|  IP: Logged

I am not a kid, unless 31 constitutes a kid in your eyes. I also have 15 years management under my belt. In addition, Sean's comment above is absolutely correct, for there are many 18 year olds who do a better job than people who are 50 and have been in this business for 30+ years, so let's cut the age crap.

It's your theater and as such you do whatever you like, but the bottom line is that what that employee did off of your timeclock is none of your damn business. You are not God, you do not own him and you have no right to control his life. So big deal if the competition knows you brought in X amount of dollars in concession sales. Exactly how does that hurt or help your sales? It doesn't. It hurts neither of your businesses any more than knowing how much each one of you brought in the box office for a given movie, and that's somewhat public information anyway. Again, he obviously KNEW you would overreact, just like you have, which is why he kept it from you.

Granted all of this is opinions, right down from you terminating this guy to my comments above, but since you've asked this on a public forum, now perhaps you will see the other side of the argument before you go punishing other employees because they did not ask permission of their ruler before partaking in another job on their own personal time. I would be very embarassed and ashamed if we were part of the same management team for your closed-mindedness.

[rant mode back off...for now]

I have to agree with brad on the fact that it is no ones business what I do outside the theater.....as long as I make it in to work and I am able to give 100% to the job, no one should be complaining.

What your employees do, on the clock and off, can have signifigant legal ramifications on the organization. IT IS THE EMPLOYERS BUISNESS IF THE EMPLOYEE IS DOING SOMETHING WHICH CAN EFFECT THE EMPLOYER.... Remember those background checks we all have to go through before becomming managers?

Unfortunately, this might be the moral high ground, but it often is not true. Any employee that agrees to random drug testing as a prequirement of employment is allowing the owner of the company to have an unreasonable say in their "outside" life. I would have no particular problem with random or periodic drug testing, IF it were applied equally from top to bottom, with the owners and stockholders having to submit and suffer consequences equal to those imposed on hourly employees. I've seen too many people in high positions with drug habits to perceive the intentions of these invasions of privacy as anything but mercinary -- "I won't allow my employees to use drugs because they might steal to support their habits. I need that money for my own habit."

Besides, my pee is mine. If you want me to save it for you, or you think you have a pressing need to have it examined, I gotta think you are sick in the head.

Other outside activities can often be seen as affecting an employer.
Some companies require a commitment to social service as an unstated requirement for continued employment and advancement. On the other end of the spectrum, a pedophile might not be the best choice to usher a matinee show. A klansman might not be the best hire in an inner city theatre. I state these examples because they are forms of socially acceptable employment discrimination based on outside activities that are largely unchallenged in the courts. The cold hard facts are that many businesses, especially small family owned businesses discriminate outrageously based on religion, social standing, race, and many other factors, but hide it from outsiders. In the real world, it does matter to many employers what a person does outside their job.

------------------
--"That's my story and i'm sticking to it!"--

My initial response is that anyone worried about things like this needs to start treating their employees with a bit more respect. Oh no, the competition is going to add 4 more screens? Oh no, the competition is going to build another theater in the next town? It sounds to me like the world may well explode from such knowledge and such talk MUST be stopped! Oh please. Half the time I know about other theater's expansions and closings before the managers do at that theater anyway.

The only valid argument I've seen against invading an employee's right to privacy on his time off is the one above about possibly sabotaging the competition's operations. But then again, if the theater with the tyrant ruler in charge would just treat their employees like human beings, that wouldn't happen now would it? No it would not. Perhaps it is time for some management teams to re-evaluate whether they are treating their staff like shit or not.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

You are way the hell out of line. We'll discuss this on Thursday..