Judge Rules Boss's "Firing Contest" Created a Hostile Work Environment

Branded the "boss from hell" by his employees, 57-year-old William Ernst lost a court battle with ex-workers over unemployment benefits. An Iowa judge has decided that Ernst's "firing contest" memo wasn't the best management strategy, saying, "The employer’s actions have clearly created a hostile work environment by suggesting its employees turn on each other for a minimal monetary prize. This was an intolerable and detrimental work environment.” The memo reads in part: "New Contest – Guess The Next Cashier Who Will Be Fired!!! To win our game, write on a piece of paper the name of the next cashier you believe will be fired. Write their name [the person who will be fired], today's date, today's time, and your name. Seal it in an envelope and give it to the manager to put in my envelope."

Comments

Sorry, I don't see the issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Contests are fun. Doesn't this judge like fun?

What a sad person this judge must be. Frankly, I feel sorry for her.

Re:Sorry, I don't see the issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fun is what you do on your time at home. Work is what we do at work. :P

I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of people think slapping a girl on the ass is fun. We still don't do it at work.

Re:Sorry, I don't see the issue.

[MichaelKristopeit501]

who is "We"?

you are exactly what you've claimed to be: NOTHING.

Re:Sorry, I don't see the issue.

[MightyMartian]

It's always great when a sociopath finds his soulmate. Maybe you and this Ernst should hook up.

Re:Sorry, I don't see the issue.

[cayenne8]

I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of people think slapping a girl on the ass is fun.

Ah yes...the good old days.

The workplace sure was more pleasant back then....and MUCH less 'back-talking'.....

Re:Sorry, I don't see the issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

He is your master, just like everyone else you encounter.

Now sit up and yap for us again like a good little doggie, Kristopuppy. Maybe you'll get a treat.

Re:Sorry, I don't see the issue.

[BenSchuarmer]

He's encouraging employees to waste office supplies. Very unprofessional.

Re:Sorry, I don't see the issue.

[alamandrax]

Quite right! Quite right!

Re:Sorry, I don't see the issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should have some compassion for the disabled.

Bigot.

Re:Sorry, I don't see the issue.

[haruchai]

The lack of back-talk may have been partly due to the fact that some employees got cocks forced down their throats.

Re:Sorry, I don't see the issue.

[cayenne8]

The lack of back-talk may have been partly due to the fact that some employees got cocks forced down their throats.

Well, not likely 'forced'...but if the little lady wanted a promotion over the other girls in the office...doing that voluntarily isn't.....err...wasn't a bad idea exactly.

Winners on all sides!!

Re:Sorry, I don't see the issue.

[haruchai]

I recall a story I read about Shirley Temple, who didn't have the warmest relationship with her mother when she was little, where the two of them were at a studio to meet separately with some executives.
Shirley claimed that a producer nearly molested her and only stopped because she laughed when he took out his penis. When she rejoined her mother, who was looking quite uncomfortable, Shirley guessed that mom has also been the recipient of unwelcome advances and it was the 1st time she felt close to her or that they had something in common.

Re:Sorry, I don't see the issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like it worked pretty effectively, then.

KMART?

[jimmerz28]

Damn...I was hoping he'd be from KMART but he was employed at some no name place called "QC Mart".

Oh well guess I'll have to wait for KMART to die some other way than on its own...

Re:KMART?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to Texas! They don't exist here anymore! But we still have to see their stupid commercials :(

Re:KMART?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, there are still 18 KMarts in Texas, and their online presence would seem to be worldwide.

I'd do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarious. Worker drones shouldn't have any rights.

Re:I'd do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to be fair, they really don't. At will employment is at will employment, and there are pluses and minuses for both employers and employees. And note that this actual practice was not found illegal in any way. All the case determined was that if a person quit rather than be subjected to this, they were eligible for unemployment benefits. And to be honest, it's pretty unlikely this ruling would be upheld on appeal. As an employer of an at will employee, you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't discriminate on the basis of age, race, sex, religion, creed etc.

And this is one area where the free market will actually work itself out pretty nicely. If you treat all your employees like you treat your worst employee, pretty soon only your worst employees will continue working for you.

Re:I'd do it

[mark-t]

Name a single plus at will employment offers an employee that isn't already covered by statutes regarding slavery and minimum wage laws.

Re:I'd do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's one: An employee can quit without the employer taking him to court on the grounds that he was breaking some "implied" contract.

Re:I'd do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly spoken by someone who's never had an employment contract before. Yea, if you're at will you can be fired at any time, but you can also quit at any time and you can also renegotiate at any time. Not to mention the other nasty things in employment contracts like noncompetes. If you're just another replaceable cog in the machine, then yes, at will employment sucks for you. If you're worth as much to your company as your company is worth to you, at will employment is a great thing. And if you're just a cog, well, why do you deserve any sort of guarantee of continued employment?

Re:I'd do it

[jenn_13]

Just off the top of my head, not saying for sure that this definitely happens, but: If it's hard to fire an employee once hired, it may be harder to get hired in the first place. An employer will probably need to spend more time and money on checking someone out first, which leaves less for salaries.

Re:I'd do it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm hoping that you chose the username "jenn_13" because you're a 13 year old girl named Jennifer. Otherwise, you're just very stupid.

Re:I'd do it

[sexconker]

Clearly spoken by someone who's never had an employment contract before. Yea, if you're at will you can be fired at any time, but you can also quit at any time and you can also renegotiate at any time. Not to mention the other nasty things in employment contracts like noncompetes. If you're just another replaceable cog in the machine, then yes, at will employment sucks for you. If you're worth as much to your company as your company is worth to you, at will employment is a great thing. And if you're just a cog, well, why do you deserve any sort of guarantee of continued employment?

Noncompete clauses, at least in California, are currently considered illegal and invalid.

Of course, given the recent shit the supreme court took on consumer rights with regards to restriction of class action suits, you can bet that noncompetes will be deemed valid nationwide as soon as it get challenged all the way up the chain.

Re:I'd do it

[mark-t]

I can only speak from my own experience here, which is limited to jobs I've had in Canada, and which has no concept of at-will employment beyond a probationary period that must always be of finite duration. IANAL, of course, but I've had a disproportionate amount of experience with employment law (because I have had the misfortune on more than occasion of being employed by people who either lacked ethical conduct or else were actually violating regional employment standards).

Anyways... even if you are under contract, you are still free to quit, but there may be penalties for doing so which were outlined in the original contract. If you do not agree with those penalties, unless they are in actual violation of any laws, then you probably shouldn't take the job unless you know for sure that you aren't going to quit. If you do end up quitting, you cannot argue that you were unaware of the penalties because they were laid out when you took the job. Even then, however, you are still free to quit, but you could still potentially be sued, but the employer would have to show actual damages if the amount being sued for was to retract any already awarded wages. The things that an employee generally forfeits if they quit prematurely in such cases are things like hiring incentives... not their actual wages. Unless actual damages can be shown that the employee was responsible for before they quit, the employer cannot ever sue for wages that are already paid for work that was actually done.

An employer, meanwhile, is always perfectly free to discharge any employee who is not an effective worker. Not having at-will employment in this case isn't about guaranteeing jobs for people who can't perform jobs effectively. It is about ensuring that companies that hire employees behave professionally and responsibly when hiring and firing individuals.

The closest thing we have to at-will employment is an employee probationary period - which begins when an employee is first hired, and lasts for a finite amount of time that is outlined when the employee is first hired. Generally, this probationary period is 3 months, although sometimes it can be as long as a full year. It is the responsibility of every company to evaluate an employee's suitability with a company during this period, and there is generally a semi-formal process which happens at the end of a probationary period to put an employee into permanent status (they generally do not receive any employee benefits such as extended health or dental services during the probationary period either). After the probationary period has officially ended, firing a person involves more paperwork - an actual reason must be given, and the reason must be one that is verifiable in some way. For example, if the employee is no longer performing adequately, then the employer must advise the employee of this, and have the employee sign something stating that they have received such a notice. If the situation continues even after the employee has had sufficient time to correct the shortcoming (in a judge's determination, if it came to that), then the employer can generally terminate the employee immediately.

It is unfortunately not unheard of for employers to, under the radar, abuse the "probationary period" for employees as a means of being able to easily fire people for arbitrary and entirely unfair reasons... or so that they won't have to start paying employee benefits. Difficulty in proving such cases in court allows these companies to continue to get away with such practices.

If you are fired from your job, for any reason, you may be ineligible for unemployment benefits, unless you can show that the reason for being fired was unrelated to any sort of professional or ethical misconduct. Even then, getting fired from a job introduces delays to receiving benefits that would not normally happen. After the probationary period, an employer is required by law to state the general reason for any termination of employment on a record of employment that both the employee and the government each receive copies of. During the probationary period, it is typically assumed that the employee was simply unsuitable if they are terminated in that time.

Re:I'd do it

[dontbgay]

I agree, The Market would handle this handily. I mean, those people could just pack up and move on, right? There are plenty of other jobs in 'merica? The Free Market operates properly when there are viable alternatives. Given the skillset required for this job, the jobs they'd qualify for are already taken. Sure, they could get educated, but that's a different story altogether where the market is also failing people.

The Free Market works when people have a choice. Doesn't seem like a lot of choice out there these days.

Re:I'd do it

[sitkill]

Good post, just an additional note,

If you do apply for UI (EI, whatever its called these days), you would be surprised at how much lee-way they give you. I've never had to deal with the situation personally, but I know people that have quit and/or have been fired and still got UI.

Re:I'd do it

[andymadigan]

Non-competes still exist here in NY, which is at-will employment. Just because you're not signing an employment contract doesn't mean they can't force you to sign some other document.

Re:I'd do it

[mark-t]

Noncompetes are generally unenforceable in Canada as well, which does not have at-will employment. There are certain aspects of noncompetes that *are* enforceable, such as not stealing any of that company's clients that they had right up until you were no longer working for them, but under absolutely no circumstances can a previous employer prevent you from working for another company, even a direct competitor, once you are no longer working for them, unless they can show (quite conclusively) that it would not be possible for you to do that job without disclosing confidential information that you had acquired while with them.

Re:I'd do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no, at my workplace it's quite hard to fire someone once they're in and it's absolutely correct that they're more careful about who they hire because they know that it's hard to get rid of someone. And it's not that hard to toe the line for the 6 month evaluation period.

Re:I'd do it

[Uberbah]

Just off the top of my head, not saying for sure that this definitely happens, but: If it's hard to fire an employee once hired, it may be harder to get hired in the first place.

Or that might just be another cop-out, like how businesses will start hiring just as soon as they can be sure that Obama wont impose any new regulations.

The first, second....hundredth reason for hiring or laying off employees is: will it make the business more money. Not the income tax rate that the boss is subjected to, not how many OSHA or FDA inspections he'll need to accommodate, and not how easy or hard it is to fire someone.

Will the business make more money with more or less employees, that's the only thing that matters.

Re:I'd do it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm jenn_13 but I'm posting AC so I don't fuck my karma. I'm a pre-op and I have a 13" cock. That's inches, not centimeters. Come over, sit on my lap, and we'll talk about the first thing that pops up.

Re:I'd do it

[mark-t]

In Canada, the only equivalent to "at will employment" is during an employee's initial probation, whose duration must be specified by the company at the time the employee is hired, and cannot be unduly longer than necessary to determine the employee's suitability with the company. The typical probationary period is around 3 months, or 500 hours of paid time, although I've heard of some places where it can extend up to about a year. It is not difficult at all to fire an employee for almost any reason during their probation. If they are competent enough to pass the probationary period, then as long as their competency does not start to diminish, and as long as the company has an ongoing need of an employee that does that particular job, there is no objectively justifiable reason to discharge them. Both of the aforementioned reasons are always just causes for dismissal, even after the probationary period, but after the probation, suitable notice must be given (the length of notice is 1 week for the employee's first year, then 2 weeks up until the employee finishes their fifth year, and after that 3 weeks), or else the employee must be given equivalent severance pay in lieu of notice.

