The joys of being an employer

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

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

Changes nothing.

If it's excusable the employee needs to show evidence.

No evidence, buh bye.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

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?

No deadline, just daily requests to see the police report. When he/she was told if there was no report by tomorrow suspension would kick in, that's when the confession came.
Do you really think this person would not have lied if he/she had been given 48 hrs.? If so, why? What about 48 hrs vs 10 days would turn an honest person dishonest?

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

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

Be honest.

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

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

No. To me lying is a much, much bigger problem and once it was confirmed that this person lied to us about a work related issue there was no way he/she would be kept on the payroll no matter what UI said about it and no matter what work related issue the lie was about. To me, honesty is a fundamental requirement to employer/employee relations. That's why I was so surprised that UI requires a written policy about whether dishonesty is or is not allowed in the workplace. Some of the comments here are opening my eyes though. Apparently dishonesty is tolerated by some employers. Do you lie to your boss?

[Rick Lee]

I'm with WD on this one (though he's wrong on just about every other issue). Employee should have been fired and ineligible for UI. Just because WD didn't play the adult game of Simon Says with regard to each step in the termination process doesn't mean this lying, chronically tardy employee deserved to keep her job or to cause WD's UI premiums to rise. This is the kind of BS that just makes it harder for people to find work. You should be able to fire anyone for any reason outside of those protected classes (though I have some problems with that too). If I were the man with the gold, my rule would be to only hire people I could very easily and cheaply fire.

[xbrumossalesman]

Just curious- how much did your UI payments go up ?

[wdfifteen]

^^

I don't know yet. The HR person says, "A few bucks a month." It's based on how many people you lay off/fire over a period of time. A factory or construction company that has annual layoffs pays a higher rate than a company like ours. In 26 years I've fired 5 people and 2 of them collected UI, so it's not much money to us.

[Macroni]

Unfortunate..... you had her on attendance. You can never spend to much to terminate a bad employee and unemployment is a cheap cost. I also carry employee practices insurance which protects against wrongful termination. It does carry a significant deductible but also worth it.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

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.

I'm not saying your intentions, when you delayed escalating to the suspension, were not charitable. I'm saying you could delay escalating to that next step in your published process, but you can't simply skip over that step and go straight to termination. Look, I'm not passing judgment on you as a person; I'm giving you my assessment of your compliance, or in this case non compliance, with your own HR handbook. Good intentions don't necessarily cut it.

[pavulon]

It's remarkable that out of everything written, two words not necessarily referencing you personally resulted in an embarrassing tirade full of irony, self-importance/over-the-top douche bragging and then an insult.

Is this how you conduct your business each day?

Originally Posted by rusnak

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.

[rusnak]

Re-read your post, Pav. You open by saying that you're making an "open honest, direct" communication to me. I'm supposed to go "Oh he is not referencing me personally". Maybe you should not wade in with guns blazing next time if you don't want to be slapped around?

But whatever, man. I hope you and your sensitive feelings had a good day today after your cleansing cry last night.

After reading all of the posts here, I reaffirm my earlier statement that the OP was well within his rights to fire the continually late employee.

I had a cashier who showed up habitually late 2 years ago. I would give her warning after warning. She would lie about being in a car wreck, etc etc. My other employees would always call if they were running late, and it was never a problem. But this one gal would show up late, drunk half the time, and totally out of it. I finally fired her when she showed up several HOURS late. I re-hired her a year later. She was not a bad person, but I take employee morale very seriously. We have a pretty tight family among the crew because they all like the work that we do, I work harder than any of my employees, and they appreciate the pay, perks, food, crew clothing, etc etc. We make it a point to have fun, but they all know that our work is serious. An employee that disrespects the company also disrespects the crew family, and my guys and gals take it personally. I was asked to fire two people last year by my own head cashier. I try to give employees every benefit of the doubt. But one thing I won't tolerate, and will fire someone on the spot for, is bad prima donna attitude. I have sent people home for whining. My crew intituted that rule. You cry, you go home.

Pav, you would be sent home by my crew.

[Mike80911]

Surprising that a liberal like yourself would be so willing to add to the unemployment numbers simply because someone is late to work. Not a very understanding attitude. Stop crying if you do not want someone to get unemployment do not fire them simple enough.

[pavulon]

Looks like "fragile ego" actually does apply to you. Discussion certainly does not. Knock yourself out delusional tough guy.

Originally Posted by rusnak

Re-read your post, Pav. You open by saying that you're making an "open honest, direct" communication to me. I'm supposed to go "Oh he is not referencing me personally". Maybe you should not wade in with guns blazing next time if you don't want to be slapped around?

But whatever, man. I hope you and your sensitive feelings had a good day today after your cleansing cry last night.

After reading all of the posts here, I reaffirm my earlier statement that the OP was well within his rights to fire the continually late employee.

I had a cashier who showed up habitually late 2 years ago. I would give her warning after warning. She would lie about being in a car wreck, etc etc. My other employees would always call if they were running late, and it was never a problem. But this one gal would show up late, drunk half the time, and totally out of it. I finally fired her when she showed up several HOURS late. I re-hired her a year later. She was not a bad person, but I take employee morale very seriously. We have a pretty tight family among the crew because they all like the work that we do, I work harder than any of my employees, and they appreciate the pay, perks, food, crew clothing, etc etc. We make it a point to have fun, but they all know that our work is serious. An employee that disrespects the company also disrespects the crew family, and my guys and gals take it personally. I was asked to fire two people last year by my own head cashier. I try to give employees every benefit of the doubt. But one thing I won't tolerate, and will fire someone on the spot for, is bad prima donna attitude. I have sent people home for whining. My crew intituted that rule. You cry, you go home.

