Assume a simple hourly employee, not a share holder or executive. I agree that the company acted irresponsibly in this scenario as well, but I my focus is on the tattle-tale who obviously is petty and has a vindictive need to feel powerful at someone else's expense.


>Jay,
>
>From what you said, I neither support nor disagree with it since something is missing in your scenario:
>
>- how come, employer fires the employee based on some information that is not related to the employer or to the company? Did employer follow the legal procedure? If not, then former employee should bring this to the court.
>
>- what does it mean "the unethical behaviour"? For example, the employee was one of the top executives, and did something that might be considered as not legal if in court (for example "unethical behaviour" in the public restroom); and "Another person" was there, and in addition he is the company share holder.
>
>Hard to judge, not enough information, I think.
>
>
>>The Scenario:
>>
>>An employee does something unethical, but not illegal, and not on company time.
>>
>>Another person involved with the unethical behaviour, with no previous ties to the employee's company, tells the employer about it.
>>
>>The employer fires the employee based on this information.
>>
>>My thoughts:
>>
>>Unethical behaviour of the employee aside, I believe that the person contacting the employee's company is petty and incredibly immature. Why do people feel the need to "get back" at others? To cause someone to lose their job over something that they could have just ignored? As adults, many people seem to never be far away from who they probably were in 7th grade.