Marriott just fired an employee because she's a Democrat

[bondwooley]

Last edited Tue Sep 23, 2014, 12:28 PM - Edit history (1)

<snip>

Marriott fired a long-term employee, a Democrat, because she’s running for a seat on her local county commission. And it just so happens that Marriott supports her Republican opponent.

<and>

Let’s get down to brass tacks:

*Viviana Janer is a Puerto Rico-born-female-MBA and long-term internal auditor for Marriott — and a Democrat who has openly worked for social justice in her county

*Viviana decided to run against an incumbent Republican for the Osceola County Commission

*Viviana didn’t notify Marriott about her campaign because she was conducting it in her spare time and was a nearly-unfunded long-shot

* Marriott’s former parent company went and donated $1,000 to her Republican opponent’s campaign

* When Marriott found out that she was running against their Republican choice for the office, they fired Viviana citing “a conflict of interest” for the company

Seriously?

More information and the #hashtag campaign at http://lesterandcharlie.com/2014/09/23/marriot-just-fired-an-employee-because-shes-a-democrat/

[unblock]

1. workers do not have protection for political activity or even opinions.

welcome to employment at will.

stupid things happen when companies let politics determine their business decisions.

[bondwooley]

2. I'll say

This seems to be a perfect example.

If you happen to have Twitter and are so inclined: @MarriottVacClub you don’t fire over politics #VivianaJanerJustice

[nashville_brook]

43. also DONATE to Viviana here -->

http://www.vivianajaner.com

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. The "At-will" doctrine does not apply in this instance ...

as the company provided a reason for the termination. Her only shot at justice would be to argue that the termination violates the 1st Amendment (Freedom of political speech) and/or the 1st Amendment right to free of political association; and therefore, violates "public policy."

But that's long shot litigation.

[cstanleytech]

24. Would a 1st amendment argument even make sense though as doesnt that apply to the government

trying to silence a persons right to speak, not a corporations?

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. The AT-Will Doctrine ...

indicates that an employee can quit, or be terminated for any reason, or no reason, so long as it is not an unlawful (or violative of "good public policy&quot reason.

This doctrine applies to both public and private entities.

The 1st Amendment is "good public policy"; therefore, it can be argued as a bar to this termination (since the company was stupid enough to out themselves by provide the "conflict of interest" reason) ... But as I said, it would be a long shot.

[X_Digger]

56. Correct- a non-government entity has no 'first amendment' obligations.

If you come over for tea, start preaching the gospel, and get booted out the door on your ear, no I haven't violated your first amendment right to free speech. (I'm not the government.)

Same with DU- this isn't a government ran website, therefore there's no obligation to protect any particular speech.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

34. Only if she had a contract.

If she didn't have a contract, she'd be at-will. The company is free to provide a reason for the termination, or not, so long as it's not on the basis of a protected category such as race, sex, national origin, religion and several other categories. Unfortunately, political affiliation is not a protected status in most jurisdictions.

At-will employment truly sucks, but it's a sad reality almost everywhere.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Not exactly ...

Since the 1980s, the Courts have expanded the protections.

As a result, a greater number of discharged workers brought suits alleging Wrongful Discharge from employment. By the 1980s, as concepts of job security expanded, employees became increasingly successful in such suits. In 1987, California juries ruled in favor of the employees in over two-thirds of such cases and granted an average award of $1.5 million. In some successful cases, the courts have created exceptions to the employment-at-will practice. Thus far, these exceptions have fallen into three broad categories: (1) breach of contract by the employer, (2) breach of an implied Covenant of Good Faith and fair dealing, and (3) violation of public policy by the employer. Employers and legislatures have responded in a variety of ways.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Employment+at+Will

I realize using a lay-person's online dictionary is lazy; so, here:

