This is an article from the TIMES OF INDIA ASCENT. And I wish to express, my opinion on the same, and would like you to share your valuable comments.
END OF ARTICLE
There should not be any professional and private mix of the employees life. It is NOT necessary that if you see some person in a PUB for example
your colleague ,,
your boss,
your subordinate ...
all indulging in unruly behaviour, then what will u do, ??????
What I want to say is if YOU or ANYOTHER person, sees your colleague, boss, subordinate outside the office, after working hours, your discussion should be purely personal and must have no relevance to you thinking the next day in office, in a HR s clothing about your colleague, boss, subordinate behaviour at the club, mall, film etc.
There are also some people who maintain a low profile at work, always and hate to mix professional and personal lives, [like me],
For 8 hours I keep my personal life aside and work with full concentration on office work, as soon as I leave office, I throw the office work at the office work and carry my personal life with me...
So if you find difference between my behaviour at office and outside, it is YOU who needs to stop peeping into others lives [which u did when u saw me outside office, and deeply thought that how come my behaviour is different in office and outside] , and not me WHO needs counselling. Professionals always put up a clear line between work and personal life. Which everyone should do. Even if you see any office person outside, you can just tell hi, or if u hav good personal relations with them u can indulge in deep conversation.
But having some other perception about the person when u go in office and put ur thinking cap is totally unethical and CRAP.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
57END OF ARTICLE
There should not be any professional and private mix of the employees life. It is NOT necessary that if you see some person in a PUB for example
your colleague ,,
your boss,
your subordinate ...
all indulging in unruly behaviour, then what will u do, ??????
What I want to say is if YOU or ANYOTHER person, sees your colleague, boss, subordinate outside the office, after working hours, your discussion should be purely personal and must have no relevance to you thinking the next day in office, in a HR s clothing about your colleague, boss, subordinate behaviour at the club, mall, film etc.
There are also some people who maintain a low profile at work, always and hate to mix professional and personal lives, [like me],
For 8 hours I keep my personal life aside and work with full concentration on office work, as soon as I leave office, I throw the office work at the office work and carry my personal life with me...
So if you find difference between my behaviour at office and outside, it is YOU who needs to stop peeping into others lives [which u did when u saw me outside office, and deeply thought that how come my behaviour is different in office and outside] , and not me WHO needs counselling. Professionals always put up a clear line between work and personal life. Which everyone should do. Even if you see any office person outside, you can just tell hi, or if u hav good personal relations with them u can indulge in deep conversation.
But having some other perception about the person when u go in office and put ur thinking cap is totally unethical and CRAP.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Ravi,
The article you have shared provides good food for thought.
I am sure there most of us here agree with the ideas expressed in the article. However, there a few points that appear to have been missed out in the article.
For example: As a part of the selection process, it is a common practice to discuss personal preferences like hobbies, family background, marital status, etc. The reasons for this are obvious. Now, this very point could be argued both ways - as intrusion into the Personal Life of the candidate; or, as an indicator of the psycho-social implications.
As I see it, what the article says is true to a large extent - Personal Life HAS to be separate from Professional Life. However, there has to be a sub-clause to this statement, which goes something like, "as long as the individual does not indulge in illegal, unethical conduct in his/her personal life."
Now, the reason for this is obvious (at least to me). The personal idiosyncrasies and preferences of any employee (if not brought into the office) do not affect Professional Life.
However, any unethical or illegal actions/activities of the individual do have socio-legal effects, and it is these that DO affect the Organization employing the individual.
So, what do you say??
Regards,
VAMSI
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The article you have shared provides good food for thought.
I am sure there most of us here agree with the ideas expressed in the article. However, there a few points that appear to have been missed out in the article.
For example: As a part of the selection process, it is a common practice to discuss personal preferences like hobbies, family background, marital status, etc. The reasons for this are obvious. Now, this very point could be argued both ways - as intrusion into the Personal Life of the candidate; or, as an indicator of the psycho-social implications.
As I see it, what the article says is true to a large extent - Personal Life HAS to be separate from Professional Life. However, there has to be a sub-clause to this statement, which goes something like, "as long as the individual does not indulge in illegal, unethical conduct in his/her personal life."
Now, the reason for this is obvious (at least to me). The personal idiosyncrasies and preferences of any employee (if not brought into the office) do not affect Professional Life.
However, any unethical or illegal actions/activities of the individual do have socio-legal effects, and it is these that DO affect the Organization employing the individual.
So, what do you say??
Regards,
VAMSI
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
What I am going to express are my personal views. I implemented these very successfully as the head of my establishment and earlier when I worked for a large company as the head of the region. In my office during the working hours, be that during the late night hours, since my office remained open till about midnight, I was a very strict disciplinarian. Every aspect of employees' behavior was watched and taken into cognizance as per set norms. As soon as he or she went off duty, that discipline was no longer applicable. However, there was a caveat; there were some aspects that could not be condoned even after office hours.
Let us take a situation: after office hours, an employee met with an accident. We, including me, were there to take care of all aspects, including legal where required. If an employee indulged in excessive liquor after office hours, but it did not affect his behavior or standard of work in the office the next day, it was okay. However, if the same employee indulged in a brawl after consuming excessive liquor, then the matter was serious. If he indulged in rowdy behavior under the influence of liquor, he was liable for action for unruly behavior. Now, if he indulged in drugs, which is illegal activity, then he commits a very serious offense and is liable to be dismissed from service. If he misbehaves with a lady, and it becomes a cognizable offense, then too he becomes liable to be dismissed.
So, the Lakshman Rekha that can be drawn is that if he or she commits any action which is illegal and is a cognizable offense, it has to be taken note of by the organization where he/she works. Family disputes, unruly behavior within reasonable limits, not cognizable, could be treated as off the office hour misdemeanors. When it involves the organization's name in any manner with any illegal act, then I believe dismissal should be the only punishment.