The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[elrous0]

I had a boss like that once. He thought his "openly asshole" style of management was helpful because it "encouraged competition." In reality, the only thing it encouraged was hatred. It brought us closer as a team, but only in hating him. Half the employees were stealing from him, the other half were actively plotting against him. Basically, he created an environment where retaining talent was impossible, and only the dregs who couldn't get hired anywhere else stayed behind. He thought he was being clever, but he was only costing the company all its promising talent (including me).

It's one thing to be a no-nonsense boss with high standards, it's quite another to be an obnoxious asshole who drives away all your best employees.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Bucky24]

That sounds a little like how military boot camp works. The recruits bond together against the drill sergeants.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Anonymous Coward]

that's what the military WANTS to happen though. in a business environment, it's not productive.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[schwit1]

Nixon: Sobel's a genius. I had a headmaster in prep school who was just like him. I know the type.
Winters: Lew, Michaelangelo's a genius. Beethoven's a genius.
Nixon: You know a man in this company who wouldn't double-time Currahee with a full pack just to piss in that man's morning coffee?

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Bucky24]

Oh I agree completely. I wasn't saying it's productive, just pointing out the similarities.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been through BCT and AIT, and I have to admit, there is at least one incident that has made me wonder if this wasn't the point (the platoon or company siding with on of the recruits or privates), but it really doesn't make a lot of sense. A lot of BCT is learning to identify and respect the chain of command. Why would they spend 9 weeks of BCT teaching you proper military ediquette only to purposely attempt to get you to hate it in the last week?

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[nharmon]

Part of the idea is to get you used to following the orders and directions of someone you just plainly do not like.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[vlm]

That sounds a little like how military boot camp works. The recruits bond together against the drill sergeants.

Something tells me you haven't been thru basic, or you had a really bad individual experience with someone in the chain of command being completely bonkers (which does happen).

They try to get the recruits to bond with each other (... get your mind out of the gutter). All about cooperation, working together, etc.

Respect them, yes. Actively plot against them, heck no. IF as a group, you were squared away, frankly they were pretty cool people.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[rtb61]

More accurately, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath, is the appropriate description of that employers business style.

One rather humorous thing about this story, taking the bosses behaviour as classically symptomatic of psychopathy any investigator out there be it taxation, health, labour or even criminal can pretty guarantee an easy investigation and conviction for a range of crimes.

Non of his employees will cover for him and would likely all leap at the chance to testify against him and that kind of arrogance always leads to his smarter than everyone else thinking and a trail of evidence of criminal activity.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Anonymous Coward]

You just described my ex-boss except that it was "she"

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, sounds like you and I worked at the same place!

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Bucky24]

Something tells me you haven't been thru basic

No, I haven't. My opinion of this comes from documentaries I've seen regarding basic training.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been fortunate and never worked with anyone like that. If I ever did, I would probably end up busting their teeth out.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah its sort of the whole point. The first half is to break down your individual identity and the second is designed to construct a new shared (and controlled) identity... this is also known as brainwashing 101.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to break it to you, but "Stripes" wasn't a documentary.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Jawnn]

Like "Full Metal Jacket", right?
Whatever...

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[RobertLTux]

You do know that Hollywood mostly makes FICTION right??
also im certain from my time in Fort Lost In The Woods Misery and Signal Center that any DI that wanted to make recruits actually plot against him would find himself thrown under a very literal BUS. A Great DI will drop a recruit for pushups OVER THE PHONE and know that said recruit was actually doing them (one handed even).

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Anonymous Coward]

Something tells me you haven't been thru basic

No, I haven't. My opinion of this comes from documentaries I've seen regarding basic training.

What, you watched Stripes?

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Bucky24]

No, more like "The Discovery Channel takes a look at boot camp"

If I'd watched a bunch of hollywood movies on something and that's it I certainly wouldn't put forth an opinion on it.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Bucky24]

You do know that Hollywood mostly makes FICTION right??

Did I say Hollywood?

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea. Not the same thing. Sure, I momentarily hated my drill sergeants when I was doing a hundred pushups or trying not to puke after a hard run. But they were not actively sadistic against any individual.

Granted. They were people, and had different types of personalities. I had two DI's, one was very in athletics and the other was psychotic. I DID hate the collective punishment model that's obviously popular with DI's (and corporations), but I get the logic. If you think soldiers, as a unit, significantly hate or fear their drill sergeants... Remember that during marksmenship training, folks have live ammo. And dropping a grenade at the qual range happens every so often by real accident. That few drill sergeants have "accidents" tells you what you need to know.

Heck, we had a case of a kid in my platoon that was honestly nuts. Psych ward only admitted folks 9-4, Monday through Friday. Drill sergeants are not qualified to make psychological judgment, so until a shrink said he was nuts he had to be treated like any other soldier. (Joys of socialized medicine.) We had BRM that weekend with a kid that was off his rocker. We the privates more or less had to keep an eye on a person that was legitimately crazy and looking to hurt himself, the DIs and probably us. Guess who got in the firing pit on the FAR end of the range next to the crazy? That was a fun time. Still shot expert.

This is not a collective punishment model. This is a guy being a jerk for either a) self-entertainment, or b) incompetence.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[RobertLTux]

Mostly getting an easy joke in but my point does stand that most documentaries are 1 heavy on fiction 2 meant to show a specific event.

besides there is know real way to for a DI to get a platoon/company of recruits to plot against him without causing "splash damage" on the part of the other DIs in the training.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Commontwist]

Yet secretly wish to shoot him when he least expects it ala, "Right at your back, Sarge!", or redirect that bottled up malice towards the folks they're aimed at?

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[bonch]

Uh, no it's not.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey look! It's another person who thinks that boot camp is just like Full Metal Jacket. Sigh... In truth, basic training technical instructors (can we at least use the correct names?) are almost universally good management; they have very, very high expectations of everyone, won't be talked into lowering them by whiners, and will support the trainees in meeting those goals. The "us against them" crap doesn't last, isn't productive and you better believe that the military knows that, and doesn't have time for it.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Taty'sEyes]

Um... no.

I cannot think of a single time when anyone of us recruits conspired to get the DS back. I've never been so tired and hungry before in my life. The only plotting I did was in trying to stay invisible to the DS by doing everything as precise and expediant as possible. Oh and how to get a few extra apples out of the mess. Fuck up and I was pushing up dirt. Stay in line and go unnoticed.

You should enlist before you comment upon things you have no idea about.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Anonymous Coward]

They try to get the recruits to bond with each other (... get your mind out of the gutter).

But it's so much FUN in here!

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Amouth]

there is a difference between hating your drill instructor and hating the chain of command.. while your there he is an asshole - you band with your fellow recruits - after you pass you realize the other officers are not nearly as bad, and you respect them because 90% of them will respect you, and you know that other 10% can be at least as bad to you as the drill instructor.. (a growth of respect with a buried seed of fear, keeps people in line)

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[ArsonSmith]

I have been through basic training 20+ years ago, and "Full Metal Jacket" is very very close to reality. Minus Private Pile's going nuts, and the actual physical abuse was stopped sometime in the 70s/80s. My Father joined the service in the 60s and there was tons of physical abuse that he saw. Though he remained below the radar and didn't receive any himself.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[DaleSwanson]

I've been through BCT and AIT, and I have to admit, there is at least one incident that has made me wonder if this wasn't the point (the platoon or company siding with on of the recruits or privates), but it really doesn't make a lot of sense. A lot of BCT is learning to identify and respect the chain of command. Why would they spend 9 weeks of BCT teaching you proper military ediquette only to purposely attempt to get you to hate it in the last week?

I was a Marine, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that this was exactly the point. Mutual bad experiences certainly have a bonding effect. There were a few times, in the middle of training, that the drill instructors seemed to be going above and beyond the norm as far as generally making our lives hell. In the last week, when they were slightly more open, one directly told us the point was to bond us through a mutual shitty experiences.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Yaur]

what exactly are you disagreeing with? that what I described is brainwashing or that it is the point of BCT?

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[obarel]

I've been in boot camp, the "instructors" (who were about our own age) were verbally abusive non-stop and humiliated people as much as possible, including name-calling and mocking people in front of others to make everybody giggle (like teachers do in school when they should be teaching).

In my opinion the idea behind it is to break your spirit, make you realise that you're not going to enjoy anything, hate every minute and (somehow) make a good soldier out of you. It's pretty much the same as:
1. Break one's spirit
2. ...
3. Profit!

I'm glad it was pretty short, but I seriously hated every minute of it. There was no bonding, no teamwork, nothing. It was simply a bunch of people humiliating another bunch of people just because they could.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[scot4875]

Mostly getting an easy joke in

No, you weren't. You were being a dismissive douche, like the rest of the commenters that made the same joke.

most documentaries are 1 heavy on fiction 2 meant to show a specific event.

Bullshit.

--Jeremy

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[superwiz]

I had a boss like that once. He had a policy of assigning people the work that they least enjoyed. This kept everyone miserable and feeling too inferior to seek a better lot in life. The problem with fucking people in a situation where they are free to leave is just that. They are free to leave at the moment least convenient to you. I quit at the very moment I became irreplaceable. It was just a change of job for me. It was end of corporate climb for him. He got cut down a few notches. In fact, it was a huge demotion at that point either for him or for his boss. And as much as he was best friends with his boss, he got set back 5-10 years in his career because of it.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Lumpy]

I had one of those too.. he constantly had key marks all over his car and his tires kept losing all the air.

my favorite was when his cellphone somehow had all the phone calls from the local porno shop forwarded to him. it took him 4 hours to think of calling the cellphone company and then the local phone company. The man never though of turning it off, or not answering it.

He did not last long, for some reason he quit.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[hairyfeet]

Actually my grandfather would rotate and have to do drill sergeant duty about once out of every three years. while he hated it he had been in foxholes in Europe and Korea and said you have no choice but to break them down so they will learn to follow orders and work as a unit, because as he put it "John Wayne lone wolf crap might look good on the big screen but IRL it got you killed damned quick on the battlefield". He said he saw that first hand in France when a couple thought they would be all macho after they had taken out an MG42 and would just charge on ahead to "Kick Jerry's ass" and ran right into the crosshairs of an 88. he said that thing left nothing but their boots and a fine red mist in the air.

So at least there the rough treatment is being done for a greater good, to help those green ass kids learn the skills to hopefully not come home with a toe tag. this was just a PHB showing he was just a giant douchenozzle. Sadly with the economy in the shitter and going down faster by the day little pricks like this will probably act more and more like giant douches simply because they have 300 applicants for every position and know they can be as big a prick as they want.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[cavePrisoner]

Full Metal Jacket WAS a documentary... What you see on TV is cleaned up for the cameras.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Tablizer]

the idea behind it is to break your spirit, make you realise that you're not going to enjoy anything, hate every minute and (somehow) make a good soldier...

Well, they are preparing you for war, which sucks. The reasoning may be that it's better to get used to suckage early in the process instead of when the bombs fly overhead.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[skine]

There is one very important difference, though:

Boot camp ends.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[asdf7890]

Bullshit.

Because that is so different from the "dismissive douche" you are replying to.

Until one or both of you start giving examples that illustrate your positions I'm going with "it takes two to make an argument, and I'm not going to listen to either of these douches".

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Anonymous Coward]

So how much do they pay you to spin this propaganda?

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[sydbarrett74]

There are ways of instilling discipline, cohesiveness and grace under fire that don't involve eviscerating and humiliating others. Thinking otherwise is simply atavistic and barbaric. And the only reason DS's haze recruits is because they had to go through it and they want to pass it on -- hardly virtuous or noble.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Kashgarinn]

It's pretty simple, they need you to obey orders even though you hate the guy giving the orders, and even though you hate the orders.

Boot Camp is trying to emulate the worst case scenario when you're in the middle of combat, i.e. do the order that you're given, even though you don't really want to be there, you don't really want to kill some guy you don't know, and you think the officer is a dick.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[t0rkm3]

I thought it was a good way to weed out the weak-willed. I had a blast in USMC boot camp. It was like Boy Scout Camp with M-16s and hilariously angry people.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Courageous]

This is not true; there is no field more well studied than military psychology, due to its importance to the readiness status of the troops. While the process may appear to be pointless, it is not. And the evidence is "in". It's not speculative.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[RobertLTux]

On my part of "those documentaries are partly fictional" I was in basic training at Fort LeonardWood Missouri and did most of AIT (for 31-C*) at Fort Gordon Georgia. I saw nothing to show that there was any kind of standard practice of a DI trying to get the recruits to actually hate him/her enough to plot against him/her and in fact saw nothing but a group of professionals**.

