Hello, I am the Head Aviation and Accountable Manager from XXX Aviation Pvt Limited.
We had a very sensitive incident a couple of months an employee from our organisation posted a objectionable photograph (partially obscene) on her social media wall. This was noticed by me and a couple of other colleagues and clients which over a period of time was discussed. I had spoken to the employee and requested if she can consider removing the post as most our clients and Co-workers had seen it and reported it. However, she refused to remove and the issue was ignored. Now again there is an issue wherein the employee continues to use the same pic as her DP on WhatsApp (a personal number that is used for official communication as well). I would like to know if we as a company can take any action on the employee or maintain the status quo. Would appreciate if any of you can guide me on this

From India, Bangalore
Dinesh Divekar
Business Mentor, Consultant And Trainer

Kuldeep Kumar Chauhan

Dear Member,
As an employee of an Organization, a basic discipline is expected from the employee. If incident of any act which not in the spirit of general morale or of unbecoming of a disciplined employee, one should be warned that act of his/her is denting image of the organization and therefore why not disciplinary action be initiated against him/her .
You may seek explanation through show cause notice . Though you may control anyone social expression on those platform expressed privately but you are at liberty to proceed for public acts when connected/ related with company transactions.

From India, Lucknow
Dinesh Divekar

Dear Mr Prakash,

You have shared an incident in your company wherein you feel that sharing an alleged obscene photograph violates the sensibilities of your staff. A learned member has even recommended taking disciplinary action against her. Nevertheless, the basic questions that arise here are:

a) Who are we to draw the line of morality or obscenity?
b) Under which act or law an organisation can initiate disciplinary action against the "erring" employee?
c) "Pasting a certain type of photograph", has this misconduct been defined in the standing orders of your company?

My comments on the employee's conduct are as below:

d) Posting a certain type of photograph on social media: - What type of photographs to post on social media is a personal matter of the employee. If those who follow her on social media get offended, then they can unfollow her. The lady is exercising her personal liberty. Why are her colleagues intruding on her personal preferences? If they really feel that the photograph offends their sensibilities, then let them file a suit in their personal capacity. Neither do they need to drag the company administration into the private matter between two individuals, nor the objecting employees can expect to shoot the gun of their morality from the shoulder of the company.

e) Posting a certain type of photograph on her personal phone: - It is her personal phone and what type of photographs to post is her personal choice. If the company staff does not like to see such photographs, then let the company issue her official phone and the logo of the company can be uploaded as the DP.

Final comments on the incident: - My humble recommendation is just to ignore this incident. The company staff are paid for their work or duties and not for moral policing. Rather than worrying about the photograph, let them worry about their customer satisfaction or how to improve the product or process that they deliver to the customer.

However, the trouble with the Indians is that they are too obsessed with the application of personal standards while judging others. The Indian society has so depraved men that a grandfather does not find anything wrong in killing his granddaughter for wearing a pair of jeans! Nevertheless, the double standards of these depraved men galore. A few examples of the double standards are as below:

f) If the legislators watch a pornographic film when the state assembly is conducting its legislative business it is perfectly fine. These very legislators do not just go scot-free but one of them becomes even the Dy Chief Minister! The employees of your company who claim violation of the sensibilities just ask them what did they do when the legislators watched porn in the assembly? I hope you have understood which state I am referring to because most probably they are from the same state!

g) A 70-year-old politician does open eve-teasing of her counterpart in the state during the election rallies. He did it not just once but several times. The staff who raise the objection now, why were they silent when the TV channels did a live broadcast of the eve-teasing?

h) As long as obscene photographs are concerned, what is obscene and what is not obscene is a personal opinion. Almost all the newspapers or movie-related magazines publish very bold photographs of actors and actresses. This has not been happening lately but has been happening for the last several decades. Ask these people from your company, do these people read newspapers or not? For the sake of these offensive photographs, have they stopped reading the newspapers also?

i) Just a few hundred kilometres away from the city that you belong to, there is an ancient Hindu temple which is also an architectural marvel. In this star-shaped temple, many images are sculpted on mythological stories. There is also a sculpture that depicts the copulation of a couple in the doggy style! Should our society practice iconoclasm to promote the sensibilities of the 21st century?

My point is limited to the cravenness of the moral police. They know well that their colleague is a soft target and that is why they are taking her on. In contrast, they reduce to a pusillanimous rabbit in front of high and mighty.

Indians have a lot of time to make an issue of a non-issue. This is just one more example. Rather than worrying about how to make the enterprise competitive, we have a lot of time for gossiping. This moral police is a multi-headed monster and when it could pop up which head that cannot be estimated. Around 350 years ago, King Shivaji had faced resistance from the moral police for constructing a fort on the island on the west coast. Though no such verses existed, the moral police had decreed that seafaring is prohibited as per the religious verses! Their contention was that since seafaring was prohibited, raising a marine defence force is also prohibited. Today's generation is doing nothing but carrying the legacy of moral policing forward!


Dinesh Divekar

From India, Bangalore

If you are knowledgeable about any fact, resource or experience related to this topic - please add your views.

About Us Advertise Contact Us Testimonials
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2023 CiteHRŽ

All Material Copyright And Trademarks Posted Held By Respective Owners.
Panel Selection For Threads Are Automated - Members Notified Via CiteMailer Server