this conduct was not kosher according to company policy, I return to my original question, how can a company possibly forsee,,," R?
all improper conduct?
"Posted on Nov 26, 2000, 5:17 PM"
..........Improper conduct R
by MC
Improper conduct in this context should be defined as any conduct that negatively affects the employee's performance in the job and as well as conduct that affects the performance of the company (public image). N
"Posted on Nov 29, 2000, 9:56 AM"
..........Define as best as possible E
by GR
AS - C
"No, there is no way to address every issue." R
"But a company can explicitly state the ""big no-no's"" " R
//and then create an ethical mission statement to generally define the remainder. R
I think this is part of the reason so many companies have developed these lately - R
"// it creates that ""notice to employee"" that the company can fall back on later." R
"Again, getting too focused on the legal aspect, " C
//but it always seems to come back to that. C
Is it possible to truly separate the two? R?
"Posted on Nov 29, 2000, 7:24 PM"
..Response C
by JP
I'd agree that A
// the company needs to be proactive in their definition of what is acceptable conduct. R
It also should be agreed upon with the employee during the employment orientation process. N
I think only under this scenario would the employer have any legal recourse. R
"Posted on Dec 6, 2000, 10:00 AM"
If a company is harmed they must be allowed to act R
by KW
To me the issue of whether or not someone can be dismissed for conduct occurring outside the workplace deals with two questions - R
// does the individual's actions impact his/her ability to perform their job R
// and do their actions harm the corporation. R
"I believe that when individual's actions, including those occuring outside of work, impact their performance the company should be able to take action." N
"For example, if an employee has a rough weekend (a wee bit to much to drink) and comes to work unable to function (but not drunk)I believe that the employer should have a right to dismiss this employee if their lack of performance caused harm to the corpo" N
"Now, whether or not a company would actually let someone go for this type of infraction is open to debate." E
"However, if a company is paying someone to perform a service and the employee willfully does something which impairs their ability to perform said service shouldn't the company be able to take action." N?
Consider it in these terms - C
//if a supplier does not meet its obligations should a company be forced to continue purchasing goods/services from the supplier. N?
I think that most would argue that the company has no such obligation. R
"I think that the same standard should apply to employees, even if the event impairing the employees ability to perform is the result of something occuring outside of the workplace." N
Let me know what you all think. C
"Posted on Nov 20, 2000, 2:54 PM"
..Agree with// impairment of function; A
R
//maybe not on actions R
by GR
I agree that A
//any outside action that impairs the employee's ability to perform the required work gives the company the right to take action. R
"However, when the issue turns to simply image problems, the answer becomes much fuzzier." E
I think the considerations are: R
1) Does the company truly suffer from the employee's actions? R?
2) Was the company's desired image clearly conveyed to the employee before such action occurred? R?
3) How does one relate the damage to the image with the action taken against the employee? R?
I am particularly interested in views on this last point. C
What amount of damage merits termination versus other actions? R?
"How should we measure ""damage"" to the company's image?" R?
Is it possible? E?
"Posted on Nov 20, 2000, 5:41 PM"
....Companies often don't consider damage to moral or productivity R
by AS
"By ""other actions"" I assume you mean a note in someone's file, " R
"//no merit raise that year, " R
//a stern talking-to R
//or something similar? R?
This is a good question. E
I think the answer to the first depends on the answer to the second. R
A company needs to know how it measures damage before it can decide on the level of punishment. R
"The damage I can think of would be damage to profitablility (long-term or short-term), " R
"//damage to morale, " R
//PR nightmares R
//(which later affect profitablility). R
"Companies often don't consider damage to morale," R
// or how someone's behavior can affect either their job performance or the productivity of those around them. R
"But, back to the main issue, " C
//does conduct outside of work affect work performance? R?
"I think it can, " R
"//but only if the line is blurred, " R
//like that fireman (?) who was handing out anti-gay literature in or near the firehouse? R
"I can't remember the details, " C
//but he was disciplined. R
"I think he should have been if it was interferring with his coworkers' ability to do their jobs, or if he was handing stuff out in uniform, bad PR for the fire dept." N
"However, if he wanted to do that stuff on his own time away from his job, he should have the right to without being disciplined." N
"Posted on Nov 25, 2000, 2:36 PM"
"......I meant ""morale"" not moral!" C
by AS
"Posted on Nov 25, 2000, 2:37 PM"
......Agree A
by JP
I agree with A
// the fireman analogy as to where the line should be drawn. N
An interesting phenomenon is how bad PR is created just through the pursuit of actions against employees for improper conduct. R
The example I'm thinking of is the Miller case where a supervisor was reprimanded/ placed on the slow track for an offensive antedote from Seinfeld that he repeated to a employee. R
The publicity created from this has been fairly damaging even though they have tried to address the problem. R
"Posted on Dec 6, 2000, 10:18 AM"
..completely agree A
by CC
I believe that a person is being paid by a company to show up in a condition that they can perform their task without problems. R
A more interesting question that I encounter at my company is what are the privacy issues involved with an employee who passes a drug test but still might be an occasional user. R
"With our trucking company our drivers get random drug test from the state, " X
//however only about 5% of the drivers are tested a year. T
"The problem to us as a company is if that drive smoked pot once durring the last month, and has an accident where there is a severe injury or death he must have a drug test immediatly." X
I f he fails the test for the smallest positive outcome the company not the employee will be held liable for his actions. R
"As a company you can not drug test every employee every month, " R
"//because they would screem that it was harrasment," R
//yet how do companies limmit their liability. R?