As far as Documentaries being heavy on fiction or showing a single event that is just common sense (especially if this is a Hollywood movie and not some History Channel miniseries).

* this was called RadioTelegraph at the time the same MOS is now a different code due to this being about a decade ago

** there may be a few Physcos wearing a Smokey Bear Cover but they at not a majority

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[obarel]

I didn't go to war, I wasn't destined to go to war, I wasn't a fighter, I shot less than 20 bullets during basic training and threw one fake grenade. What I was taught (how to clean three types of weapons), I could have learnt in a day. The rest was spent running around, doing the dishes and guarding the camp.

My five years in the army had nothing to do with this humiliating period, and it was the last time I saw any of the "sergeants" until I met one of them later on (she was a waitress and I had to decide how much to tip her).

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Anonymous Coward]

There are limits though. You can hate a boss because he's tough. But you can still respect that boss.

Whereas a boss who's merely an asshole is only respected the way a rabid dog is respected.

Steve Jobs on the other hand is different, because he is an asshole with taste. Most bosses trying to emulate Steve Jobs only succeed in the asshole bit.

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[snowgirl]

I've been to boot camp as well, and the instructors were generally fairly well respected, even if they were harsh and/or abusive. In fact, the only people I ever really saw, who ended up hating the instructors, were the ones always making trouble...

Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss

[Eponymous Hero]

gomer pyle...

me too

[Anonymous Coward]

How can I submit timothy as the next Slashdot editor to be fired? Please please please.

Re:me too

[Teun]

It sounds like you are the featured boss...

don't fuck with the people who handle your food

[Anonymous Coward]

don't fuck with the people who handle your food

Re:don't fuck with the people who handle your food

[Mitchell314]

What, are you going to get a food std or something? :P

Re:don't fuck with the people who handle your food

[SharpFang]

it's called "the brown rocket"...

Re:don't fuck with the people who handle your food

[sexconker]

it's called "the brown rocket"...

I'd love to receive one of these. Instant huge cash settlement.

Re:don't fuck with the people who handle your food

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you never worked fast food as a teenager. It happens all the fucking time.

Sad.

[gregulator]

If you don't like the job (and evertyhing that comes with it), go work somewhere else.

Employment should be entirely voluntary on that parts of the employee and the employer.

The .gov should stay out of all voluntary arangements between two or more grown adults.

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly! if somebody wants to sell me their labor for 50 cents an hour why should the .gov get involved? pfft. they'd be interfering with a job creator!

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Easier said than done when over 11% of the workforce cannot get work. Let's hope you get into this situation, have two kids to feed, along with loss of your employer's medical coverage. Maybe have a car loan and not have any income for payments. You cut out health insurance and then a kid breaks a bone, ouch. Now you have to try to borrow against your house, but you can't due to being upside-down on value. Oh noes! Hello, are you the man with a cardboard sign begging for any work I see each day?

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly! if somebody wants to sell me their labor for 50 cents an hour why should the .gov get involved? pfft. they'd be interfering with a job creator!

Ummm.....yea. If that is all you can get a job for than that is all your labor is worth.

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know who'd be willing to work for that wage; kids!

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! It's that simple! Employment is totally always negotiated between equal parties with equal power! Yeah! Work or starve? Choice! Freedom!

Re:Sad.

[Toonol]

Exactly.

I know you were going for sarcasm, but you accidentally ended up correct.

Re:Sad.

[iceperson]

If an employer doesn't want to follow the laws, rules, and regulations of the country, state, county, city where they do business then they are free to voluntarily move their business.

Re:Sad.

[RazzleFrog]

You really need to read up on some history to understand why there are labor laws.

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

yup! Indentured servitude just interferes with Job Creators 8)

Bless you!

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

And history will be reading in 50 years about why we got rid of many of them once the entire world economy finally shits itself for good.

Re:Sad.

[spazdor]

That would be why there are so many nations in the world which managed to lift themselves up to first world status by eschewing the ideas of labor laws, right?

History is replete with examples of libertarian paradises where the job-creators built wealth unfettered by regulation and the fruits of their labor enriched everyone! Why, there's Somalia, and Libya, and...

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, the gov should never get in the way of any company MAXIMIZING its profits at the expense of anything or anyone Any business leader knows you get much better productivity and results from a happy & willing workforce as opposed to those in "duck & cover" mode. Moral = Results

Re:Sad.

[SharpFang]

Employment is a contract between employer and employee, and violation of terms of the contract bears repercussions for the violating side, whichever it is. It's up to the court to enforce compensation for violation of the contract if the violator refuses to do so willingly.

Imagine: You're to be paid after a month of work, and you work hard, but at the end of the month you're told you won't be paid after all. Now you are free to go work somewhere else if you don't like it. Is that okay in your opinion?

Re:Sad.

[h4rr4r]

So if you don't want to hire minorities that should be ok?
How about child labor?
Should you be able to pay the parents for a child's labor until it turns 18 and keep it as an indentured servant?

Employment has to be regulated because of the lack of perfect information and the relative power differences between those that enter into these agreements.

Re:Sad.

[Teun]

That's exactly how before the French revolution the aristocracy saw it.
Europeans kind of understood the madness of these aristocrats and present law tries to protect the workers right to make a living for himself.
This does not mean a European boss can't lay off or fire a worker, it means there have to be proper grounds for denying someone the chance to feed his family.

The legislation of the young USofA was also very anti-aristocracy, don't forget this all happened around the same time, yet many Americans seem to have forgotten their roots...

Re:Sad.

[timeOday]

Imagine: You're to be paid after a month of work, and you work hard, but at the end of the month you're told you won't be paid after all. Now you are free to go work somewhere else if you don't like it. Is that okay in your opinion?

Be careful calling libertarians' bluff. Until relatively recently, none other than Alan Greenspan (an Ayn Rand acolyte) maintained that government should have little or no role in policing fraud:

One is particularly relevant: "The Assault on Integrity," which condemns any regulation or investor or consumer protection because, Greenspan argues, the government cannot do as effective a job in policing business as the free market can. "It is precisely the 'greed' of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit seeking which is the unexpected protector of the consumer," he wrote. "It is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for integrity and a quality product." "A company cannot afford to risk its years of investment by letting down its standards of quality for one moment or one inferior product; nor would it be tempted by any potential 'quick killing,'" he asserted.

So, yes, some of them are that crazy. Yes, Greenspan has since recanted, but as they say, a sucker is born every minute... Rand's books still sell like hotcakes to naive college freshmen.

Re:Sad.

[khallow]

Or the US itself. People tend to forget that while the Gilded Age had a large number of labor abuses, it did result in vast growth in the US, including development of world-class universities and a vast economy. The US was a world power before not after it became another regulated economy.

Re:Sad.

[Dishevel]

No.
But in the Earlier history of the US we have an example of how a small amount of regulation coupled with strong individualism created in a very short time a very powerful and rich country. Then the wealth and power corrupted the government.
Unions use government to make it impossible to not pay a cop that beats a man to death.
Businesses use government to saddle their competition with regulations.
People use government to cut them a check for being a lazy bastard.

The government gets bloated and powerful. The individualism is beat out of the populace. All is guaranteed to be "Fair" according to the regulations set down by "The Peoples Fairness Committee" Brought to you by Microsoft. Then the system collapses.

When the Government says a company can not build a plant in another State, or you can not fire the 600lb employee for the good of the little guy.
or
When the Government creates laws so that Mickey Mouse stays in copyright forever and signs laws that put you in prison for sharing for the good of the big guy.

These are not problems with corporatism or socialism. They are problems that can be only solved by removing the governments powers to do these things,

Sony can not force me to do shit without the government stepping in.

Big government is your enemy. Whether it is coming down on Boeing or Beating a homeless man to death.

Re:Sad.

[gknoy]

Let's hope you get into this situation, have two kids to feed, along with loss of your employer's medical coverage. Maybe have a car loan and not have any income for payments.

I can honestly say that I would not wish that on anyone.

Re:Sad.

[Microlith]

If it shits itself, it won't have been caused by the labor laws.

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or like communism is doing for Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela,... I'd rather have a choice of who bends me over then getting my mandatory government ass rape.

Re:Sad.

[imric]

Yup. And the result of only a small proportion benefiting was laborers rioting with shotguns because they can't feed their families, children working in deadly mills because it's the only way to get fed, poisonous products and manufacturing processes, higher education out of the reach of 90% of the people, and unregulated unsafe healthcare for the vast majority. Those abuses resulted in the current regulatory environment and only liars, fools, and republicans say that removing those regulations wouldn't return us to those dark times.

Just because the 'invisible hand' wields a knife and a gun does NOT mean that it's attached to Indiana Jones! All of our regulations are the result of the market adjusting; that's what it means to be a democratic republic with a capitalistic economy. Workers vote. It's only the current batch or republicanized libertarians that want to unbalance the system towards corporations by denying workers any benefit of in fact comprising most of the market itself.

The labor market is NOT infinite, there are NOT always opportunities to leave abusive employers, and in many cases, survival depends on having a job (even now; if you don't have insurance to cover health problems, you AND your family stands one illness away from losing everything). Not all items are luxuries, and just because we represent values in terms of dollars does NOT make everything fungible; not all actions are reversible in this world.

Be honest now: What each righty wants is to return to some of the darkest, most evil periods in our history, in the vain hope that they would be one of the few at the top who benefit.

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

So then it's fair to say that other influencing factors, like natural resources, location, etc. can make for a successful economy either way?

Because if it's all the same, I'll take the version where I can't be shackled to my desk and forced to work 20 hour days with the fire escape welded shut.

I mean, if we'd be a "wealthy" world power either way...

Re:Sad.

[khallow]

As I see it, the US could afford the current high level of regulation as a result of the fruits of the Guilded Age. Conversely, we'll be lucky to slide back into the Guilded Age as a result of our overly regulated age. Exaggerating the ills of the Guilded Age doesn't make modern US workers any more valuable or desired.

Re:Sad.

[NeutronCowboy]

And history will be reading in 50 years about why we got rid of many of them once the entire world economy finally shits itself for good.

Wow. I always knew that libertarians are like the communists of yore, but I didn't expect that they would just wholesale rip off the communist manifesto.

Re:Sad.

[RightSaidFred99]

Your point is infantile. Please explain how India and China have lifted themselves up from primitive hellholes to powerhouse, world class economies. I'm sure it was on the back of shitloads of fair labor laws.

I get what you're trying to do - conflate a myriad of issues with third world hellholes into a simple "Durr, labor laws!" point, but nobody with any sense believes it.

Re:Sad.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Why, there's Somalia, and Libya, and...

Surely you've done your homework on relative economic growth rates of Somalia when compared to its neighbors in the first decade of the century. Right?

And Libya? Huh? Surely you meant somewhere else...

Re:Sad.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Be careful calling libertarians' bluff. Until relatively recently, none other than Alan Greenspan (an Ayn Rand acolyte) maintained that government should have little or no role in policing fraud [moneyshow.com]:

I'm curious, have you ever called the police on somebody for a bad eBay transaction?

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is counter to the Slashdot groupthink, and has been subsequently modded into oblivion. That will teach you, scoundrel!

Re:Sad.

[Alex Belits]

But in the Earlier history of the US we have an example of how a small amount of regulation coupled with strong individualism created in a very short time a very powerful and rich country. Then the wealth and power corrupted the government.

/b/^H^H^HUS economy never was good.

Re:Sad.

[Alex Belits]

The legislation of the young USofA was also very anti-aristocracy, don't forget this all happened around the same time, yet many Americans seem to have forgotten their roots...

"There are no aristocrats in US, nothing to see here" is not an anti-aristocracy legislation. If anything, US never experienced excesses of European feudalism, so it did not develop resistance to the rise of robber barons.

Re:Sad.

