I fired an employee for trying to serve food that fell on the floor. They tried to get unemployment because we never specifically told them not to.
The claim was denied.

I have never been late in my life for anything. The thought of not even being early goes against every fiber of my being. In most of the jobs I've had that didn't matter. But anyone who's late often enough that the boss takes notice has a problem. And after being warned about it, that's an absolute red line. Obviously, being on time is an issue to WD and, per the Golden Rule, he's the man with the gold, so he makes the rules.

At my last job there was a woman who was always, always late, as in 100% of the time. But she was the director's pet and totally protected. I don't think she was ever less than 45 min. late. The director didn't care and his was the only word that mattered. But she got a reputation for it, others felt a little bitter toward her and talked a lot about her behind her back. Then it becomes a problem for everyone. Staying late every day wasn't much of a payback, since all her calls were to small businesses on the east coast, which meant she didn't have much to do after 2-3pm in AZ.

It's not about trying to insult an employee. Understand that there are a lot of things that are just required, and signing a statement that you've read something is just the future of employment. The bank does the same thing when you re-fi your house, and so does every insurance company.

People who are doing the best work will understand, I think. The marginal ones are the people who have any number of assorted issues with "management" and we eventually have to fire them. So, yeah. Sign or goodbye.

I think you should probably read the thread, starting with the first post. I think you're not really getting what other people are saying.

Being 15 late minutes every day is a problem for any well run company. Any. Well. Run. Company.

You can not "give a lot of leash" to your employees regarding work hours, breaks, lunch, vacation time, overtime pay, etc. First of all, the laws on these things are very clear, and secondly, you schedule staff according to a work schedule. When people don't show up, or show up 1.5 hours late, then they should be fired. Hire someone who actually wants the job.

If you fail to have rules regarding workplace conduct, performance, etc, then morale will fall like a rock. Everyone will slack off. Hard work will go unrecognized and therefore not incentivized. Trust me on this, I know first hand.

Your good employees, the productive ones, will call if they have a problem that is making them late. They will clear it with a supervisor if possible. Or they will let you know so that you can cover their absence. A company is not a democracy. It is not a free-for-all hippie love in. It's a meritocracy, or a dictatorship. You either do your job, or you're gone. It's not my job to let you go play and get in touch with your inner self on the job. You don't get paid to run around on a long leash. If that is important to you, then go find anoter job, or start your own company.

So true.
My Rule #1 - never, ever work for a company in which the owner is present most of the time.

I get to work on time but spend at least 5.5 hrs a day general BS'ing, surfing the web, eating 4 times a day (3 at my desk), walking around with a clipboard pretending I'm doing something, daily newspaper bathroom breaks (2), etc. etc. So, I get paid for 8 hrs. but really 'work' 2.5 per day. Gotta love this country, huh...? But, since I get there on time and stay 8 hrs., I'm a model employee. :).

Back in the 1990's, we had a Union draftsman storing kiddie porn on his workstation. He ran out of space, s he started storing the files on other drafter's work stations (all of those machines were linked so they could use each other's drafting files). To make space, he started deleting files from other people's machines.

Needless to say, he was fired. Yet the Union brought a lawsuit since GE didn't have a "No porn" policy in 1996. And yes, he was rehired.

I don't understand. It was against Federal law at that time to have, own, distribute, etc., child porn. I expect they fired him for "porn" instead of being guilty of committing a federal felony.

Well, I hate to say it, wdfifteen, but - as one of the further left leaning liberal members of this forum, it seems to me this is a bed you helped make. I find it rather hypocritical that you are now complaining about it, now that it is affecting you. Your "side" of the political debate is all about coddling deadbeats like this. I guess until it costs you, anyway.

I worked for a guy who was a time clock nazi.

His philosophy was if you showed up "on time" you were late. His point, which was valid, is if you are supposed to be at work at 9:00 and show up at 9:00 you'll spend minimum 15 minutes saying good morning, getting your coffee, chit chatting with co-workers before you actually get to your desk and get ready to start working.

This was a purely billable hours based business were every minute represented money to him so I kind of understood.

Years later when I ran departments my basic rules were, you are paid for X hours of being here. During that time you are expected to produce Y amount of work. If it takes you all of X or half of X to accomplish Y I don't care.

The official company day starts at 9 and ends at 5. You can show up anywhere between 7 and no later than 11 and leave no earlier than 3 but stay as late as you need to.

As long as you got your work for the day done and your schedule did not affect someone else who may have been waiting on your production then set the hours that work for you.

I treat all my people like adults. If they are not mature enough to know and understand their responsibilities and obligations I'm not going to ride them.

I'm very particular in hiring people. In 25 years I only fired one person out of the hundreds that worked for me.

I don't think Patricks problem is so much coddling people, I think he makes bad hires.

Keep believing it's not insulting or ask people to be dead honest with you about it. Obviously it's up to you but know that when people go in and give it their all only to be presented with such a document and signature mandate, a big WTF bulb goes off in their head and it costs management a pile of credibility that won't come back.

