Jump to content

Slava Voynov Deported


Recommended Posts

It is illegal to fire someone in the first two scenarios, unless that was somehow part of your contract. If it's part of your contract, and you signed it, then yes, you breached the contract. If it wasn't part of your contract, then no, they are not criminal charges and you can't legally be fired for those reasons. You could be "laid off" though.

 

In scenario three, that is a criminal charge. 

 

Backtracking for a second here.......

 

I'd be upset with myself if I didn't mention this key point regarding contract law: A contract is void "ab initio" if the contract (or a clause in the contract) is against the law. 

 

An example of this is a contract for murder. You can sign a contract agreeing to kill someone but the contract is not legally binding / enforceable. So whenever we talk about something being in the contract and automatically assume that it's okay, remember to ask whether an employer is legally allowed to put such a clause in a contract in the first place. It's not uncommon for employers to add bogus crapola to their contracts to intimidate employees. The fact that it's in the contract and that you sign it doesn't mean it's legal.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Backtracking for a second here.......

 

I'd be upset with myself if I didn't mention this key point regarding contract law: A contract is void "ab initio" if the contract (or a clause in the contract) is against the law. 

 

An example of this is a contract for murder. You can sign a contract agreeing to kill someone but the contract is not legally binding / enforceable. So whenever we talk about something being in the contract and automatically assume that it's okay, remember to ask whether an employer is legally allowed to put such a clause in a contract in the first place. It's not uncommon for employers to add bogus crapola to their contracts to intimidate employees. The fact that it's in the contract and that you sign it doesn't mean it's legal.  :)

 

Right. That makes perfect sense. 

 

What about firing someone for violating a code of conduct that includes things that *could* be illegal grounds for dismissal, like certain behaviours? Is that enforceable?

 

So a peace bond, for example, can restrict someone from doing perfectly legal things (texting you, driving by your house, contacting you in any way), but if the peace bond is violated, it is a criminal offense. I'm not a lawyer, so I may not be getting that 100% correct, but I think that's the gist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murder is settled law.

So are the morality clauses in current professional contracts.

Moreover, comparing a contract TO COMMIT A CRIME to one AGAINST COMMITTING A CRIME is like comparing applewood smoked bacon and hardwood floors.

Just because you have an acorn, don't describe it as an oak tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. That makes perfect sense. 

 

What about firing someone for violating a code of conduct that includes things that *could* be illegal grounds for dismissal, like certain behaviours? Is that enforceable?

 

So a peace bond, for example, can restrict someone from doing perfectly legal things (texting you, driving by your house, contacting you in any way), but if the peace bond is violated, it is a criminal offense. I'm not a lawyer, so I may not be getting that 100% correct, but I think that's the gist. 

 

To me, an employer's code of conduct pertains to behaviour occurring at work, usually with customers. How a person behaves on their own private time is not for the employer to know. It is outside the scope of the job. If you got into a scuffle with someone at a bar, it's not Microsoft fighting against Sony, it's Joe Blow fighting against John Doe. Neither person is representing their company during their personal time.

 

At the end of the day, all that really matters is how important you are to your employer. If you're easily replaceable, they won't have any qualms about firing you because the law states that an employer can fire you at any time without any reason at all. If you're a one of a kind employee with a skill set that can't be replaced, a company will work to fight against the law on your behalf to preserve your job. It's kind of sad but it's the truth.  :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murder is settled law.

So are the morality clauses in current professional contracts.

Moreover, comparing a contract TO COMMIT A CRIME to one AGAINST COMMITTING A CRIME is like comparing applewood smoked bacon and hardwood floors.

Just because you have an acorn, don't describe it as an oak tree.

 

Settled law?  :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, an employer's code of conduct pertains to behaviour occurring at work, usually with customers. How a person behaves on their own private time is not for the employer to know. It is outside the scope of the job. If you got into a scuffle with someone at a bar, it's not Microsoft fighting against Sony, it's Joe Blow fighting against John Doe. Neither person is representing their company during their personal time.

 

At the end of the day, all that really matters is how important you are to your employer. If you're easily replaceable, they won't have any qualms about firing you because the law states that an employer can fire you at any time without any reason at all. If you're a one of a kind employee with a skill set that can't be replaced, a company will work to fight against the law on your behalf to preserve your job. It's kind of sad but it's the truth.  :(

 

 Don't agree with any of this.....what you do in your private time at home DOES impact your work. That is why all kinds of people are fired for what they put on facebook etc....especially with a job like pro athlete....they are SUPPOSED to be somebody to look up to. Their jobs are very public, and what they do away from the rink is of the utmost importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Don't agree with any of this.....what you do in your private time at home DOES impact your work. That is why all kinds of people are fired for what they put on facebook etc....especially with a job like pro athlete....they are SUPPOSED to be somebody to look up to. Their jobs are very public, and what they do away from the rink is of the utmost importance.

 

I think that ship has sailed.   :mellow:

 

On the bright side, kids don't watch the news. They can collect posters and idolize their favourite players without ever knowing what kind of person they are privately.  :thumbsu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Settled law?  :huh:

 

Yes, "Settled Law" - a principle which has been universally accepted in the legal community.

 

There is no question that murder is illegal - so one cannot hold someone to a contract to do an illegal act.

 

And the morals clauses in the current contracts are "settled law" - principles which have been universally accepted in (and enforced by) the legal community.

 

There is no question as to whether they are valid.

 

None. At. All.

 

No one forces players (or any worker) to sign these sort of contracts. If they don't want to be held to the standards, they are free to take another job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, "Settled Law" - a principle which has been universally accepted in the legal community.

 

There is no question that murder is illegal - so one cannot hold someone to a contract to do an illegal act.

 

And the morals clauses in the current contracts are "settled law" - principles which have been universally accepted in (and enforced by) the legal community.

 

There is no question as to whether they are valid.

 

None. At. All.

 

No one forces players (or any worker) to sign these sort of contracts. If they don't want to be held to the standards, they are free to take another job.

 

Okay. That explains "settled law".

 

But what if every employer has the same sort of carbon-copy/cut-paste/boilerplate legalese written into their contract? Ideally it should be a choice, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of choice. Basically the choice it comes down to is that if you'd like to work, then you're going to live your life according to how your employer feels you should live it. If not then the alternative is not working at all.  :(

 

Now I understand the Voynov issue is a criminal one, so I'm not talking about that. He has left on his jet plane.  :)  I'm talking about non-criminal things where an employer can influence/pressure/adversely effect how you live your life.

 

Scenario: You work at an assembly plant for Ford. They close down. You go over to GM to get a job at their plant. They put a clause in your contract that you have to get rid of your Ford vehicle within 30 days of being hired and buy a GM car or they're terminate you. What's your decision? Work or starve?  :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...