[umghhh]

That is actually interesting statement. You are not from US I suppose or? I may be from UK but I would not be so sure about that either after all the only history lessons you seem to get in UK is about this bad painter from Vienna...

Yes there is a need for labour laws. There are sometimes very intimidating for an employer. Some even say that they prevent creation of jobs. The question what jobs are created if there is no protections at all does not appear important to those that go with this job creation argument. Of course some liberty for employer is needed after all s/he is in besting his own money well at least most of the time. In any case London Hanged is an interesting lecture not only because of brutality needed to get industrial revolution going but also because the violent changes in (also labour) markets is nothing new raise and fall of whole sectors of (British) economy was happening sometimes within a dozen years, sometimes improvement of work conditions was directly followed by demise of whole sectors which were moved to say Holland because of 'better' i.e. less labour protective laws there. All has its pros and cons it seems.

Re:Sad.

[timeOday]

The reason ebay can offer their buyer protection program is because ebay can, in turn, resort to the law when necessary. They can and they do.

Re:Sad.

[imric]

ROFL on the exaggerated part. You MUST be a 'republitarian'; you just deny history in order to make your goals seem more laudable; you excise whole market segments that don't 'behave' the way you want a free market behave, and the economy you admire is one that never existed! Your dogma says that you can always get another job, even though reality disagrees... You think that I was trying to make US workers seem more 'desired'? Hahahaha! And folk with dogma like yours would take everything away from us, even hope for our children (unless you could afford a good school) because THAT would make US workers more 'desired'. I suppose it's true though. No corporation WANTS to pay any more expenses than they have to, and if you get your way, since the jobs don't exist, supply and demand would 'adjust' wages to third-world levels. And that would be a GOOD thing that would return us to days of gilded glory, right? RIGHT?

Re:Sad.

[shutdown -p now]

The government did stay out of arrangement in this case - the employee quit, and the employer is left free to abuse the remaining employees.

What the court case was about is whether the person that quit is eligible for unemployment insurance. The judge ruled that they did, because, even though they quit on their own, they did so because of a hostile work environment, not because they are a fat lazy ass. Which seems perfectly fine to me.

Re:Sad.

[shutdown -p now]

Yup, because the only two choices are "communism" and laissez faire free market capitalism. There's no middle ground whatsoever.

Re:Sad.

[shutdown -p now]

Well, in all honesty, communists (Marx at least) had a fairly accurate picture of what their contemporary society was like. It's just that their proposed measures were so extreme as to be worse than the disease.

Libertarians, on the other hand, live in a fairy tale world not just in their future plans, but also here and now, and in the past as well.

Re:Sad.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Question: why is it that when any question of labor comes up, the ghosts of Dickens are brought out to scare us? And yet, whenever someone says something like millionaires should be executed or sent to re-eduction camps, comparing it to 20th century communism is out the window as a comparison? Just curious.

Re:Sad.

[khallow]

You think that I was trying to make US workers seem more 'desired'?

In my view, that's a good move, unless you're from a country competing with the US and hence, have conflicts of interest.

And folk with dogma like yours would take everything away from us, even hope for our children (unless you could afford a good school) because THAT would make US workers more 'desired'.

It's worth noting here that the value of a college education is declining due to rampant cheating and lax grading standards. I believe this can be traced to the fact that universities are dependent on subsidized student loans. The laxer the standards, the more money that can be pulled in from student loans.

So "taking away" an education that will probably become valueless in a few decades doesn't strike me as a particularly chilling threat.

The irony here is that the US has gone down the path of heavily regulated markets, of liberal policies, and other collective programs, but the blame goes elsewhere. It's the "corporations" who become the scapegoats. This is the society your beliefs have built, where only the largest and most ruthless can exploit the zoo of laws and regulations that confound the rest of us. Where immorality is amply rewarded.

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a child I got myself a job because I wanted things I would not have otherwise had. Started with a paper route, then I picked tobacco, and then I worked for a fast food joint.

oh the horrors of child labor... shut the fuck up and mind your own business, assholes.

Re:Sad.

[scot4875]

It's worth noting here that the value of a college education is declining due to rampant cheating and lax grading standards. I believe this can be traced to the fact that universities are dependent on subsidized student loans. The laxer the standards, the more money that can be pulled in from student loans.

You're also leaving out one very important fact, which seems funny since you're obviously such a defender of free markets and have (presumably) an understanding of supply and demand: when there is a ton of supply (college degree holders), demand goes down. When demand goes down for your degree, you can expect to earn less.

So I'll agree that a college degree doesn't mean as much as it used to, but I think you're being overly simplistic by laying declining wages squarely at the feet of cheating and lax standards.

--Jeremy

Re:Sad.

[scot4875]

whenever someone says something like millionaires should be executed or sent to re-eduction camps

Because anyone who says that is an idiot and their opinions aren't worth worrying about. If you can cite some credible person that seriously advocates killing millionaires or sending them to be brainwashed, you might have a point; otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

--Jeremy

Re:Sad.

[scot4875]

Your point is infantile. Please explain how India and China have lifted themselves up from primitive hellholes to powerhouse, world class economies. I'm sure it was on the back of shitloads of fair labor laws.

So ... are you saying that you think we should have a caste system like India or live under a totalitarian communist regime like China, because it's produced some good results for their economies? If not, what's your point?

--Jeremy

Re:Sad.

[spazzmo]

Libertarians: spoiled selfish children

Re:Sad.

[spazzmo]

It's going to learn now though, with the rise of the robber-corporation.

Re:Sad.

[mbkennel]

Only statist liberals call them ""pirates"".

They're maritime entrepreneurs. Individualist achievers, aka Job Creators, fighting against excess government regulation.

Re:Sad.

[Cwix]

Because you wanted things?

Well thats different. That means your parents were still feeding you, and you could quit if you had earned enough for the stuff you wanted, or if the boss treated you badly.

If you are a child that has to work so he can earn enough to eat thats pretty fucked up. Why you might ask? Because children are easy to take advantage of. You can place them in the dirtiest, most dangerous job and make them work, otherwise they wont get fed.

Jesus did you people not pay attention in American History class?

We fought this fight a long time ago. We did away with "child labor" aka child slavery for a reason.

Re:Sad.

[scot4875]

And the reason you were able to have those jobs and not be exploited for pennies a day was, hey, you guessed it! Child labor laws, and other labor-related laws!

I also had a paper route and made pretty decent money at it; your comparing it to coal mining and other hard labor and using it to dismiss the mistreatment of children is idiocy at its finest.

--Jeremy

Re:Sad.

[cobraR478]

Non-Libertarians: spoiled selfish children

Re:Sad.

[khallow]

when there is a ton of supply (college degree holders), demand goes down.

In a low regulation market, when supply goes up, then price goes down. Subsequently, demand goes up. So your claim that demand will go down when the labor gets cheaper doesn't follow.

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see what u did thar

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging by the content of your post, child labor did you no harm at all.

Re:Sad.

[bcrowell]

History is replete with examples of libertarian paradises where the job-creators built wealth unfettered by regulation and the fruits of their labor enriched everyone! Why, there's Somalia, and Libya, and...

I'm not aware of any knowledgeable academic or journalist who has suggested that Somalia's system of government since 1991 could be described as libertarian. You may be confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that says that the government should basically do nothing more than protect private property, enforce contracts, and keep people from killing each other. Anarchism is a political philosophy that says that there should be no government at all, and in particular that there should be no such thing as a right to private property that is protected by a government. So Somalia, which has had no functioning government, courts, police, etc., since 1991, is certainly not a libertarian society. There is some debate as to whether it's an anarchist society.

Libya -- I can't imagine what you think you're talking about here. I assume you're referring to Libya under Qaddafi? Under Qaddafi, Libya was a military dictatorship organized along lines of tribal loyalty. No resemblance whatsoever to libertarianism.

Re:Sad.

[Uberbah]

That, and attacking fishing ships decimating local fish populations, or illegally dumping waste along the coastline. But for some reason, those particular issues are seldom included in the "piracy" storyline....

Re:Sad.

[mwvdlee]

But in the Earlier history of the US we have an example of how a small amount of regulation coupled with strong individualism created in a very short time a very powerful and rich country.

Would that early history you are talking about be before or after slavery?

Re:Sad.

[Teun]

Feudalism, the word I was thinking of :)

But contrary to what the Tea Party likes to make believe the American Independence was fought for more than just tax.
The Brits were in the colonies also disliked for their feudalism.

Re:Sad.

[imric]

ROFL - _YOUR_ dogma built this mess. Regulations don't spontaneously generate, they are the result of demand. YOU just don't like that the labor market has a voice, and that the 'invisible hand' is actually the government (in democracies and republics, at least). Without regulation, the dogma you follow results in far worse abuse than exists now. THAT'S how we got here; THAT'S what you are trying to romanticize/gloss over.

Re:Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be after.
Way to go though. All the US has done is gone because of that argument.
The Greeks, Romans, Persians, English, French, Germans and the Americans are all pathetic losers that haven given nothing to the world.
Because at sometime in their past they did not conform to the ideals of later generations.

Re:Sad.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Only statist liberals call them ""pirates"".

Right, and all Americans are crack dealers.

Re:Sad.

[DNS-and-BIND]

A prominent American celebrity called for exactly that a few days ago, and nobody batted an eyebrow. What do you think would happen if we went to the highly credible Wall Street protests and asked around there?

Text of the memo

[JoshuaZ]

Text of the memo in question:

To win our game, write on a piece of paper the name of the next cashier you believe will be fired. Write their name [the person who will be fired], today’s date, today’s time, and your name. Seal it in an envelope and give it to the manager to put in my envelope.

“Here’s how the game will work: We are doubling our secret-shopper efforts, and your store will be visited during the day and at night several times a week. Secret shoppers will be looking for cashiers wearing a hat, talking on a cell phone, not wearing a QC Mart shirt, having someone hanging around/behind the counter, and/or a personal car parked by the pumps after 7 p.m., among other things.

“If the name in your envelope has the right answer, you will win $10 CASH. Only one winner per firing unless there are multiple right answers with the exact same name, date, and time. Once we fire the person, we will open all the envelopes, award the prize, and start the contest again.

“And no fair picking Mike Miller from (the Rockingham Road store). He was fired at around 11:30 a.m. today for wearing a hat and talking on his cell phone. Good luck!!!!!!!!!!”

Wow. What an asshole. In a better economy I'd hope that he'd have trouble getting workers. Unfortunately, in the current economy it is probably much easier to find desperate people willing to put up with crap.

Re:Text of the memo

[vlm]

Wow. What an asshole.

He was only threatening to fire people actively intentionally breaking some fairly simple rules. I LOLed when I read it. All I have to do, is not talk on my phone when I'm supposedly working, not violate the dress code, not violate security rules. I would not exactly break out in a cold sweat of terror.

Now a Real toxic A hole, much worse than this guy, would threaten randomly, based on totally random arbitrary "attitude" or if female how hot she was.

Being the hacker mentality the first thing I though of was how to crack his system, entering multiple times, framing others by writing their name, etc.

Re:Text of the memo

[Bigbutt]

It didn't seem like spying was involved. You know which ones of your coworkers don't follow the rules. The hat, cell phone, talking folks. He wasn't talking about turning them in, not even placing a bet. Based on what you know, you pick who you think will fail and put it in an envelope. When the next person is caught breaking the rules, the envelopes are opened and the winner determined. They get the 10 bucks. Now the boss does get a list of folks who might be breaking the rules for the next go-round but he had secret shoppers going through the store and taking their responses (hats, cellphones, etc) as a method of choosing who is fired.

[John]

Re:Text of the memo

[Anonymous Coward]

It didn't seem like spying was involved. You know which ones of your coworkers don't follow the rules. The hat, cell phone, talking folks. He wasn't talking about turning them in, not even placing a bet. Based on what you know, you pick who you think will fail and put it in an envelope. When the next person is caught breaking the rules, the envelopes are opened and the winner determined. They get the 10 bucks. Now the boss does get a list of folks who might be breaking the rules for the next go-round but he had secret shoppers going through the store and taking their responses (hats, cellphones, etc) as a method of choosing who is fired.

