It is true in the sense that there is a legal concept called "duty of loyalty"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_loyalty

It should be pretty obvious you can't compete with your employer. If you want to compete then quit. You can't steal their trade secrets even if it's off duty. There's lots of other things covered by the duty of loyalty concept and if you explore them they almost all make perfect sense. It easy to see how the world wouldn't function without it.

That's for shareholders or corporate officers. That doesn't seem to cover employee/employer relationships. Am I reading that wrong?

> Let's say that is true...I don't think it is, but let's say that it is...where does it end? Can I speak ill of them in public, like at a bar or cafe? What about on the phone? What if my employer contributes funds and energy to causes that are directly opposed to my well being?

Of course, you're free to speak ill of your employer at any time. And they're free to fire you for anything they hear about.

It may be shortsighted of them to do so; with a good employer, you should be able to criticize in a productive way and work to change things. But that's not an issue of legality.

We're still talking about France, right? What employers get away with in the US isn't really relevant.

I didn't say "in the US" at any point. I was responding to someone suggesting that there was some kind of inherent right to speak ill of your employer with no repercussions.

It's the same in France. As some Amazon employees have discovered...

It's not even close to being the same.

The duties of an employee to his employers are essentially the same. And breaching those obligation is valid cause to be sacked.

The user you replied to wrote: "Of course, you're free to speak ill of your employer at any time. And they're free to fire you for anything they hear about."

That's broadly how it is in France (there is obviously a threshold with regards to what you say)

Quick Google:

"Un salarié critiquant violemment la politique des dirigeants de son entreprise et dénigrant son employeur ainsi que d'autres salariés. Faute grave. (Chambre sociale, arrêt n° 10-16929 du 27 septembre 2011)"

Well, yeah, if you zoom out enough they are 'essentially', 'broadly' the same. If you use those modifiers I agree with you.

Then when the case hits the courts the outcomes will be markedly different.