Off-duty behavior can affect job
Some companies are cracking down on employees' off-duty behavior, raising questions about how far employers should go in policing what workers do on their own time.
This ties in nicely with kos' discussion about core principles and the Democratic Party, the privacy plank in particular.
I am not going to excerpt any more from the article, but many of you may recall the woman in Alabama who was fired by her employer for having a Kerry bumper sticker on her car. She is used as an example in this article.
Suffice to say; since employment is at-will throughout the country, this anti-privacy behavior does not seem to be illegal in most cases. One area where this anti-privacy behavior is illegal in some places is off-duty smoking. Apparently, 12 states prevent employers from firing employees for smoking off the job (legislation undoubtedly supported by big Tobacco). Well, if smoking can be a protected off-duty activity, surely other off-duty activities deserve protection too.
There has to be some reasonable middle ground on this issue. I completely understand an employer's concern when an employee's personal life affects their performance on the job (drug use, etc...), but some of the issues that employers are cracking down on (such as alcohol use) may be protected conditions under the ADA (alcoholism, drug addiction). However, some employers go too far, such as the wingnut Kerry-hater in Alabama. At this moment though, finding that middle ground is not my concern. This is not a policy discussion but rather a politics discussion.
This is a single issue that we can add to the privacy theme and use to pound away at the GOP. It is universal to everybody, non-controversial when compared to other privacy issues, and can split the GOP ranks while unifying ours because protecting worker privacy is pro-labor and pro-family while also appealing to the little libertarian that resides in many Americans. It also will appeal to people who simply cannot stand their boss. Moreover, it will appeal to people who do not seem to trust the GOP on privacy issues because of the Schiavo mess, while also appealing to people wary of the GOP's tendency to try to impose certain religious mores onto the country. Imagine the debate where the Democratic candidate forces the GOP candidate to defend an employer's right to tell an employee what they can and cannot do off of the job.
Off-duty privacy may never be a primary issue on voters' minds but, because it combines our pro-privacy and pro-labor approach, I think addressing the issue could have broad appeal and may enable Democrats to discuss privacy issues across party lines. In fact, Democrats could use this issue to introduce themselves to voters who otherwise do not want to discuss privacy with Democrats because of its role in more controversial issues such as abortion.
What do you think?