[John]

What you may not have considered is that the "award" establishes, for the letter of the law, an incentive to fix the results (lie about others, encourage others to engage in behavior that would result in disciplinary action, etc, etc.).

Also, seems sort of stupid and a time waster.

Re:Text of the memo

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you that naive to think that the envelopes wouldn't be opened, tallied, and that the worker who got the most votes (i.e. most likely fired) from each store would not be fired? In addition, he was basically guaranteeing that someone would be fired from each store and that he was just looking for any reason to do so to make an example. This is what made it a hostile work environment.

Now, if he had simply issued a warning that anyone caught breaking the rules would be warned and, after a warning, fired, then he would have been firm ground.

Re:Text of the memo

[Anonymous Coward]

News flash for ya: secret shoppers are spies. Usually external contractors charged with the primary purpose of quality assurance, but still spies. When the rules being enforced are arbitrary and absurd (doesn't seem to be the case here), secret shoppers are a tool of fear & tyranny, essentially commercial secret police.

Making a game of it is a shitty thing to do, especially given that it's plausible that the manager can pass along info on the majority chosen "winner" to the secret shopper liaison for "extra attention." As the GP said, it's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Re:Text of the memo

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, you have an even more psychopathic personality than he does. Congratulations...

Re:Text of the memo

[vlm]

spying on your coworkers

Secret shoppers are never coworkers... that would kind of defeat the point?

Re:Text of the memo

[webheaded]

You think it's funny until you're working there and afraid that you could be fired for basically anything. Yeah some of them are probably dumb ass teenagers that can't follow the rules but even the ones that do are constantly afraid of losing their jobs. That is a shitty environment to work for and a GOOD employee will be nervous about that kind of shit too. So yeah, it sounds funny at first, but think about actually being one of those people.

Re:Text of the memo

[Bigbutt]

Not arguing with whether it's a shitty game or not. Just that what everyone (or most people) seem to be replying to isn't what seems to be happening.

And my wife and I did the secret shopper thing once. It was ok but we had to go to fast food places most of the time and we really don't do the fast food thing all that much.

[John]

Re:Text of the memo

[Bigbutt]

Perhaps. Most likely I was taking the message at face value. Envelopes are sealed and put in the guys mailbox to be opened when the next person is fired. At least for me, I'd sign the seal but I'm used to doing such things. Again, as I said, that does give him a list of folks that might be an influence the next time a secret shopper comes in as to whether the guy's fired or not. I can't believe that wouldn't be somehow influential.

[John]

Re:Text of the memo

[Bigbutt]

But I don't see how, if the boss isn't using the output of the envelopes to determine who gets fired. Per the article, he's using Secret Shoppers reports to determine who gets the axe. He's certainly being an idiot for trying to make a game of firing someone but as far as I can tell, he's not actually collecting envelopes, opening them, tallying up the votes and then firing the guy (or gal) with the most votes.

And it's not like he couldn't be influenced by the names during the first vote as long as he's taking the Secret Shopper results to determine who to fire. Certainly if he saw the same name 5 times and then the Secret Shopper report said he had his hat on, he would perhaps be harsher than if he just went by the Secret Shopper results. Unless every Secret Shopper ding results in a firing of course. Then the influence isn't there.

[John]

Re:Text of the memo

[Anonymous Coward]

Only one winner per firing unless there are multiple right answers with the exact same name, date, and time.

That's a concurrency issue waiting to explode!

Re:Text of the memo

[AmiMoJo]

Welcome to the extremely shitty world of minimum wage graft. Rather than try to create a pleasant work environment where people are motivated to work (not least by the money) all this guy can do is babysit his staff and crack the whip.

Everyone has to work and even at the very bottom these people deserve some humanity.

Re:Text of the memo

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, some people I know in that situation would just wait until he's somewhere else and just drop him with two silenced .45 rounds to the chest, then drill out the barrel with a good drill-press and dispose of the weapon and the body in a safe, controlled "green" manner. It really surprises me that more people like that asshole and most lawyers haven't gone missing.

When he's missing, there will be questions - but at that point, everyone would be suspect and when word got out just how much of a prick he is, nobody would miss him.

Re:Text of the memo

[shutdown -p now]

I honestly don't know how to explain why the memo is offensive. It's so obvious and in-your-face that it doesn't need a word-by-word analysis to realize that.

Are you an aspie, by chance?

Re:Text of the memo

[epyT-R]

Some places really abuse the dress code rules as an excuse to push their stylistic expectations on you. The argument could be made that outside of safety concerns, dictating dress is discriminatory because it does not have relevance to skillsets or abilities... People who think like this tend to believe the converse, that dictating dress will somehow 'reform' employee mindsets... it doesn't. It breeds contempt.

Re:Text of the memo

[billcopc]

You clearly have never worked in a retail environment, especially a shithole of a convenience store / gas station like the one where this "firing contest" took place. Go work half a shift for this guy, and tell me you don't want to run him through a wood chipper.

Minimum wage gets you minimum dedication from your employees. If the guy wants his gas station to look like the Ritz, where everyone dresses nicely and treats every customer like a golden nugget, he can start paying them proportionately to those expectations. Otherwise, he's going to keep getting stuck with slummy, disrespectful teenagers and other human failures.

If he can't afford to run his business properly, he shouldn't run it at all.

Re:Text of the memo

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me crazy, but I like the memo. It conveys the seriousness of the management's attitude towards poor work ethic. It says pretty explicitly that you better not do what Mike did, or you'll be out of a job. Not even for a minute.

Re:Text of the memo

[bryan1945]

He'd definitely be a shitty manager.

Re:Text of the memo

[bryan1945]

Well, you can't complain with needing to wear the company's shirt- it marks you as an employee. But I guess you'd be OK with some overweight, hairy guy coming to work in a thong. Hey, he just sits at his desk all day, so no safety concerns, right? Secretaries in bikinis? Oh yeah! Maybe the HR person can dress up like "The Gimp." That would make for some awesome interview stories.

Re:Text of the memo

[bryan1945]

Do not bring logic into Slashdot! How many times do we have to tell you this! lol

Re:Text of the memo

[cffrost]

But I don't see how, if the boss isn't using the output of the envelopes to determine who gets fired. Per the article, he's using Secret Shoppers reports to determine who gets the axe.

Why would this guy shell out for "secret shoppers" when he's already collecting "actionable intel" (if you will), at $10/pop? We're talking about a fuel station here, aren't we? Not really a major operation that could incur massive losses due to poor retail employee performance... What's going to happen; a customer won't need gasoline after all, due to exposure to a hat or cellular phone?

Re:Text of the memo

[FoolishOwl]

I'm fairly sure I have Aspberger's Syndrome, and from the accounts I've read of the condition, and what I have experienced, it isn't that aspies lack empathy, but that we have difficulty intuiting the feelings of others in the moment, in peronal interactions. There is a range of coping techniques; most commonly, aspies rely on intellectualizing to understand the feelings of others. This is less efficient, so aspies tend to have trouble interacting with more than one person at a time, get tired out quickly by social interactions, and so try to limit them, and so on.

However, someone with Aspberger's Syndrome is perfectly capable of reading at leisure an account of aberrant behavior and recognizing it for what it is.

What is clear, from reading the comments that express support for the manager, is that the supporters recognize the malignant cruelty. Whether the supporters have Aspberger's Syndrome or not, their responses suggest sociopathy, not Aspberger's Syndrome.

Re:Text of the memo

[epyT-R]

initially there'd be some people doing that, but the novelty would wear off and they'd show up in whatever they're comfortable in...and yes I can complain. I refuse to work for places that make me dress up in some idiotic costume because some overpaid marketer wants to push an 'image.' This goes well beyond marketing and into things like 'extreme grooming.' these days people get hit for having 5oclock shadows.

Contest Prizes

[schlesinm]

"We're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. "

Re:Contest Prizes

[Xunker]

The leads are weak!

Re:Contest Prizes

[wren337]

The leads are weak. The f-in' leads are weak? You're weak. I've been in this business 15 years ...

Re:Contest Prizes

[Thud457]

Hey, I could use a new toy yoda.
Mine went missing, I thing one of the slashdot trolls snatched him.

Re:Contest Prizes

[padraic2]

The leads are weak? The fucking leads are weak? You're weak!

Re:Contest Prizes

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your name?

Re:Contest Prizes

[Anonymous Coward]

F you, that's my name. You know why mister? Cause you drove a Hyundai to get here tonight, I drove an 80,000 dollar BMW. That's my name. And your name is you're wanting. You can't play in the man's game, you can't close them? Then go home and tell your wife your troubles. Because only one thing counts in this life. Get them to sign on the line which is dotted. You hear me you f-in' fargots.

ABC. A, Always, B, Be, C, Closing. Always be closing. Always be closing. AIDA. Attention. Interest. Decision. Action. Attention. Do I have your attention? Interest. Are you interested? I know you are 'cause it's f or walk. You close or you hit the bricks. Decision. Have you made your decision for Christ? And action. AIDA. Get out there. You got the prospects coming in, you think they came in to get out of the rain? A guy don't walk on the lot lest he wants to buy. They're sitting out there waiting to give you their money. Are you going to take it? Are you man enough to take it?

What's the problem, pal?

Re:Contest Prizes

[Anonymous Coward]

Patel? Fuck you. Fuckin' Shiva handed him a million dollars, told him sign the deal, he wouldn't sign. And Vishnu, too into the bargain.

Re:Contest Prizes

[superwiz]

You call yourself a salesman, you son'f'bitch?!?

and whats so bad about a quick mart cashierkilling

[Joe_Dragon]

and whats so bad about a quick mart cashier killing time when it is slow?

Ineffective

[BitHive]

A much more innovative and effective strategy would have been to fire everyone and then hold auction-style interviews. Whoever agrees to work for the lowest wage gets a job.

Re:Ineffective

[rodrigoandrade]

> Whoever agrees to work for the lowest wage gets a job.

All job hiring has been done like this since... forever.

Re:Ineffective

[Anonymous Coward]

Then, a smart employee gets everyone who's "fired" together and petitions the 2nd level boss, proposing that their direct boss is fired and half of his pay is divided amongst existing staff members.

Re:Ineffective

[poofmeisterp]

A much more innovative and effective strategy would have been to fire everyone and then hold auction-style interviews. Whoever agrees to work for the lowest wage gets a job.

Doesn't every employer already d.....

Oh, I see what you're doing. Well played, Maestro. Well played. :>

Re:Ineffective

[Anonymous Coward]

All job hiring has been done like this since... minimum wage laws

Re:Ineffective

[mabhatter654]

that assumes they all don't pick some number higher than their current wage and refuse to work for lower... a little "collusion" if you want. Boss can always do the job BY HIMSELF until he finds and trains more workers!

unilaterally firing everybody like that would also count toward Unemployment Insurance for the employees that didn't "win" the auction as they were "capriciously" and "unilaterally" let go. Unilaterally cutting pay by more than so many percent kicks in unemployment as well.

Re:Ineffective

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe if it was an open auction it would actually be more fair.

Re:Ineffective

[Anonymous Coward]

And if your employees are unionized, the union will shut down your entire business.

Re:Ineffective

[Anonymous Coward]

*Boss can always do the job using cool new technology and cheap overseas labour.

It's funny because it's true (well maybe not for cashiers).

Re:Ineffective

[hrvatska]

If you only take the lowest bidders you'll only get the lowest performers. Better performers would find someplace else to work.

Re:Ineffective

[Aighearach]

> Whoever agrees to work for the lowest wage gets a job.

All job hiring has been done like this since... forever.

lol no.

Traditionally the most qualified person willing to work for a fair price gets the job. Is the work worth doing? Do you want to it done well, or done poorly? Most people want a job done well.

The busiest restaurants are often in the high-middle price range, too.

in nazi Germany peopl rated others out and this i

[Joe_Dragon]

in nazi Germany people rated others out and this is one step under rating some out.

Hear that?

[MrEricSir]

WOOOOSH!

How to kill your boss...

[Rehnberg]

Or better yet, bet on who will kill him!

Re:How to kill your boss...

[Overzeetop]

Even better:who will kill him, where he will be killed, and with what deadly instrument.

