Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
"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. "
My company home page
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!
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
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...
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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:
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.
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.
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.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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?
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!