Smith v. Smithway Motor Xpress, 464 N.W.2d 682,685 (Iowa 1991) (retaliatory discharge for
pursuing Workers' Compensation claim); Collierv. Superior Court, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1117,1118,279 Cal.
Rptr. 453, 454 (Cal. App. 1991) (employee discharged for disclosing suspicions of criminal conduct to
management); Hopkins v. Tip Top Plumbing and Heating Co., 805 S.W.2d 280, 286 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)
(discriminatory discharge under Workers' Compensation law); Hartlein v. Ill. Power Co., 209 111. App. 3d
948, 953, 568 N.E.2d 520, 524 (111. App. Ct. 1991) (discharge for exercising Workers' Compensation
rights); Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, 49 Ohio St. 3d 228, 235, 551 N.E.2d 981, 987
(1990) (employee discharged as a result of court order which required employer to withhold child support
payments through wage assignments); Travis v. Gary Community Mental Health Center, 921 F.2d 108,112
(7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2803 (1991) (retaliatory discharge regarded as intentional tort);
Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 28 (Okla. Sup. Ct. 1989) ("An employer's termination of an at-will
employee in contravention of a clear mandate of public policy is a tortious breach of contractual
obligations.&quot

(WestLaw is a beautiful thing.)

BTW, here is a good Law Review Article on the subject:

https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/3e75bae0-d19b-4731-903a-f353dfb628c6.pdf

[951-Riverside]

3. It is a conflict is interest, good for them

I don't care if shes democrat, republican or independent I wouldn't want someone who is actively campaigning against someone I support having access to my books and auditing my company. That is a huge conflict of interest considering her position.

Viviana didn’t notify Marriott about her campaign

That was her first mistake.

[bondwooley]

7. Really?

So if you campaigned for Mitt Romney in your spare time you couldn't be trusted as an accountant?

[hughee99]

21. I think the poster was referring to "campaigning" as actually RUNNING, not just supporting

another candidate.

How would you feel if the person doing the books for the AFL-CIO (for example) was running as a republican for the House of Representatives against the person the union supported?

[unblock]

9. by and large, what people do outside of work on their own time is not the company's concern.

there are plenty of things i do outside of work, on my own time, that i don't tell my employer about, a statement that applies to pretty much everyone who has a job.

employers are legally allowed to fire anyone (unless protected by contract or handbook) for any reason, including what they do outside work, what party they belong to, what their opinions are, or just because the boss woke up in a foul mood.

that doesn't make it right or smart.

they could have talked to her and gotten an elected ally on the off chance she won.

[totodeinhere]

18. By your logic, Ray Rice should not have been fired by the Ravens for hitting his fiancee

because it happened outside of work.

[unblock]

19. i know politics ain't beanbag, but it ain't felony assault either!

sorry i didn't include enough disclaimers. i think it's fine for employers to fire murderer, rapists, and other violent criminals even if they do it off the clock.

[strawberries]

60. Good point

with that said I don't think anyone should get fired just because of party affiliation, but I do believe something like smacking your significant other until she is knocked out would require a fire.

I am in IT and each company I have ever worked for has had me sign documents upon hiring that I will inform HR should I get arrested.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. Who did what first?

If she signed up to run before they donated money (And I assume they didn't 'notify her' that they were supporting her Republican opponent) then at whose feet does the conflict lie? Should they have maybe fired the person who donated the money, or the one who decided to support her opponent?

Should your boss be allowed to fire you simply because you disagree politically? Can no one who is currently employed run for office without the threat of being fired from their job if their employer likes the other guy better?

[scrubthedata]

13. Exactly. nt

[ohnoyoudidnt]

48. Why not?

Would you be doing anything improper that she could expose?

The fact is that she was simply fired for her politics. It may be legal, but it is a shitty thing to do.

[whereisjustice]

66. you've neatly summarized your defense of fascism and corporate control over private lives

and it is stupefying.

[noiretextatique]

6. that poor person/corporation

what a tangled web scotus has woven.

[badtoworse]

8. Putting yourself in a conflict of interest position will usually get you fired.

Just because it's being done in your spare time does not mean a conflict doesn't exist. Tough way for her to learn the lesson.

Bottom line: If you are planning on running for political office, be sure to clear any conflicts with your employer before you start.

[LanternWaste]

11. By that measure, any employee simply voting for a Democrat would also be a conflict of interest

By that measure, any employee simply voting for a Democrat would also be a conflict of interest.

[totodeinhere]

16. No, running for office and voting a secret ballot are two different things.

An employer has the right to prohibit employees from running for office, but they must either prohibit everyone regardless of political party, or nobody. I think it's quite a leap to assume that she was fired because she ran as a Democrat. I suspect that if she had run as a Republican the result would have been the same.