You know...I'll be this would make a really cool board game; I wonder if Hasbro wants to do a prequel? ;-)

Re:How to kill your boss...

[Dr_Barnowl]

Obligatory link to theory.

Re:How to kill your boss...

[Anonymous Coward]

The cashier in the office with a swingline stapler

Re:How to kill your boss...

[frosty_tsm]

The cashier in the office with a swingline stapler

Janitor in the alley with a liquor bottle.

Re:How to kill your boss...

[ganjadude]

is it a red one?

The importance of being Ernst

[Anonymous Coward]

I RTFA, and I noticed the court case was because some folks who resigned after the "contest" were denied unemployment benefit.

So, can somebody explain me: does unemployment money _cost_ the previous employer in the US/Iowa?

(With apologies to Oscar Wilde for the title of this post.)

Re:The importance of being Ernst

[KiahZero]

Indirectly, through unemployment insurance contribution rates. Companies with higher turnover rates pay more into the fund that is used to pay out benefits. Accordingly most (all?) states deny benefits to individuals who "voluntarily" leave their job, though I suspect most use this same definition of "hostile work environment" to catch when an employer tries to push people into quitting rather than firing the employees.

Re:The importance of being Ernst

[cayenne8]

So, can somebody explain me: does unemployment money _cost_ the previous employer in the US/Iowa?

Yes, the employer has to pay into the unemployment fund for each employee.

Re:The importance of being Ernst

[mabhatter654]

it counts against THEIR unemployment insurance premiums. Typically for WORKERS it counts how long you've worked since you drew unemployment last. For employers it counts how many people you let go without "cause".

Effectively, the judge is saying he caused them to leave by creating a hostile environment rather than being a man and learning which ones were valuable and making for-cause terminations.

Re:The importance of being Ernst

[jythie]

The other responder summed it up pretty well. There are some indirect costs, but I have a feeling that defending against the suit was mostly about reputation and mean-spiritedness. As others have pointed out, companies can hire and fire at will with no fault, but if you fire someone they get unemployment... so this guy was basically just trying to make sure that someone who didn't appreciate his game (and probably disrupted the store due to critical people leaving) did not get their unemployment benefits.

Re:The importance of being Ernst

[SJHillman]

In short: Yes

I believe that part of the taxes employers pay goes towards paying out unemployment benefits (tax is per-employee). I believe if an employee loses their job through no fault of their own (IE: layoffs, fired, etc) then the employer has to continue paying for them as long as that person qualifies for unemployment. Laws vary from state to state.

Re:in nazi Germany peopl rated others out and this

[countertrolling]

If you see something, say something

Re:in nazi Germany peopl rated others out and this

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean ratted? Cause employers everywhere have employees rate each other. It's called 'peer reviews' and is by no means something the Nazi's had a monoploy on.

Re: original subect

[nitehawk214]

The original subject read "and whats so bad about a quick mart cashierkilling". According to the boss in TFA, apparently nothing is wrong with killing employees at all.

Re:in nazi Germany peopl rated others out and this

[SJHillman]

Do they rate them on a scale of 1 to 10? Maybe QC Mart also has an Employee Hot Or Not contest going on. I'd rate them all!

Weakest Link

[Oswald McWeany]

I worked at a real life "Weakest Link".

Worked for a small 70 person company that was losing money. Owner retired and let his son take over. His son decided to cut staff and for the next several months followed a policy of two people got laid off every friday.

Every friday everyone wondered if they would be one of the "lucky two".

It went on like this until there were only a skeleton crew of about 25 left. Not all that left left because they were let go- EVERYONE was TRYING to get out because the 2 out on Friday policy was murder on morale.

Re:Weakest Link

[Overzeetop]

Drip...drip...drip...

(I know of a similar situation in a company, but it occurred before I arrived. Everyone would check their emails first thing, because the IT staff would freeze the accounts the night before. They said it was really, really bad. I stayed 2 years and the company was okay, but I didn't really enjoy the science behind what we did.)

Re:Weakest Link

[vlm]

decided to cut staff and for the next several months followed a policy of two people got laid off every friday.... the 2 out on Friday policy was murder on morale.

Been there done that.

Talk to legal. Each state has a different law about "mass firings" and "mass layoffs".

In some states there can be fines if not reported, severe negative publicity if reported, line entered on business creditworthiness report.

It is admittedly a really stupid 19th-20th century law assuming all employees are on the assembly line, so layoffs can only be done by line shift, which is completely unrealistic in the 21st century, unless you live in China I guess.

Re:Weakest Link

[vlm]

Whoops almost forgot the most important reason, fired during a mass layoff means 100% approved for unemployment compensation, fired outside a legally declared mass layoff means the boss can fight the benefits. There's a huge financial motivation to do this because the UE bill is based on previous layoff records...

Re:Weakest Link

[PCM2]

Not all that left left because they were let go- EVERYONE was TRYING to get out because the 2 out on Friday policy was murder on morale.

Amen to that. I worked for a company that did the same thing -- not so intentionally (or callously), but the results were the same. Each round of layoffs, we would have a big morning meeting and management would assure everyone that this was the last time, the numbers looked bad but these cuts would fix it, nobody needed to worry about their jobs, everybody was appreciated, etc. And then a month later we'd have another round of layoffs. "Sorry everybody, I know I said never again, but we've had another tough month and the numbers didn't meet our revised expectations..." I think we had five rounds of layoffs before they finally threw in the towel -- and when the company finally folded, everybody was pretty much relieved. It was totally demoralizing. Some people would just come in and loll around looking glum all day, basically shell-shocked. I can really only think of one coping strategy when you find yourself in that kind of situation, which is to say, "Fuck this place" -- which is obviously a totally unhealthy way to approach your work, in and of itself.

value is now OBJECTIVELY DEFINED by the market

[spazdor]

the free market is infallible; whatever ends up happening is BY DEFINITION THE FAIREST OUTCOME POSSIBLE
And you can take my word for it, 'cuz I'm above the poverty line!

Re:value is now OBJECTIVELY DEFINED by the market

[feepness]

whatever ends up happening is BY DEFINITION THE FAIREST OUTCOME POSSIBLE

Yes, actually. Just as a frictionless surface by definition requires no force to maintain velocity.

The fact that neither exists in the real world without external energy being fed into the system escapes most people, sadly.

Re:value is now OBJECTIVELY DEFINED by the market

[RightSaidFred99]

"Fair" - isn't that something children and incompetents believe exists? The government exists to protect our basic rights, not enforce "fairness". It's hardly fair that good looking guys get all the best looking women - I will make this a major campaign point when I run for President.

Re:value is now OBJECTIVELY DEFINED by the market

[SomeKDEUser]

Oh, no, it is worse than that actually: the market actually tries to solve an NP-complete problem. Thus, markets can (in theory) be perfect if and only if P == NP. In some cases, it is an OK heuristic.

So the frictionless surfaces has properties well defined by theory. Perfect markets may well be impossible, even in theory.

Re:value is now OBJECTIVELY DEFINED by the market

[Alex Belits]

Congratulations, you are a moron.

Now go, starve.

Re:value is now OBJECTIVELY DEFINED by the market

[mwvdlee]

If, in a free market, laws are created by governments democratically elected by the population, that is BY DEFINITION THE FAIREST OUTCOME POSSIBLE.
Enjoy the free market, it's already here.
It's just not the set of freedoms you want forced on society.

Re:value is now OBJECTIVELY DEFINED by the market

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have to lift a finger to fight injustice in our own house because none exists! What a delightfully convenient coincidence!

Quick, get your next vote in

[phorm]

Next employee for firing is "William Ernst", fired for subjecting the company to expensive lawsuits...

Anyone need a local?

[HeckRuler]

As your resident QuadCities Slashdot associate, is there anything you guys want me to go confirm?
I mean, there are QC marts scattered throughout town, I could probably go get some statements/rants from his current employees.

Personally I get a kick out of any time the Midwest gets mentioned on Slashdot. This is downright hilarious. Especially since I just left a place due to a boss.

I see his mistake...

[Pokermike]

A $10 prize was too small; according to the judge it "created a hostile work environment by suggesting its employees turn on each other for a minimal monetary prize."

I guess he should have offered more money.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I'm reminded of a quote from Fight Club...

[Insidious Oatmeal]

"Tyler was now involved in a class action lawsuit against the Pressman Hotel over the urine content of their soup."

Bet against yourself.

[AdamJS]

At least you can get a cheap lunch if you do get fired. Or a cab home.

Re:Bet against yourself.

[gknoy]

Given the boss's tone, he'd probably say that since you're not an employee at the time of the drawing (if you're fired), you're ineligible to win.

Re:in nazi Germany peopl rated others out and this

[DriedClexler]

Okay, go back to Digg now.

very bad idea for the boss

[RobertLTux]

there is a reason that a Night of the Long Knifes type of thing is done at a District Level and not at a Store Level

most of the time if you have to fire more than say Half of your employees then YOU AS A BOSS are a spacial anomaly known for high Gravity (aka an African American Aperture).

Welcome to China

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why a lot of businesses are in China.

Rail all you want against the trend, but the more rules, regulations, and taxes on businesses, the more they'll move to a more hospitable country.

Like it or not.

Re:Welcome to China

[KDR_11k]

Now we just need to force their management to live in China too. Then they can harvest the fruits of their choices!

Re:Welcome to China

[nitehawk214]

That's why a lot of businesses are in China.

Rail all you want against the trend, but the more rules, regulations, and taxes on businesses, the more they'll move to a more hospitable country.

Like it or not.

Many people in this country would applaud Wallmart moving all of its stores to China. Since all their goods are made there, it seems only reasonable.

This is why labor laws exist...

[ErichTheRed]

I'm all for workers' rights, and also can see things from the employers' side, but man, when you see a piece of work like that guy, you realize that there's a reason for all these labor laws and regulations. Just like everything in life, one chunk of idiots messes up things for everyone else. That happens on both sides of the equation - from the labor side, think about the people you work with who actively avoid doing anything, even going out of the way to be difficult. Or think about tenant-landlord laws -- they are slanted in favor of tenants because a fraction of landlords abuse their influence, regardless of how nightmarish a tenant might be. If people were rational on both sides, there would be less need for regulation.

My experience with small-to-medium size business owners and managers has been mixed. For every decent, hardworking guy working his guts out to make a good place to work, there's the Napoleonic, reactive, stressed out crazy guy who creates a hostile work environment. It's not limited to small businesses either, but you see more of these types in small businesses because they're typically more invested. Some of it can probably be traced to the personality type you need to have to be a business owner -- combative, competitive, driven, etc. There's no way to succeed in small business without having at least some of those traits.

In this case, it sounds mainly like ignorance of the law or willful disregard of it. The guy probably thought he was being funny, making a joke of what he saw as a major affront to his view of the world. I'm guessing the thought process goes something like this:

- I am Master of Convenience Stores, King of the World.

- I've got a bunch of kids who aren't doing everything I tell them.

- I can fire anyone I want, and I will keep firing until I have a set of perfectly obedient employees.

- Since the economy is lousy, I can scare my employees into doing what I want.

- Hey, I know, let's make this fun! Heh heh heh, that'll show those idiots.... ...and the contest is born.

In my opinion, people who subscribe to the "I can fire anyone for any reason and treat them like slaves because they should be paying ME to work here" attitude are left with the people who can't get jobs with normal bosses. Most people don't want to work for an unpredictable tyrant. Demanding good work is one thing, but being unreasonable is another. He just probably figured that his employees are either kids or people who really can't get better work and thought "motivation" like this was appropriate.

Same thing goes for things like sexual harassment. I'm sure no one *wants* to be treated like that, but business owners abuse their power because they can.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[hduff]

I've always tried to treat my employees fairly. I treat them like thinking adults. I give them clear rules and instructions and try to give them as much authority and discretion as they can handle. I have yet had one make a mistake that could not be fixed or a mistake that was so serious the world ended; I look at mistakes as part of the learning process. I also realize that their world does not revolve around my business and I do show appreciation to them for the work they do, the service they provide my customers and the value in cooperating with and helping the other employees all get the job done together. I've had employees work for me over 20 years and some as little as 30 minutes. Some think I'm a great boss and some (like the one I had put in jail for stealing from me) think I'm an asshole and they probably all are more or less correct.