"I believe what employees do on their own time is up to them, " R
//yet when they come to work and their personal life may have a negative effet on the company where and how do you draw that line. N?
Who should step in? R?
"unions, government, companies, or the other employees" R
"Posted on Nov 28, 2000, 12:29 PM"
Blurred Line of Conduct Outside of Work R
by JP
Sorry for my delay in posting a message. C
"Just wanted to get your opinions on the definition ""outside of work""." C
I would argue that this line is getting more difficult to distinguish with tele-commuting and other electronic mechanisms that allow work to find us 24 hours a day. R
Does this impact any of our previous arguments? R?
"Posted on Nov 30, 2000, 1:18 PM"
..Is your home private if you are on company time R?
by CC
I would say that what goes on in a persons house is their private business. H
"However if that person is on company time, does the company have the regth to invade that privacy to uphold any policies." R?
Examaple what if a person is drinking when they are working from their house does the company have grounds to terminate them. R?
Or was the company invading that person right to privacy. R?
"Where do the privacy rights stop, " N?
//and where do the companies rights start. N?
"Posted on Nov 30, 2000, 2:35 PM"
....Example R
by JP
Thought this was interesting message from the NFL commissioner regarding players conduct outside of playing football. L
(don't feel like you need to read the entire letter below) C
Obviously this is taken to the extreme E
//but it might raise some interesting arguments as to the company right vs personal privacy line) E
"Posted on Dec 5, 2000, 12:42 PM"
1st Attempt at Concensus N
by GR
"OK, since this thing wraps up in a week or so, I am going to try and summarize what I have read so far." S
Proposal #1: C
The employer has the right to fire an employee for any action or belief that negatively impacts job performance; R
" however, they do not have the right to fire anyone based on beliefs or actions outside of work that do not impact performance in the workplace" R
This is what I am getting from the discussions so far. C
Here are the questions I think need to be addressed in order to adopt this position: N
"1. What about beliefs that impact work environment or interaction with other employees without affecting the ""actual"" job?" R?
Does this count as impacting performance? R?
2. Are we saying that the company does not have the right to protect its image in terms of its employees? R?
"Does an employee represent the employer 24/7, or only when on the clock?" R?
The same goes for the employer's interest in the employee. R
This is what I have seen so far. C
Please correct me if I have misinterpreted anyone's posts. C
"Also, if you have not commented yet, please speak up on any of these points." C
"Posted on Dec 2, 2000, 7:15 PM"
..Reply to your two questions C
by WB
For me the answer to the first question is clear: E
"If someone's beliefs and attitudes fundamentaly conflict with the absolute majority of the other employees and if these beliefs are about essential values (and not a football team), then it is necessary to get rid of this person." R
Otherwise she/he inevitably spoils the work atmosphere. R
This is because I believe that noone can constantly hide his/her beliefs if they strongly differ with the others' beliefs. R
To your second question I have a hard time drawing a line. E
I think if the company's public reputation is at risk because of an employee then firing him/her is also justified. R
Otherwise not. R
"Posted on Dec 3, 2000, 2:30 PM"
....Can we draw a line? N?
by GR
"I tend to agree on the theoretical position, " A
//but I don't know how a company can put this into practice. R
"I see a serious slippery slope argument here, " R
"//where if you can fire a person for this infraction, the next small step also seems acceptable, until anything is within the company's power." R
How do we go about distinguishing between what can merit termination and what can't? R?
I think this is the major sticking point we are seeing. E
"If we cannot draw a line, is it fair to limit the company's right to performance factors and ignore the other two questions?" N?