[bondwooley]

20. Excellent point. nt

[thesquanderer]

23. So you have a source for that info?

i.e. "they must either prohibit everyone regardless of political party, or nobody"

I would have thought that, except for protected discrimination classes (i.e. race, disabilities), a non-union worked can be fired for anything at all, including running as a Democrat.

[badtoworse]

17. What conflict does the act of voting cause?

[nashville_brook]

42. [phone]

[SoCalDem]

73. Voting and campaigning for office are totally different

Voting is still secret ballot

Campaigning is very public

Most employee handbooks contain phrases that can come back to bite you in the ass.... things like "outside activities that could hurt the image of the company"..These are purposefully written in vague terminology..

And in her position as an auditor, she did work with facets of the company that were somewhat confidential.

She probably has disagreed with her company's political leaning for a long time, and perhaps this "longshot" was her parting shot...one that would get her lots of publicity and perhaps a financial settlement of some kind..

[Trillo]

26. Time for 24/7 hour pay?

Fuck the businesses who want control over employees free time, but are unwilling to take responsibility for paying for that time. Freeloaders! Talk about Welfare Kings/Queens. Corporate is the biggest whore around.

[gollygee]

49. You think

people should have to ask for permission from their employers before they run for office?

[badtoworse]

52. It depends. In general, I would say yes.

If you work for a company that does or potentially could do business with the government entity in question, then the answer is yes. If the government entity is in a position to regulate your company, then again, the answer is yes. It also depends on what you do - the more responsible position you have, the more likely that a potential conflict could exist.

Suppose you worked as a loan officer for a bank that had your city as a client. Do you think it would be appropriate to continue in your role as a loan officer if you also held political office in that city? That is an obvious conflict and no bank would allow you to do that which is entirely proper. Banks and most large companies require you to disclose any potential conflicts you may have so they don't wind up in this situation.

Even if you flip burgers for a living, you could be in a conflicted situation. Suppose you flipped burgers for a restaurant that had an application to expand the restaurant or obtain a liquor license from the town. Would it be appropriate for you sit on the board that makes the decision on the restaurant's application?

[X_Digger]

57. A rational, well-thought-out response.

My guess is it'll be overlooked.

As someone who's worked in a government regulated industry (telecom), I'm right there with ya.

[gollygee]

59. Yeah I agree with those situations

However, this isn't a situation like that.

[badtoworse]

61. Why not? The fact that her employer is supporting her opponent is a conflict in and of itself.

Besides, how can you say that Marriott wouldn't have future dealings with Osceola County?

[gollygee]

62. It's the first part I disagree with hemost

No, I don't think her employer supporting the opponent is a conflict in and of itself.

The second part is trickier. If her job directly conflicted with her position at Osceola County, she could abstain from a vote. I live in a smaller city and our city and county positions like this all have people employed somewhere, and everyone who lives and works in a city and county might deal with their city or county on a personal or work level at some point. That's normal, and when a conflict comes up, peopel abstain. I don't know who would run for a position like this who would never possibly have to deal with the county.

[badtoworse]

65. An internal auditor could be in a position to have confidential information about her opponent...

...or her employer's support for that opponent.

[gollygee]

67. You're reaching

the issue with a conflict of interest would be if she were in a position to help her employer if she won the election. Everyone has a potential conflict of interest in a city or county position because everyone lives and/or works there. Everyone is expected to abstain from votes where their conflict becomes an issue. The problem here is only that her employer doesn't want her running against the person they're supporting. That's it.

[badtoworse]

69. I guess you've never worked in financial services

Banks and financial service firms go to great lengths to prevent employees who could potentially use confident client information to advantage from obtaining such information. Sparing you a dissertation, there is the private side of banking that has access to confidential client information and there is the public side that manages funds and client investments. Between them is "the wall" and the public side and the private side do not work together or exchange information. Even social contact is discouraged. A "wall crossing", i.e. allowing a public side employee into the private side requires review by legal and compliance, as well as the approval of senior management. Why? Banks are extremely sensitive to even the appearance that its employees could be using confidential to the bank's to their personal advantage.

There are potential similarities here. There is no way to know what information an internal auditor had access to, but even the appearance that she might be in a position to misuse confidential information in her campaign could be sufficient for Marriott to bar her from running. Might seem far fetched to you but companies really do worry about things like that.