Overall, the authorities have to consider each case on its gravity, and to be considered whether the organization's name is being tarnished in public or in the eyes of the law.
Thank you. Loveindra
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
What I am going to express are my personal views. I implemented these very successfully as the head of my establishment and earlier when I worked for a large company as the head of the region. In my office during the working hours, be that during the late night hours, since my office remained open till about midnight, I was a very strict disciplinarian. Every aspect of employees' behavior was watched and taken into cognizance as per set norms. As soon as he or she went off duty, that discipline was no longer applicable. However, there was a caveat; there were some aspects that could not be condoned even after office hours.
Let us take a situation: after office hours, an employee met with an accident. We, including me, were there to take care of all aspects, including legal where required. If an employee indulged in excessive liquor after office hours, but it did not affect his behavior or standard of work in the office the next day, it was okay. However, if the same employee indulged in a brawl after consuming excessive liquor, then the matter was serious. If he indulged in rowdy behavior under the influence of liquor, he was liable for action for unruly behavior. Now, if he indulged in drugs, which is illegal activity, then he commits a very serious offense and is liable to be dismissed from service. If he misbehaves with a lady, and it becomes a cognizable offense, then too he becomes liable to be dismissed.
So, the Lakshman Rekha that can be drawn is that if he or she commits any action which is illegal and is a cognizable offense, it has to be taken note of by the organization where he/she works. Family disputes, unruly behavior within reasonable limits, not cognizable, could be treated as off the office hour misdemeanors. When it involves the organization's name in any manner with any illegal act, then I believe dismissal should be the only punishment.
Overall, the authorities have to consider each case on its gravity, and to be considered whether the organization's name is being tarnished in public or in the eyes of the law.
Thank you. Loveindra
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
I have a doubt from the above statements. If a person meets with an accident when he is back home from the office, is he liable for compensation? What if the person met with the accident because he was drunk? Does the company have to bear the responsibility even in this situation?
Regards,
Deepthi
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have a doubt from the above statements. If a person meets with an accident when he is back home from the office, is he liable for compensation? What if the person met with the accident because he was drunk? Does the company have to bear the responsibility even in this situation?
Regards,
Deepthi
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Deepthi,
I have a question based on your previous statements. If a person meets with an accident on their way back home from the office, are they liable for compensation? What if the accident occurred because the person was under the influence of alcohol?
Does the company have to bear responsibility even in such situations?
Regards,
Deepthi
Your four-line question prompts me to seek further clarification on compensation for accidents.
Firstly, any compensation plan in a company is bound by specific clauses that dictate its application.
Secondly, the term "accident" carries dual implications. It could refer to an incident solely involving the employee, such as colliding with a wall or slipping, or it could involve the employee and another individual, like a head-on collision or a bump. The involvement of law enforcement further complicates matters if a police case has been filed.
Factors such as the extent of injuries also play a significant role in determining the course of action. Each scenario demands a unique solution, varying across different companies.
While your query is pertinent, a definitive answer is challenging to provide without specific details.
I hope this helps clarify the complexities surrounding compensation in accident cases.
Best regards
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have a question based on your previous statements. If a person meets with an accident on their way back home from the office, are they liable for compensation? What if the accident occurred because the person was under the influence of alcohol?
Does the company have to bear responsibility even in such situations?
Regards,
Deepthi
Your four-line question prompts me to seek further clarification on compensation for accidents.
Firstly, any compensation plan in a company is bound by specific clauses that dictate its application.
Secondly, the term "accident" carries dual implications. It could refer to an incident solely involving the employee, such as colliding with a wall or slipping, or it could involve the employee and another individual, like a head-on collision or a bump. The involvement of law enforcement further complicates matters if a police case has been filed.
Factors such as the extent of injuries also play a significant role in determining the course of action. Each scenario demands a unique solution, varying across different companies.
While your query is pertinent, a definitive answer is challenging to provide without specific details.
I hope this helps clarify the complexities surrounding compensation in accident cases.
Best regards
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
[/quote]Though your question is valid, at this point, I can't think of any specific answer. [quote]
Hey Saitan,
I got an answer to the question I asked (an accident when the employee is drunk). It seems that an employee cannot claim any compensation if they are drunk and meet with an accident. We have been discussing compensation all along. I have a doubt, is there any special insurance like group insurance that comes into play when it comes to compensation for an accident, or does it continue with medical insurance?
Is there a special book where I can find this information, or is Company law sufficient?
Regards,
Deepthi
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hey Saitan,
I got an answer to the question I asked (an accident when the employee is drunk). It seems that an employee cannot claim any compensation if they are drunk and meet with an accident. We have been discussing compensation all along. I have a doubt, is there any special insurance like group insurance that comes into play when it comes to compensation for an accident, or does it continue with medical insurance?
Is there a special book where I can find this information, or is Company law sufficient?
Regards,
Deepthi
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Deepthi,
If the employee is drunk and has an accident and is helped by his friends, but he is drunk, this fact is known only to his friends and not the company. Still, he can claim compensation.
So I told, this depends on a lot of factors. Even if the company person knew that he was drunk just because he is his friend, he will give compensation. In practice, decisions are taken based on situations.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If the employee is drunk and has an accident and is helped by his friends, but he is drunk, this fact is known only to his friends and not the company. Still, he can claim compensation.
So I told, this depends on a lot of factors. Even if the company person knew that he was drunk just because he is his friend, he will give compensation. In practice, decisions are taken based on situations.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
The Artificial Divide of Personal & Professional Life.pdf
Professional tax hyderabad.doc