That's not what I'm saying at all. He is not doing the coddling, the unemployment system we have in place is doing the coddling. The socialist state that his politics have built is doing the coddling; it sees him, as the productive employer, as the evil, heartless oppressor of the poor and downtrodden, like the guy he fired for being a deadbeat and a liar. In his socialist world, Patrick is the bad guy, not the loser he fired. I see it as somewhat poetic justice that Patrick now has to pay, through increased premiums, to help support this loser. Like I said, it's the bed his politics have made for him.

Maybe.

While I 100% agree it's bull**** that the terminated employee in this instance got UI it's unrealistic for the system to be so specific that it would exclude lying to the boss and any other reason not addressed by the employer in their handbook.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect an employer to dictate the specific circumstances for termination that make an ex employee ineligible. Not all businesses are the same and what may constitute a breach for one may not for another.

Imagine the bloated and bureaucratic government agency that those variables would require.

A very simple morals clause would have made this a non issue for Patrick.

I do believe we need an unemployment insurance system. It needs to be run efficiently and fairly. It's a necessary program, it's just being run wastefully.

For you to say running the system wastefully is my fault because I recognize the need for the system is like saying military waste fraud and abuse are your fault because you support having a military.

Actually, it's just being consistent. Most of our employees come to work on time and those who have deadlines to keep often stay late to meet deadline.
Through most of the 27 years I've owned this place there has always ONE person on the staff who has to be an outlier who has caused rules and procedures to be imposed on the entire staff. Someone here has a signature line that says, "I am personally responsible for 80% of the stuff employee handbook." That's the way it goes. One knucklehead messes up everything for everyone.
I would be perfectly confident that I could eliminate work hour rules for my entire staff as it stands right now and the work would continue to get done. But I can't foresee the kind of people who will come through the door looking to fill ***y's position. So we have rules.

It totally depends on the position. If you are responsible for customer service between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, then it's a pretty big problem. If you are expected to be at a morning meeting at 8:00 am and you walk in the door at 8:15, it's a pretty big problem.

Conversely, if your job is more task based, then it's no big deal. In my various roles as an engineering manager I had engineers that worked 6-2, 8-5, 9-6, etc. I understood their preferred hours and knew when to expect them in. My only expectation was that if they had a responsibility that took them outside of their normal hours (like a meeting) that they would adjust to accommodate. Ultimately it was more about them completing assigned tasks on time vs just showing up. It's all about give and take, and they appreciated my flexibility. This is also, btw, a privilege given to salary professionals. Hourly workers always have fixed hours, it's a totally different dynamic.

I think it is important to keep in mind that different business has different demands on when people have to be at the desk.

I work for a large company, we have "flex-time". That means: SOMEONE of the team (6 people + boss) has to be available from 9 to 5. No stamping at all.
We can come and go whenever we like to, as long as the above is fullfilled.
And: the job has to be done, but when it is done: feel free to go home.
In fact, the general manager sometimes asks why we still are there and dont enjoy the sun instead.
Some days half of the workplaces are empty, especially when the weather is fine or when there are major sports events on TV.

On the other hand: mentality is important.
I am always there before my boss shows up and I am often there when he leaves. I sure work more hours then the most of my colleagues, but I really enjoy my work and I do stuff others dont do.

I get the benefit of flex time where I work, but the nurses and aids don't. If they don't show up on time then the current shift worker has to stay late which results in overtime because they really can't take off early or come in late the next day because it affects the other shifts.

I think we can all agree on that.

I never said it was being run wastefully. That's certainly an issue, just not the one I was addressing. My issue is with the extremely loose eligibility requirements under which one can qualify for unemployment (we could tighten those up and the waste would still be there, just serving a smaller population).

The liberal/progressive/socialist agenda has promoted the expansion of these kinds of social services until it has become far too easy to qualify for this kind of assistance - that's what I'm getting at. In the world you have helped create, it's not this guy's "fault" that you fired him. You are just an evil business owner, and he "deserves" compensation because you had the audacity to fire him for not actually working for you... You asked far too much of him. You were "unfair".

That is what I'm getting at - this guy clearly should never have qualified for unemployment. Coddling liberal-progressive-socialists have rammed through their agenda that has allowed people like him to qualify. You very much appear to support that agenda, and now here you are, bemoaning the fact that this idiot qualified.

No. Extending benefits to people who don't deserve them is the definition of wasteful.

Utter BS. I support responsible use of UI for the benefit of employers as well as employees. To say supporting the program also means supporting the problems and shortcomings of the implementation of the program is just nuts.

OK, fair enough. But there are jobs that your attitude are not suitable for, and employers who won't put up with it. You are limited to either working for yourself, or for certain kinds of jobs/ employers. I hire consultants, marketing people, etc who I don't care what hours they work because I pay by the job. But my employees who work directly for me don't last with the kind of attitude that you just demonstrated.

In other words, they are a better fit somewhere else, that's all.