Beyond that is her platform. I don't know what she is running on, but what if she is taking positions that the company believes are not alligned with its interests? Marriott is supporting her opponent for a reason and if her platform is substantially different (and likely unfavorable to Marriott's interests), then she is putting herself in conflict. If she wins, whose interests would have priority, Marriott's or her constituent's? I don't buy the "she can abstain from voting" argument for a minute and I would not accept that if she worked for me. Marriott likely sees it that way as well and that is their perogative.

[gollygee]

70. You could say that about anyone

First, the "abstain from voting" is how it has to go, because every single person who could possibly run for a city or county position has potential conflicts of interest. There is no way to get anyone who could not have a conflict of interest. They all live in the city or county, and most work there. It is unavoidable, whethere you "buy it" or not. And having people abstain from voting is how it works. I was a newspaper reporter who covered municipal government for a number of years, and it is completely normal and unavoidable.

And anyone can vote against their employer's interests. Employers don't own their employees and their votes. Almost everyone who runs for county commission works somewhere. It is not fair and not good for our democracy to create a climate where only independently wealthy people can hold office.

She's running for a county commision seat, not as treasurer, and Marriot is a hotel chain, not a financial advisor or bank.

[badtoworse]

72. My experience is different and we'll just have to disagree

My last two jobs were with a major investment bank and a mid-sized financial services firm. Neither would have allowed me to hold political office without their approval. I've also worked for two large northeastern power companies and an international power company and they would probably not have allowed me to do that either. I've had to submit annual conflict of interest statements for decades and they always ask whether you are holding political office.

[gollygee]

74. I think a financial services firm or a bank would be more likely to

but I've seen police officers, librarians, people who own and/or work for paving companies, construction managers, engineers, lawyers, farmers, etc., on county commissions, and all have potential conflicts of interest. Someone who has financial information about a large number of companies might be weird in a county commission seat, because they're entering into contracts with various businesses and having inside financial information about those businesses would be inappropriate, but I don't think an internal auditor would have more potential for a conflict of interest than a police officer or someone who owns a paving company. Especially the paving company, since the county allocates funds for road paving, but that commissioner abstained on votes pertaining to road budgets. She would have been fine to vote on everything that didn't involve hotels.

Who would run for part-time elected positions like this if people who work jobs can't run? Retirees and rich people?

[scrubthedata]

75. Everything you said is spot on

And at the risk of being redundant, an internal auditor only crunches numbers and barely steps away from his or her abacus. They're not allowed to make decisions. They look at numbers and say the add up so that other people can can make decisions based on those numbers.

Sure, it would be weird for her to vote on the commission on any issue involving hotels ... but even supreme court justices recuse themselves and what's to say any other person in public office wouldn't be able to know when they better step away?

This is how people have jobs to pay their bills while offering public service that pays their soul.

[badtoworse]

77. Internal auditing investigates financial irregularities and non-compliance with company policies.

At least that's what they do where I've worked. I would compare them to internal affairs in a police department. I've had to meet with the internal auditors on a few occasions and they were investigating potential wrongdoing, not crunching numbers. The meetings were recorded and I got a transcript of the meeting that I had to sign. As I understand the function and in my own experience, they would be in a position to know confidential, potentially damaging information about people within the company and the company itself.

The people who crunch numbers are accountants and publically traded companies hire outside accounting firms to prepare their audited financial statements.

[Gothmog]

12. This is a really dumb move by Mariott

Mariott is going to get some severe blowback for this act of stupidity

[valerief]

22. Ah, if only...

[Hubert Flottz]

30. As well they should.

I won't stop there again and I helped build the local one, while my trade union campaigned against ALL republicans and still do.

[AngryAmish]

14. Mozilla

[scrubthedata]

15. The average county commissioner

has an average 1.5 hour per week commitment. Now, it's probably more in highly populated areas. Even still. C'mon Marriott. How do you know she wasn't going to give sufficient and fair notice if she wins? If she doesn't win she's out of two jobs. Even if she worked at Walmart, why would she quit for another gig that she doesn't even have?

[Trillo]

25. This is a very interesting "purity" tactic.

Businesses can be so evil. How best to keep labor concerns out of the political sphere? Only let rich$ters run. If you have to work for a living, better not run for office. You might end up homeless, scrounging in garbage cans for your next meal.

