http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1431476355.jpg


People who habitually show up late have character flaws, lack of discipline, blurred vission when it comes to right vs. wrong, and cannot be trusted.

Same with effers who can't tell the truth. Just a matter of time before they start ripping off the company.

I think I said "chronically late."

That may have been the first time we started making a record of her chronic tardiness.

It wouldn't have made a difference if she had.

When the phones come on at 8:00 and your job is to answer the phones, it's pretty important to be there at 8:00, don't you think?

You're kidding, right? What sort of job do you envision where it is safe to trust an employee whom you know to be prone to lying to you?

The "attitude" demonstrated was open, honest and direct communication to you. I can do that because I don't work for you. You demonstrated what happens to people at your work when they communicate similarly. Resentment followed by turn-over should be no stranger to your organization.

I understand that certain people want certain things from employees. I imagine everyone else understands that too. Unfortunately, everybody suffers when the open, honest and direct communications occur at the meeting after the meeting. Of course it can't be a free-for-all but there are healthy miles between that and a place where people feel comfortable enough to be honest because they aren't afraid of someone with a giant, fragile ego...someone who hasn't taken an interest in his or her people but thinks another policy is the answer to most problems.

I know we're not gonna see eye to eye on this and I don't know you at all. However, as someone who works with some pretty bright people, has done both management and worker bee and has spent a pile of time watching and thinking about perspectives as both, I hope you consider talking to your people and giving them the latitude to tell you their honest thoughts. You all deserve to be on the level with each other.

Fragile ego? Excuse me?

You're the one who is insulted at just the thought....the mere thought....of being asked to sign for a copy of the employee handbook.

I have employees sign stuff all the time. No one has ever looked at a signature and said to me "Let's have an open and honest conversation about MY FEELINGS".

You are being waaayyyyy too sensitive and wayyyy to dramatic. I am very particular about my employees, which is why I have had a total of 2 people quit in 5 years, out of a total of over 30 people. One quit for heart problems, and the other thought our pace of work was too much for him. Every person that I have ever fired has asked to come back. Every one. I re-hired a few back, and they came back better than ever, and are still with me today.

You are a "precious snowflake" type of employee. The one that must be coddled and talked to in a special way. I would fire you and not think twice.

oh boy. take care.

You need to go have a good cry.

Eligibility for UI is pretty simple, you had a job and now you don't.

Qualifying is another matter.

When you accept a job you agree to the terms of employment set forth by the employer.

Think of those terms as "if you want to keep this job here are things you should and should not do"

Patrick ended up in his situation because he did not follow his own handbook and dismiss her for tardiness in the manner it prescribed.

I like Patrick, I think he's a good guy.

But he has had several issues with employees that could have been handled better.

I'd recommend either outsourcing or upgrading his HR.

At minimum it might be worth it to have his policies and procedures reviewed by an outside HR specialist.

Will cost him but given the track record he has shared with us it might save him money in the long run.

My two cents, take it for what it's worth.

:rolleyes: No wonder this employee, and their ability to collect unemployment, caught you so off guard.

Some of these folks have given you some pretty good advice. I doubt you will be able to follow it...

Having a new employee acknowledge that they've read the rules or at least acknowledge the rules have been provided is simply smart business.

Unfortunately it's necessary because some people, like OP's employee, are *******s.

No one should be offended or read anything more into it.

If you were offered a job would you quit your current one without a written / signed offer letter from the prospective employer that spells out the details of your compensation and other negotiated items?

Are you offended when you are asked to sign an NDA or contracts?

I run a small business and despite the small crew, we have a comprehensive employee handbook and collect an acknowledgement of it upon initial on-boarding, and every time a revision is published. I also have an excellent labor lawyer on speed-dial. This stuff is a royal pain. Even though California is an at-will employment state, the gub'mint is pro-labor and the laws are labyrinthine.

I think the termination for "lying" was unjustified.

Why does the employer have the right to an absolutely truthful answer to ANY question he asks the employee? How about "were you up late last night", "are you having family issues", "do you think I'm a good manager", "are you happy you were put on this project", "are you looking for another job"? If most of us were called into our bosses' office, hooked up to a lie detector, and forced to answer these questions, we'd be pretty outraged and rightly so.

Wait, lying was a termination offense here because she lied about why she was late?. Sorry, the actual reason you fired her is because she was tardy. Your company has a specific HR policy to handle tardy employees. You wanted to find a way - an excuse - to short cut - violate - your own policy. She should have gotten a suspension. Your HR person screwed up.

In retrospect, I was writing from my perspective as a long-term employee and failed to make that clear. I hope that provides some context to my reply.

She was dismissed for lying to her boss in order to circumvent the rule in the handbook, which her boss was following. Most of the responders here seemed to have understood that. How did you miss it?
If you are going to criticize me first try to understand the situation you are being critical of.

Sorry Patrick.

You allowed her to attempt to circumvent the rule.

She should have been written up and given 48 hours to produce the Police report or be suspended.

The burden of proof was her's.

You were under no obligation to cut her slack.

And FWIW, she was still late, the why really did not matter so much especially since she was late as a result of her own actions.

You are reading a lot of your won BS into this.

His/her boss went out of her way to help this person keep the job by talking to him/her before kicking in the discipline procedure.
The policy on tardiness is, you get a verbal warning, then a written warning, then a 3 day suspension. This person had been talked to but not formally warned several times, then formally verbally warned (formally = documented), then given a formal written warning, then he/she showed up 1 1/2 hours late and lied to make his/her boss believe it was an unavoidable absence in order to avoid the suspension.

We gave this person permission to lie to us?? No. We didn't. His/her boss wanted to know whether the tardiness was excusable or not. Excusable = no penalty or suspension. The person lied to make it appear that it was excusable.

The person was given time to produce the police report. It's in the OP.

It's pretty clear there is only one way that employee / employer relationship was going to eventually end.

An hour and a half late due to a traffic stop?

"Well (insert name), you are going to be suspended. If you can bring us proof of the "unavoidable delay" that caused you to be tardy then we may reconsider. Till then you will be suspended for 3 days starting on _____"

Done, over, no drama, no bull****.

Sigh ...
From the OP. "... said he/she was in a minor car accident on the way to work..."

Given time? As in you have X days to produce the report?

Had the employee not admitted to lying how much longer were you going to give them before you suspended them?

Without a deadline and consequences all you are doing is reinforcing the employees belief that they can get one over on you.

The lie was not relevant. Given the employees pattern of chronic lateness and the prospect of suspension what did you expect them to do?

The tactical mistake was firing them for lying which was not the root of the problem, the tardiness was.

Probably the most cogent comment so far in this thread.