"Posted on Dec 3, 2000, 4:59 PM"
......termination over image playing with fire R
by CC
There is no doubt that companies want their employees to relay a good image of the company when they are on their own time. R
But the issue come into play when the employee is wearing company clothing with the logo on it in inappropriate situations. R
"I know of companies that have policies about wearing uniforms into bars and other such places, however such pieces of clothing such as hats and so on." R
Companies want their employee to advetise for them R
//however I do not see how the company could dismiss someoen over just that. R
An example of this is if an employee is wearing a shirt witht the company logo on it in the bars constantly and you concider terminating the person that is descrimination in my mind. R
"Expecially if you give your customers the same clothing, are you going to fire or punish them for where they wear it." R?
Companies would be wide open for a lawsuit I don't think they can win. R
"Posted on Dec 4, 2000, 12:55 PM"
....Slight Disagreement D
by KW
"You indicated that if someone's beliefs and attitudes fundamentaly conflicted with the absolute majority of the other employees and if these beliefs are about essential values (and not a football team), then it is necessary to get rid of this person." C
While I agree with this to a degree A
// I don't know if what one believe should be cause for termination. N
"For example, if I believe that homosexuality is an appropriate lifestyle and the majority of my coworkers believe otherwise should I be fired." N?
Or if I work for a gun manufacturer yet believe in a national firearm registry should I be fired. N?
I think we need to distinguish between beliefs that cause to the corporation or workforce and not beliefs that are different. R
"Posted on Dec 7, 2000, 5:46 PM"
......Clarification C
by GR
"When I mentioned beliefs and their impact on the workforce, I meant those that eventually damage performance." R
"Especially in service industries where working as a team is critical,this can come into play." R
"What if one employee holds a belief that prevents the others from effectively working with that employee, such as blatant racism?" R?
Does this belief impact performance enough to warrant termination? R?
I agree that A
"//just because a belief is different doesn't make it grounds to be fired," R
//but I am trying to make the point that certain beliefs do impact a workplace beyond one's own performance and could be worthy of dismissal. R
"Posted on Dec 7, 2000, 6:54 PM"
........Differing Beliefs R
by JP
I think that it is very dangerous to fire or discipline employees based in any way on beliefs. R
"I'd argue that differing beliefs can actually enhance a team environment if there is a shared vision and understanding as to what ""actions"" are appropriate and inappropriate relative to work performance." R
"I'd make the clear distinction between creating a conducive working environment and fostering a company ""belief"" system." R
"Posted on Dec 8, 2000, 12:47 PM"
........Must draw the line N
by AS
I agree that A
"// simply having another belief is not grounds for dismissal," R
"//and as was said before, it can have a positive effect on the workplace by bringing different world views and new ways of thinking into the discussion." R
"I also think//GR's// point is very important," C
C
E
//that the line should be drawn when a belief starts hurting the overall productivity of the firm. N
"Irreconcilable differences or some such thing could be a reason to ""divorce"" an employee." R
"Posted on Dec 9, 2000, 1:45 PM"
..Reponse to Proposal 1 C
by JP
In regards to proposal 1-I think it is dangerous to fire an employee based on their belief. R
"What is our definition of ""belief""?" R?
"My initial response is to limit the wording to ""actions that negatively impact job performance""." N
"The belief will likely be implicit in the actions," R
// but at least the employee has made that conscious choice to take action giving the company a means of measurement against standard practices. R
"Posted on Dec 5, 2000, 1:05 PM"
....Agree. A
by AS
"I think I am reading that we tend to agree that the words ""actions that negatively impact job performance"" sound right." N
"Someone should not be fired simply because they believe in a certain religion," R
" //but if they badger employees and try to get them to convert, then it could be considered problematic and disruptive." R
"Posted on Dec 9, 2000, 1:47 PM"
..Response to Questions C
by AS
1) I'm not sure these are mutually exclusive. R
How can you impact the work environment or interaction with other employees without affecting the actual job? R?
"Even though it could not be easily quantified, I think an employee that is hindering interaction with other employees is affecting overall performance of the company by limiting effective communication and teamwork." R
"This employee should certainly be talked to, and dismissed if the problem does not correct itself." N
"However, there are other levels to this, " R
"//such as what if two employees have issues outside of work that they then bring into the workplace, causing friction?" R?
"2) As for this, I think it depends on the level of the employee in the company and the type of business." R
I feel safe saying the the janitor at Macy's or the salesperson at the mall only represents the company when they are on the clock. R
"The president of CBS or a pharmaceutical salesperson, however, must constantly be aware of his/her actions." R
"I wouldn't expect the salesperson to be on alert all the time, " H
"//but she should consider how her choices might affect her employer, and then decide if it is a risk she is willing to take." N
"Badmouthing the product, for example." R
"Posted on Dec 9, 2000, 1:55 PM"






















Make your own free website on Tripod.com