[Horse with no Name]

27. Well considering that I have three upcoming reservations with Marriott in the next 3 months

I will be canceling them and referring to this.

Kind of like their "right to work"...it is my "right to keep away from folks that can't keep politics out of business".

[Iliyah]

28. Lawsuit

[TheNutcracker]

29. Ha ha everyone should send her five bucks!

[nashville_brook]

44. DONATE right here :)

http://www.vivianajaner.com


even just a few bucks might help her stay in the race with the lost job.

[SheilaT]

31. There are companies out there that have policies

that say employees of the company may not run for public office. I've seen candidates withdraw from races because of that. But it does not sound as if that's Marriott's policy, although "conflict of interest" is pretty broad and can be construed to mean almost anything. And yes, anyone who has a job who wants to run for public office really should clear it with the employer ahead of time.

I sincerely hope that this woman gets a job offer from someone else who doesn't see this as a problem.

[Capt. Obvious]

33. Sounds legit

But the time-share company where she had worked for 11 years dismissed her Friday, saying her candidacy and possible service on the commission created a conflict of interest. Janer was given the choice of leaving the campaign or resigning. She declined to do either and was fired.

Her termination letter, signed by Senior Vice President and Chief Audit Executive Julie Meyer, also stated Janer, who began her campaign in January, never notified her employer she was running for office. Meyer noted in the letter that she'd only learned of Janer's candidacy from press coverage of the primary election.

During a Sept. 17 meeting, the letter states, "you admitted that you had concluded that your supervisors would not authorize you to pursue your candidacy while remaining in your position, and for that reason you did not raise it to management's attention nine months earlier or any time thereafter."

Orlando Sentinel

[TexasTowelie]

40. So the time-share company prefers late term abortions?

They did not fire her until nine months later after all.

[Capt. Obvious]

41. I hope this helps

But the time-share company where she had worked for 11 years dismissed her Friday, saying her candidacy and possible service on the commission created a conflict of interest. Janer was given the choice of leaving the campaign or resigning. She declined to do either and was fired.

Her termination letter, signed by Senior Vice President and Chief Audit Executive Julie Meyer, also stated Janer, who began her campaign in January, never notified her employer she was running for office. Meyer noted in the letter that she'd only learned of Janer's candidacy from press coverage of the primary election.

During a Sept. 17 meeting, the letter states, "you admitted that you had concluded that your supervisors would not authorize you to pursue your candidacy while remaining in your position, and for that reason you did not raise it to management's attention nine months earlier or any time thereafter."

Orlando Sentinel

Calendar of Election Dates
2014 Election Day Dates
Primary Election: August 26, 2014

[The CCC]

35. Marriott just fired an employee because she's a Democrat

Perfectly legal, and perfectly dumb thing to do.

[TeamPooka]

36. K&R! Boycott Marriott. nt

[nashville_brook]

45. also DONATE a couple of bucks to Viviana if possible

http://www.vivianajaner.com


it would make a huge statement for national folks to take interest in this. Marriott is a big supporter of her opponent. would be great to show her some love.

[DallasNE]

38. So Freedom Of Speech Is Now A "Conflict Of Interest"

Time to add Marriott to my boycott list. That won't hurt them very much though since it has probably been 10-12 years since I have stayed at a Marriott.

[Wellstone ruled]

39. Wow! Typical stupid move by Julie Meyers.

This POS Hotel chain has always had a unwritten policy of it's who you are and who know. Have refused to us any Marriott Hotel or any of their other affiliated named properties. These turds still stink and float. Never have and will be a supporter of anyone whom might be Liberal or Progressive. Just research the founder J.W.Marriott. Pretty sick backassward culture.

[lydialmr]

46. marriott just fired an employee because she is a Democrat

This has given me a completely different image of the Marriott. I thought they were more "family oriented." But they contribute
to a Republican who is on the Board of Directors of the Kissimmee/Osceola County Chamber of Commerce; an organization who is against raising the minimum wage and regulations. They contribute to the Republican John Q, who voted no to fund $97,500 for Public Schools and colleges, voted no for Fl. Kidcare funding,no to teacher salary increases.

Vivian Janer is a Democratic with Democratic moral values.

[fayhunter]

53. Agreed

I didn't know much about them other than their ubiquitous brand.

