That’s a privilege very few have, I wonder if you’re aware of that fact?
So you assume that, somewhere in his contract, there is a clause that says he is on the job 24/7. From my point of view, it would be necessary because if not, the company shouldn’t have the right to take any kind of action against him for something he has done on his own time.
That’s my whole point, you see. If you think (as you appear to be) that taco bell was right to fire him because of the incident, then that means you agree with the idea that anyone can be fired for anything done outside of work that whomever in charge where they’re working thinks is against whatever company policy - because, let’s be clear, I very much doubt there was anything about outside of work behavior in the guy’s contract.