But this guy sounds like a total douchebag. And I doubt he will learn anything from this incident other than to not put things in writing.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or think about tenant-landlord laws -- they are slanted in favor of tenants because a fraction of landlords abuse their influence, regardless of how nightmarish a tenant might be.

You must live in NYC. Certainly not in the south. Not all states have great tenant rights. Some have practically none and the landlords abuse the hell out of it.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for workers' rights, and also can see things from the employers' side, but man, when you see a piece of work like that guy, you realize that there's a reason for all these labor laws and regulations.

Because you have no backbone and can't refuse a job that doesn't suit you?

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[HeckRuler]

If people were rational on both sides, there would be less need for regulation.

If people were rational on both sides we wouldn't need war, military, government, currency, or swear words.
But yeah, it'd be nice if people were more rational.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[DerekLyons]

In my opinion, people who subscribe to the "I can fire anyone for any reason and treat them like slaves because they should be paying ME to work here" attitude are left with the people who can't get jobs with normal bosses. Most people don't want to work for an unpredictable tyrant. Demanding good work is one thing, but being unreasonable is another. He just probably figured that his employees are either kids or people who really can't get better work and thought "motivation" like this was appropriate.

The thing is - if you read TFA, he wasn't firing people for random reasons, or treating them like slaves, or... pretty much any other quality you ascribe to him. He was firing people for violating some pretty simple and basic work standards.
 
Yes, the "contest" was a dipshit move - but let's keep the karma whoring FUD to a minimum.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[roman_mir]

I am against all so called 'labor rights' and 'civil rights' all of those. Those are not rights.

There are only individual rights. The 'civil or labor rights' are actually entitlements given by government decree to some, while imposing obligations on others.

Just because you are an employer doesn't mean you now have to lose your individual rights and have all these obligations and have to hire people in exact accordance with how the government prescribes it.

You don't like this asshole? Don't work for him. NOBODY is forcing you to work for him.

Maybe ALL his workers should QUIT right away because he is an asshole. But he has his individual rights and they have their individual rights, and there are no such things as civil or labor rights, and I had a very very very lengthy discussion about it on this very site just a couple of days ago on this very issue.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450838&cid=37575982
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450838&cid=37554214
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450838&cid=37558726
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450838&cid=37558814
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450838&cid=37558814
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450838&cid=37556278
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450838&cid=37553622

There are only individual rights, but there are also entitlements and obligations, but those are not the same as rights, but they do raise the cost of doing business, they raise the cost of hiring people especially due to all of the possible litigation.

Yes, this guy is an asshole.
No, you shouldn't have any special privileges and entitlements to deal with assholes in private, you do have your individual rights.

'Right' is a concept that is only meaningful to describe a relationship between an individual an government, because gov't is a system, not an individual.

Relationships between private individuals and businesses are covered by criminal and contract law, and unless this employer violated the contract, there are no criminal charges and there must not be any other special protections by government, which only cause more economic destruction.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[shutdown -p now]

Because you have no backbone and can't refuse a job that doesn't suit you?

Given the current unemployment rates, especially for unskilled labor, many people are plainly not in a position to refuse a job - any job. They've got themselves and family to feed.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[stephanruby]

You don't like this asshole? Don't work for him. NOBODY is forcing you to work for him.

Yes, but the government is pretty much forcing you to pay into unemployment insurance.

So what are you suggesting exactly? That workers refuse to pay unemployment insurance, therefore risking an audit and possibly prison/fines, or that they refuse to collect on that insurance after having already paid into it?

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are correct. It is better to starve to death homeless than work for such a man. It is so easy to quit a job knowing you probably wont be able to get another the way things are now. After all everyone has enough money on hand to go a few years without work. We need to return to the good old days of the company store, and employee black balling. It was awesome when employers were able to force their workers to rent their apartments from the company and buy all their clothes and food from the marked up company store. And when a worker failed to do that they were literally unable to get another job because the company would tell all the other companies not to hire them. It's good to reminisce about the good old days.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

"You don't like this asshole? Don't work for him. NOBODY is forcing you to work for him."

Some people are in situations were not working is not an option.
Some people are adversely effected by "job hopping" because it looks bad on the resume, and they lose benefits.
My state requires 2 days of rest in 14, hunting for a job while doing a dozen 12 hour shifts in a row is not easy even for the most motivated people.
Some employers verbally indicate hours / pay / benefits / during the interview, and "reserve the right" to change any of those things at any time.
Some employers are very professional / courteous during the interview, and then proceed to do a full 180 and be assholes when you clock in the first day.

Now before you start calling me a dirty commie / hippie etc, I live in an "at will" work state, and have no issues with it. The boss should be able to do whatever he/she sees fit, however do not delusion your self on who has the upper hand in the employee/employer relationship.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[roman_mir]

First, I don't fully follow your point.

I am suggesting people should stop voting for politicians who go beyond the authority that Constitution gives them, but what does this have to do with EI?

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[roman_mir]

As I said, if the employer is an asshole to the point where everybody hates him - quit altogether.

Just everybody - quit at once and don't show up. Let him man the kitchen and the rest of it all on his own. It's not going to be easy for him, you may even end up shutting him down (depending on his margins).

My point is - saying that something is a 'right', while it's an entitlement and an obligation is a ruse.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

business owners should be able to do what they want with their business. you don't have a right the job. it is their job and they should be able to give it to who ever they want. you can always look somewere else for a job.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[Swave An deBwoner]

Just everybody - quit at once and don't show up. Let him man the kitchen and the rest of it all on his own. It's not going to be easy for him, you may even end up shutting him down (depending on his margins).

You are not suggesting, no, I can't believe you are recommending that workers form a collective bargaining group -- a union?

I am truly impressed with your courage to say that.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[roman_mir]

Actually a PRIVATE union that has no government support of any kind, not getting any special privileges - I never am against people doing anything privately.

OTOH, I wouldn't keep a union employed for longer than I found enough substitute workers.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rights are just Social Constructs. They don't come from any God, and they sure as hell don't come from nature.

And you know what? You acquire resources or die. Gun to your head or withering away from lack of metaphorical "bread", you're just as 100% dead.

So I don't see *your* point.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[roman_mir]

Rights are between individual and collective, they have nothing to do with relationship between 2 individuals.

I don't give a shit about your rights, your rights are between you and your government. Individually and privately it's about contract and criminal laws (and who has a better gun and a faster hand.)

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[bryan1945]

The whole case was about the owner denying unemployment benefits. Since the owner is forced to pay into it, and you're saying that it's a contract between owner and employee, the employees should just not pay their share into it, and it's all good because there is no contract between the employee & owner on payment into UI.

Ron Paul, huh? Good luck.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Private or not, a union is just another "collective" - a collective who can (and will) try to meddle with the market to their favor, via power of numbers, which is no different than having a "government" meddle in the market, via power of being "in charge"

See, the "government" is just another player in the market. Do they have absurd amounts of power? Can their power drastically change the landscape of the market, often for the worse? Yes and yes.

But alas, that's the reality. "Government" is simply whoever's in charge, and there's always somebody in charge, much like how there's always a private business who is "#1" in the market, and that "#1" will have the most power out of all the other private businesses (and are called the "job creators")

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[roman_mir]

you RTFA? WTF? You are not supposed to!

Anyway, this whole idea of unemployment benefits should be abolished. SS, Medicare, EI, it should all be responsibility of the employee, not employer. Employers are not your babysitters, but they should be paying market rates for you, that's all.

If you have a CONTRACT with employer that requires some EI payments, that's a different story.

The entire system is rotten to the core, obviously gov't has created an impossible to continue situation, it can only be truly resolved by dissolving the entire system of regulations, labor laws, business regulations, income/payroll/corporate taxes, all of this has to go.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[roman_mir]

Union is a private collective, which means it does not have any more power than any other private entity. It doesn't enjoy the privilege of being able to send the police and national guard or even military forces to your doors. It can't pass legislation and it can't force you by law into anything.

Gov't, OTOH, is exactly that. So if you don't understand that distinction, I won't bother you with my replies much.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[ganjadude]

I think the difference is he is saying for them to all up and quit, unions dont quit, they strike.. and than make you pay them for the time they were dragging your companies name through the mud. and they strike when you try and fire one of them for deserving to be fired. unions, while well intentioned, are horrible in this day and age

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[roman_mir]

You can't force an employer to pay for your union striking without government standing there with a gun.

My point is that a private union is fine, as long as there is no government protections for that, because that's just gov't getting in between private party dealings.

I am obviously as anti-union as it gets. I cheered WalMart closing a couple of stores in Canada, when unions organized there. Good for them. I'd do the same thing if I was in that position. But my point is that private people should be able to organize into whatever they want. But if I employ them and they try to force me into something just because they organized into a private union, I shouldn't be forced by gov't to keep them working for me. I'd fire them all in a heartbeat and get other people.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Missing the point.

Sure, a government has tons of power, some of which no private collective can have... so?

So what? The market doesn't discriminate who gets to participate in it

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[roman_mir]

You are missing the point.

There is no private entity that is powerful enough to stand there with a gun to everybody's head except for government, to extort money and enforce its will. Nobody CHOOSES to have that.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're missing the point.

Again, so what? So what that government can point a gun to everybody's head? Doesn't mean the government can't participate in the market.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[roman_mir]

WTF?

Here, let me give you an example.

You are standing there, there is another person with a gun to your head. Your choices are these: you give him everything he wants (and he wants your money and your virginity) or you die.

Government 'market' at work.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still missing the point. Again, so what? It doesn't matter what government might do to you if they participate in the market. The question is can they or cannot participate

And the answer: yes, they can.

The free market isn't some exclusive club with bouncers at the door to check who gets to join the party.

It'll sound trollish, but I'll say it straight: who's going to stop them? You and what army? Right, you don't have an army, the government does ;)

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[roman_mir]

That's not market participation. That's a take-over. To me personally it matters only tangentially, as I am dealing in a much freer society than USA.

What USA people now have on their hands is a dictatorship if that's the way they allowed their gov't to 'participate'.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Take overs are very much a part of participation. Free market is free - there are no rules. Anybody can trade anything with anybody else.

If government wants to trade the "value" of not-getting-your-brains-blown-out (hey, there's value in that) for taxes and subservience, and there are people who wants to do that trade, then it's going to happen

But note that can only happen if there's somebody else willing to do this trade. If the American people (and I don't live in USA either) say "no way, screw you" - it's going to get reeeealllly interesting.

But if they don't, what are we as outsiders gonna do? If they want to continue their rut, let them. The world's not gonna stop spinning for America

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[roman_mir]

As I said, I didn't stay and other people left as well. There is no reason to stay for that kind of 'market'.

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I myself can photosynthesize my own nutrients out of sunlight, CO2, and dirt, because I'm a plant. But I hear you fleshy types need to "eat", which I guess costs "money"?

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[Wolfrider]

Are you hiring ? ;-)

Re:This is why labor laws exist...

[bryan1945]

There are some towns (counties?) in Texas that opted out of SS/Medicare back in the '80s(?), and have done way better financially than the government plans. But remember when Bush tried to push the "Personal choice" thing for SS, and how he was eviscerated? I would rather get to choose where I get to save my money rather the government. If you're so dumb not to save while you're working, too bad for you.

I generally agree with you in letting employees have more freedom, but I still see a need for an overview group/agency/whatever or you go back to the times of the railroad barons and all the various evil stuff they did.

By the way, "you RTFA? WTF? You are not supposed to!" gave me a hearty chuckle.

But should it be illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of us will agree that this is a terrible management approach, but should it actually be illegal in the sense of creating a legally hostile work environment and therefor creating a bunch of legal implications for the company? Where do you draw the line?

Re:But should it be illegal?

[KiahZero]

It's not illegal. It just means that employees leaving the company in this specific situation are treated as if the employer terminated their employment for the purposes of unemployment insurance, which means the employees get benefits and they are counted when determining the employer's contribution rate.

Frankly

[Anonymous Coward]

I am shocked at the number of slashdotters, on story after story, who just can't spell correctly. Do you proofread at all? Do you bother to use spell check? Bad punctuation and grammar gets a pass. That was a bitch for even my teachers in school.