Pav, you would be sent home by my crew.

[rusnak]

Originally Posted by pavulon

The "attitude" demonstrated was open, honest and direct communication to you.

Originally Posted by pavulon

two words not necessarily referencing you personally

Originally Posted by pavulon

delusional

Oh you made me quote you. And you want to call me delusional?

You just need to be stroked and coddled juuuust right, haha!! I am going to guess that you are not nearly as outspoken at work, and you feel frustrated at not being asked nicely in a nice way to do your job. Which is the reason for the shrill stuff you post here. Go on and get down with your bad self, dude.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by jyl

I'm giving you my assessment of your compliance, or in this case non compliance, with your own HR handbook. Good intentions don't necessarily cut it.

Thanks for your assessment. I guess you and I and the Unemployment bureau will have to disagree. They stated that where we went wrong was not spelling out in the handbook that lying to your boss about a work related matter was grounds for termination. They didn't even ask about our attendance policy.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Macroni

Unfortunate..... you had her on attendance. You can never spend to much to terminate a bad employee and unemployment is a cheap cost.

Yeah, I hear you. If we had ignored the lie and suspended the person for attendance, he/she would probably have stepped in it again eventually. But in the mean time we would have had someone in an important position on our staff who knew she could look is in the eye and lie to us and get away with it. I can't imagine what that would be like. As you say, its cheaper to pay the addition insurance.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

No deadline, just daily requests to see the police report. When he/she was told if there was no report by tomorrow suspension would kick in, that's when the confession came.
Do you really think this person would not have lied if he/she had been given 48 hrs.? If so, why? What about 48 hrs vs 10 days would turn an honest person dishonest?



Be honest.



No. To me lying is a much, much bigger problem and once it was confirmed that this person lied to us about a work related issue there was no way he/she would be kept on the payroll no matter what UI said about it and no matter what work related issue the lie was about. To me, honesty is a fundamental requirement to employer/employee relations. That's why I was so surprised that UI requires a written policy about whether dishonesty is or is not allowed in the workplace. Some of the comments here are opening my eyes though. Apparently dishonesty is tolerated by some employers. Do you lie to your boss?

Well that's the point.

They were going to lie.

They were going to be found out.

Why would you give them 2 weeks to come clean when you did not owe them 2 seconds to provide proof?

When an employee gets to the point of suspension it's done, over, one way or the other it's time to move that person along so you stick to the process and "git er done".

Who cares at that point why, late or liar, does not matter, same end result.

And you already knew they were lying. You called the police department and they confirmed no incident or report.

Why did you drag it out? It served zero purpose. The only thing anyone got out of it was 2 weeks of unnecessary drama.

2 weeks that you could have used to verify with UI if firing for lying would exempt employee from receiving benefits.

Like I said, I think you are a good guy, but you let emotion get the better of you on this one and I stand by my position, you made an avoidable tactical mistake.

[jyl]

+1

Re-reading the OP, I see you knew right away there was no accident investigated by police, since you checked with the police. So you knew her lateness was without good reason. So why didn't you proceed immediately with the suspension? Were you unwilling to tell her flatly "Nope, I checked with police, I don't believe you, you're suspended"?

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

Well that's the point.

Like I said, I think you are a good guy, but you let emotion get the better of you on this one and I stand by my position, you made an avoidable tactical mistake.

I wasn't directly involved in this. I knew what was going on but let the person's boss and the HR person hash out the details, so whether I'm a good guy or not is irrelevant.

The entire point of posting this story was to point out that according to UI an employer has to have specific language in the employee handbook that states that lying to your boss about a work related matter is grounds for dismissal. I am still astounded by that. The rest of the details don't really matter to me. YOU CAN LIE TO YOUR BOSS AND UI THINKS THAT'S OK UNLESS YOU WERE SPECIFICALLY TOLD IN THE HANDBOOK YOU CAN'T LIE. I find that incredible and I'm astounded that no one else thinks anything of it.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

I wasn't directly involved in this. I knew what was going on but let the person's boss and the HR person hash out the details.....


.....I find that incredible and I'm astounded that no one else thinks anything of it.

I think a suggestion that "next time do your homework" is in order for both of them.

As far as finding it incredible, no, not so much.

In my business acquisition is a regular occurrence.

The disparate HR policies are always a nightmare.

You see and learn a lot when you deal with integrating companies.

The first thing you learn is leave emotion and assumption at the door and focus on policy.

[rusnak]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

I think a suggestion that "next time do your homework" is in order for both of them.

As far as finding it incredible, no, not so much.

In my business acquisition is a regular occurrence.

The disparate HR policies are always a nightmare.

You see and learn a lot when you deal with integrating companies.

The first thing you learn is leave emotion and assumption at the door and focus on policy.

^ This is good advice, but much much harder to do in a small company than a large one. You get caught up in the single mom daily struggles, want to help out your staff, try to just suck it up when they let you down, and on and on.

[fongce]

I would always assume that terminating someone will result in their getting UI and your rates increasing. Even if done for a very legitimate, undisputed reason like low-performance or failure to meet goals, UI is pretty easy to get.