As I eagerly catch up on the dramatic proceedings unfold at Aware, I'm rather shocked at the public statement issued by the employer of their new president. The statement is tantamount to a public rebuke.
Papa Smurf makes a very good point in his article. Many members of senior management across private and public sectors are multi-taskers. What's with this one, I wonder privately. What is exactly the conflict of interest? While I'm in no position to speculate about the going-ons behind the scene, I do think the way the new committee has been elected is not nice. It leaves quite an unpleasant taste behind.
I'm also reminded that my employer is also more or less 'involved' in dictating the direction of my personal life somewhat.
I'm sure my employer has no objections to volunteering in the areas of elderly care, rural improvements and micro-financing. They might not take well to my previous work with cats since there's an ongoing quiet epic argument with HDB. But I'm (and the friends too) very very careful to fly under the radar, i.e. no media mentions, no magazine articles, no public statements, nothing of that sort. Since the personal stuff is not linked to major organizations and more on a private group basis, my employer is not likely to know any details of my activities so long they aren't illegal. I most certainly don't bother to seek prior approval before I embark on these activities done on personal time.
I had a visitor who said hi to me at the office the other day. He was at the office for another matter, but he requested to see me. I was puzzled and it was only after we spoke, then I realized a personal friend from Lao had bade him to look me up. The friend and I were acquainted through an ongoing charity collaboration in Luang Prabang and I had stayed there for 4 months. The meeting governed by 2 degrees separation was a scary encounter. I didn't expect my personal life to suddenly mesh with the work sphere.
If I raise awareness for HIV/Aids in rural areas, it would be okay. But you see, if I actively advocate gay rights, not only would I alienate friends into opposing camps, I would also earn a stern admonishment from my employer. My employer is unlike the friends' employers who also accord company privileges to employees' partners, regardless of gender and marriage.
If I ever dabbled in political or human rights campaigns, dubious advocacy agenda, I will definitely be fired.
8 comments:
Maybe it has more to do with the WAY they went about it. I have to say it left a very bad taste in my mouth.
Why not start their own organisation? Or start by joining with AWARE instead of throwing them out - the old ex-co didn't seem to know whom these newbies were. That seems to indicate to me they weren't very active within the organisation.
this has been termed as a takeover! the allegations that have arisen are not nice too. it's going to be quite interesting to see how AWARE develops in the future and its direction. it has been a great organization so far under the helm of its previous Presidents and committee. somehow, the new chapter hasn't started off on a good note.
image, darling, image. that's a mainstream image that all mainstream organizations would like to upkeep- it translates into business.
this ain't the age of the hippies you know?
dawn: That's also a crucial point. the way it was done wasn't transparent enough. legal, yes. questionable, perhaps.
natasha: i can't wait to check it out over the year and the next!
jazzgal: most naturally. the actions of one don't speak for all, yet it is often perceived to be so.
what's interesting in this saga is that people are mixing up two distinct issues. one is the orchestrated takeover of the leadership at AWARE. the other is employers' say in private lives of their employees. i do not trust the intent of players in issue 1; i don't agree with the employers' stand of telling employees what they may or may not do in their personal life in issue 2.
I do agree with you, sinlady - I don't think employers should have a say in their employee's lives. I don't think it was mixing the two up - I was just far more aggrieved in this case about the AWARE takeover :)
Having said that, I do think that there are probably SOME limits on what you do in your private time - ie if you're a teacher sleeping with your student for example, or if there is outright illegality in some other way, the company should have a right to fire you.
sinlady + dawn: strangely, i think employers do have some measure of say over employees personal lives. but with regard to this particular Aware case, i can't, for the life of me, see any justification in the bank's involvement...
No, neither can I really. It would have been better if they had just come out and said that they were unhappy with the manner in which she had behaved (IF that was their concern). I do know some companies have moral turpitude clauses.
The reason they gave instead was not very convincing.
Post a Comment