Re:in nazi Germany peopl rated others out and this

[Gilmoure]

They had Hot or Not back then?

what?? This memo is awesome!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, this text is AWESOME:

“New Contest – Guess The Next Cashier Who Will Be Fired!!!

To win our game, write on a piece of paper the name of the next cashier you believe will be fired. Write their name [the person who will be fired], today’s date, today’s time, and your name. Seal it in an envelope and give it to the manager to put in my envelope.

“Here’s how the game will work: We are doubling our secret-shopper efforts, and your store will be visited during the day and at night several times a week. Secret shoppers will be looking for cashiers wearing a hat, talking on a cell phone, not wearing a QC Mart shirt, having someone hanging around/behind the counter, and/or a personal car parked by the pumps after 7 p.m., among other things.

“If the name in your envelope has the right answer, you will win $10 CASH. Only one winner per firing unless there are multiple right answers with the exact same name, date, and time. Once we fire the person, we will open all the envelopes, award the prize, and start the contest again.

“And no fair picking Mike Miller from (the Rockingham Road store). He was fired at around 11:30 a.m. today for wearing a hat and talking on his cell phone. Good luck!!!!!!!!!!”

It's obviously COMPLETELY tongue-in-cheek, and also highlights the problems the boss had at the workplace. I've worked as a cashier, and a memo like this would just put a smile on my face :) People need to grow a pear*. And you wonder why no one gets a job anymore...

* homonym so slashdot doesn't get sued into giving out my IP so I can be sued for misogyny or whatever, in this crazy world.

edit:

I just read further into the article. The boss's response to the suit:

“None of them were doing their job,” she testified. “They’ve repeatedly been told not to use their phone while they’re working, that bad language is totally unacceptable and, you know, playing video games while you’re working is not acceptable. They just broke all those rules.”

is completely reasonable, and more than that -- see that text above where I said "also highlights the problems the boss had at the workplace"? That's what I got right out of the memo itself. The guy is just doing a good job conveying his frustration and the issues he has. What the hell is wrong with anyone that they can't see this e-mail for what it is, which is a lot of frustration leading him to take the thing to its logical conclusion to show, through absurdity and satire, that he's "at the end of his rope". And what he is "threatening" with, which is firing, is also in the end a completely reasonable response to not being able to get his employees to do what he's asking from them. If I talked on my phone all through my shift and did the other things I was expressly forbidden to do, getting a chance to see this e-mail and think of the consequences and change my behavior would be one of the luckier things that could happen to me for it... honestly... (and no, I am not a boss).

Tell the Truth

[MarkvW]

As I see it, the US could afford the current high level of regulation as a result of the fruits of the Guilded Age. Conversely, we'll be lucky to slide back into the Guilded Age as a result of our overly regulated age. Exaggerating the ills of the Guilded Age doesn't make modern US workers any more valuable or desired.

This statement is intellectually dishonest. The GILDED age (not Guilded) occurred around the turn of the Century. The regulation that this poster talks about arose after the GREAT DEPRESSION.

The Great Depression followed the excesses of the Gilded Age.

Republican trickle-down economics doesn't trickle down water.

Re:Tell the Truth

[dontbgay]

Drat! Beat me to it!

Re:Tell the Truth

[khallow]

The Great Depression followed the excesses of the Gilded Age.

Before you can blame the problems of the Great Depression on the Gilded Age, you have to explain why it never happened before. The NBER reports eight recessions on or after 1900 (one ended in late 1900) and before the Great Depression. So there had to be something more than just "excess" to explain the Great Depression's unusual depth and duration.

There was at least one depression of similar severity to the Great Depression (which was also known at the time as the "Great Depression", but is now called the "Long Depression").

As it turns out, there are two presidential administrations that do explain the Great Depression. First, the remarkably clueless machinations of the Hoover administration (Republican BTW), culminating in years long counterproductive Fed actions and the Smoot-Hawley Act (a law which started a global tariff war). Then there's the FDR administration. Somehow we supposed to fix the economy by creating vast economic inefficiencies, such as industrial oligopolies and overpowered labor unions. And FDR never got around to reversing Smoot-Hawley.

The important thing here is that the Great Depression was particularly long and severe due to government interference in the economy.

Republican trickle-down economics doesn't trickle down water.

Because it's either that or the nanny state, amirite? There are other choices than just trickle-down just as there are other choices than the worst possible caricature of regulation in a state.

Re:Tell the Truth

[scot4875]

Before you can blame the problems of the Great Depression on the Gilded Age, you have to explain why it never happened before.

Easy. Before that time, a very large portion of the population was subsistence farmers. It only took a few decades of 'everybody has to have a job' for those in control of wealth to, basically, corner the market on dollars and tell everybody else to fuck off.

Or are you honestly suggesting that the economy in 1940 was similar to the economy in 1840? Or 1870? Or 1900?

--Jeremy

Re:Tell the Truth

[khallow]

Or are you honestly suggesting that the economy in 1940 was similar to the economy in 1840? Or 1870? Or 1900?

Um... yes. I'd say it was similar to 1870. The difference was that the federal government had grown big enough it could be used as a sop for all the bad things that happened to people.

from reading the judges statements..

[Truekaiser]

I have to wonder. would he consider it deplorable if say the monetary gain was say, half of the fired employee's yearly salary? because to me he is objecting to the low prize value rather then the contest it's self.

Re:from reading the judges statements..

[Ltap]

I don't see it that way. He is using the low prize value to make the point that this guy was like a dogfighting organizer -- he was pitting people against each other and offering a trivial incentive (other than the huge incentive that, if you did not participate, someone would dig up evidence on you without you having the chance to do the same and to create a sort of Mexican Standoff). He was essentially drawing attention to the dehumanization that went on.

The No Asshole Rule

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the book "The No Asshole Rule." Bad bosses cost companies far more than their (the boss) is worth.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:in nazi Germany peopl rated others out and this

[OakDragon]

And not to mention : www.attackwatch.com, complete with scary black-white-red imagery.

Obviously subscribes to "Lonely Tyrant" magazine

[storkus]

A rendition of the cover, courtesy of Matt Groening pre-Simpsons: http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/graphicnovels/workhell_3.html
I think we can all agree our boss-man is a subscriber!

Turn the Game Around

[machinelou]

He probably could have just turned the game around and been fine. So, secret shoppers could tell him when they catch an employee being "good" (defined as not doing any of those things) and he puts their name in a drawing. At the end of the week/month/quarter, employees who have consistently been "good" will have more opportunities to win the drawing equal to the cash prize of $10/week.

Re:Turn the Game Around

[oreiasecaman]

He probably could have just turned the game around and been fine. So, secret shoppers could tell him when they catch an employee being "good" (defined as not doing any of those things) and he puts their name in a drawing. At the end of the week/month/quarter, employees who have consistently been "good" will have more opportunities to win the drawing equal to the cash prize of $10/week.

that would made him actually a fairly decent boss, you know... not newsworthy at all!

Re:Turn the Game Around

[EmagGeek]

They are already paid for being "good."

Following company rules is the minimum standard of conduct, and no reward is warranted for meeting the minimum standard. That is what hourly compensation is for.

Re:and whats so bad about a quick mart cashierkill

[PRMan]

Because you ignore the secret shopper when they come in.

Re:in nazi Germany peopl rated others out and this

[Arancaytar]

in nazi Germany people rated others out

If you see something, say something

And this is precisely what is wrong.

Re:and whats so bad about a quick mart cashierkill

[billcopc]

Which is perfectly fine. They're not a real customer anyway... they don't want the stuff you're selling, they want the $10 they'll get when they send in their report.

Secret shoppers are overrated. If you come across as a giant prick, don't be surprised when your employees ignore your wishes and clumsily sabotage your business. I've always been one to lead by example, working WITH my employees, not AGAINST them. If they're doing it wrong, train them. If you want to curb undesirable behaviours, sit down with them and explain why you think it's unacceptable. Treat your staff as humans, not chattel, and you just might find they actually start caring about their job enough to do it right.

Re:in nazi Germany peopl rated others out and this

[superwiz]

they also had breakfast in nazi germany. does that mean that having breakfast makes one a nazi? how about building highways? autobahns were INVENTED in nazi germany. i am pretty sure nazi germany is hated for genocide (jews, gypses, etc.) rather than for every little thing they did.

Re:and whats so bad about a quick mart cashierkill

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work in the computer dept at BART and during slow times, even if we read technical, work-related material, we could be fired because it was against union rules.

The beatings will continue ...

[jacks0n]

until morale improves!

Re:and whats so bad about a quick mart cashierkill

[Anonymous Coward]

The premise of "secret" shopping is that you can't tell who's a "secret shopper". And they do buy stuff - they have to, otherwise you could tell. They just get reimbursed for their purchase.

Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its an awesome way to find out who doesn't fit into a group. I would have opened the envelopes and fired whoever was voted most by the coworkers... That would indicate that everyone thinks they are doing a bad job. It is an excellent management strategy.

"Knock, Knock." ... "Who's there?"

[idbeholda]

You're fired.

Nonsense

[unassimilatible]

Of course, given the recent shit the supreme court took on consumer rights with regards to restriction of class action suits, you can bet that noncompetes will be deemed valid nationwide as soon as it get challenged all the way up the chain.

This is nonsense. There is no federal law dealing with this issue, and absent that (or constitutional conflict), SCOTUS wouldn't take the case, let alone strike down California's employment law.

Re:Nonsense

[Uberbah]

And elections are supposed to be a state issue. Didn't stop the Supreme Court from wading in with naked hackery to help Bush steal the 2000 election, though.

Re:Nonsense

[sexconker]

It's bullshit, but it's farm from nonsense. The Supreme Court has been majoritied by straight fucking trolls for the past 2 decades.
Please don't talk about shit you don't understand.

TV Show

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, this sounds like an idea for a TV show. We could have Donald Trump be the boss, and get people to compete an then someone gets fired.

Long time lurker first time poster..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from the Quad Cities

The stores in question are a local chain of BP Gas Stations with the store fronts "re-branded" to QC Mart. I've only been to a couple of the stores and will never go back. They seem to be overpriced even for a convenience store and the employees all seemed to have that "can't do, don't care" attitude. The latter makes much more sense now that this story has come out.

Here is the article that appeared in our local paper http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=563769. Admittedly it isn't as well written as the one from the Register

I'd know what I'd write for my guess

[zerodl]

"William Ernst"

And I thought I was socially inappropriate

[Theovon]

As a geek with slight Asperger's tendencies, I have a history of doing and saying inappropriate things. As I approach my 40's, it's now rare that I make a significant social faux pas, but that's after many years of careful study. Of course, I know NOW that what this boss did was totally inappropriate.

But I can tell you with great certainty, that even as an annoying nerdy teenager, I would have judged this memo of his to be mean-spirited and completely unprofessional.

How do people get it into their heads that this kind of crap is acceptable?

Secret shopper

[Anonymous Coward]

No one mentions the idea that the secret shopper might be sent to the stores with employees voted for. This might be a way of figuring out where to send the secret shopper.

Fear

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a way to generate fear in the employees. As if people didn't have enough fear anyway!

I don't see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I know I'm gonna take some heat for this but.......

ok, the guy is clearly an ahole, I would never be like that nor would I want to work for someone like that. On the other hand, put into context, I don't see the problem. He was clearly re-enforcing simple rules. Talk on your cell phone, your fired. Wear a hat, your fired. I don't see the evil in that. the "contest" in my mind didn't actively encourge employees to take negative actions against each other. So in my mind, it also os a non issue. Americans need to learn how to grow up take responsibility and deal with life alittle imho.

As far for the management style, yes its dickish. No normal human being want to be on either the giving or recieving end. It is however the most effective way of getting people to FOLLOW SIMPLE FREAKING INSTRUCTIONS. As a former marine, I can attest to this to no end. which is mostly the reason for the former part. chances are, if they are willing to spend that much money to catch people on cell phones, there is no talent to speak of anyway.

I don't understand?

[unassimilatible]

I'm a lawyer and law professor and have a degree in political science. Your credentials?