But I've learned today that how right wing they are, and even that Mitt Romney was named after the founder.

Ouch.

Where's Howard Johnson when you need him?

[Jim Lane]

47. The "Mozilla" issue deserves more attention

Credit AngryAmish in #14 for pointing it out.

Back in April, Mozilla's CEO and co-founder, Brendan Eich, was sacked. The reason was the discovery that, six years earlier, he had donated $1,000 to the campaign in support of Prop8 in California.

Thus, an employer took action against an employee because the employee exercised his or her First Amendment right to try to influence the political process. If that's an unconscionable abuse of corporate power when done by Marriott, then it's an unconscionable abuse of corporate power when done by Mozilla.

Sure, most DUers consider marriage equality to be a moral issue. But conservatives also hold strong views that they characterize as moral. I doubt that the Osceola County Commission gets many abortion-related issues, for example, but there are plenty of offices for which a conservative-run company could say that preventing the murder of the unborn is a moral issue. Even the Osceola County Commission may do something like vote on tax increases, thus upsetting people who believe that taxation is theft.

I incline toward the view that the employee's political activities, not conducted on company time and not directly relating to the company's business, should not be a basis for dismissal. I don't think it's clear-cut, though. What is clear to me is that we can't make a principled distinction based on whether we agree with management's political position.

[LAGC]

76. Brendan Eich resigned, he wasn't fired.

He built that company and realized he had become a lightning rod after several highly-respected developers approached him privately and asked him to step down. The subsequent boycott threats by dating site OKcupid and others sealed the deal.

The continued success of Mozilla was more important to him than his own ego, and I respect him for making a smart business decision to remove himself from the fray.

[Jim Lane]

78. It's not that clear-cut.

He certainly had more of a role in the decision than did Marriott's employee. It wasn't entirely his doing, though. Mozilla issued a statement, emphasizing the company's support for equality (obviously in condemnation of Eich's contribution to the Prop8 campaign). In that statement Mozilla also said:

We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.

I think it likely that Mozilla exerted considerable behind-the-scenes pressure on Eich.

Anyway, beyond the specific context of employment, there's the broader question of economic retaliation for political opinions. OKCupid blocked Firefox users from its site because it didn't like Eich's years-ago contribution. Suppose some other site blocks a particular browser after that browser's company's CEO issues a scathing denunciation of a particular Senator. I'd feel some unease about that use of economic power, regardless of whether the Senator being denounced was Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz.

[fayhunter]

50. This is why

I want to leave America sometimes. I just don't know where to go.

[tabbycat31]

51. Do you know which particular Marriott this is?

I say that the reviews of this place (if known) need to be put on the Travelocity, Hotels.com, Yelp, etc sites to discourage potential customers from booking there.

[fayhunter]

54. it's the Orlando Branch of the conglomerate, from what I can gather. nt

[scrubthedata]

55. Screw Marriott

I'll never stay in one of their fleabags again. Maybe I was looking for an excuse. Now I have one.

[Enthusiast]

58. Republicans have zero sense of ethics.

But that's alright. Since the 2,000 election we have had rampant criminality. The nation is corruption from sea to shining sea.

[scrubthedata]

63. This wouldn't be an issue

If Marriott hadn't started the whole thing.

[stevenleser]

64. Why is MVW so invested in a County Commission race that they would fire someone over it?

Marriott Inc. is saying that they and Mariott Vacations Worldwide (MVW) are two separate companies and it is MVW that terminated the woman.

But why is a county commission race in Osceola county so important to MVW that they would fire someone over the race? That is the thing I would like to know. It's bizarre. That kind of a position wouldnt seem to be able to have a significant impact on that corporation.


Here is their contact page: http://www.marriottvacationsworldwide.com/contact/contact-us.shtml

[KamaAina]

68. And we all know who's on Marriott's board, don't we?

[Ruby the Liberal]

71. Every employer I have ever worked for required ethics disclosures

to be renewed annually, or within 30 days of a qualified status change. This included disclosing public office, running for public office, sitting on boards of director, other employment, and a few more I don't recall. Volunteer work wasn't on the list, and I always thought that interesting.

Never heard of someone getting fired over it - but did know of a few over the years that needed to get HR approval for personal activities.

I always thought it has to do with the company's reputation (kinda like a morality clause)