1) Yes I do believe that Oiler’s employee rights were violated. Oiler was a dedicated employee of twenty years he did an outstanding job, oiler’s personal life for twenty years did not affect the company (Winn-Dixie) or his ability to do a good job. I do not believe that a company should be able to fire anyone for their personal ways. When I say personal ways I mean how someone lives, dresses, or acts outside of their working environment unless it has to do directly with the company itself. If oiler was going around representing Winn-Dixie in any way then yes I could understand why the company would feel a little threatened.

I feel that the decision to fire Oiler was based off of someone’s personal feelings towards Oiler being a cross dresser which is very unprofessional, a company should not fire anyone based on personal feelings but instead on how could this effect the company. On the clock Oiler was a very professional employee for twenty years. Not only was Oiler’s employee rights violated but his civil rights also. The seventh Amendment to the civil rights act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in hiring based on sex, religion, and national origin.

The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government not deprive any individual of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. By firing Oiler for cross dressing is depriving him of living his life in which I do not believe that companies should legally be able to fire employee’s for this or any other action that is personally done outside of the work place.

2) Some of the consequences I see for companies that punish employees for certain off the job behaviors are many law suits especially if the behaviors have absolutely nothing to do with the company. There are many things that could happen to employers who practice this, one example is as seen in the Oiler case the employee’s started protesting against Winn-Dixie stating that if the company could do this to Oiler what’s next for them saying “How much latitude should a company have in defining legal reason” Could they fire an employee who drinks, or watches porn, or who might even see an inappropriate movie? All these questions have valid points and a great concern, because if Winn Dixie could fire Oiler for such behavior off the clock how much control did they have over their employees’ life.

Having a big Employee turn over rate could also result in an organization because no one wants to work for a company who would do this to a dedicated employee. They could also face the consequence of losing business I'm sure that people affiliated would probably never shop at Winn Dixie again, having been fired from Winn Dixie if other organizations where to follow this ultimately a loss in business and possibly share holders and other top people in the company because you would be singling out people. If there happens to be another cross dresser or someone of that nature there they could be offended and not want anything to do with the company either. Carille A. Olsen SPHR chair of the labor and employment practice in Chicago says “terminations should always be a legitimate business purpose” I have to strongly agree.

3) I would definitely consider Winn Dixie an organization that exhibits characteristics of the hot stove approach, which represents what many would think of as convictional management. If one touches a hot stove he or she is burned, which means if an employee breaks a rule he is punished. The advantage to the hot stove approach is that it clearly establishes rules fast!! The disadvantage which happened in the Oiler case was that this approach punishes a good employee as severely as it does a poor employee.

Most business owners today run their companies by the progressive discipline approach, where it might include for instance a rule that if an employee is tardy to work once will receive an oral warning, an employee who is tardy twice will receive a written warning, an employee who is tardy three times will be suspended and so on. Companies who demonstrate this approach seem to have a lower turn over rate on their employees, and have a lot of veteran employees with years of experience on their team which makes for a good training team.

In addition this type of approach generally proves that management has given the employee every opportunity to correct their problem. In doing this you give your employee’s a chance to correct their behavior instead of just firing them without any chances, this impacts you’re other employees’ and your company as a whole.