Another "Should we fire this one?" Thread (very long)

In My Humble Opinion
41

I always thought the policy here was that you don’t post what you don’t want to be public. They have a lot of guidelines for this, ie don’t post legal or medical questions, don’t post names, etc, but if people choose to be fairly ignorant about thinking about their posts before they make them, that is not the fault or the responsibility of the Reader.

I beleive I read recently where the SDMB also refused to delete a thread that someone posted about an affair and was worried about it being used in divorce proceedings. In other words, if you don’t want legal exposure, keep your mouth shut. At this point, the SDMB deleting the thread could be ethically likened to destroying evidence.

I was reading the thread, post after post, and wondering when someone was going to mention their legal exposure for just docking an employee’s paycheck. That’s completely illegal except under very specific circumstances, and I am surprised that any small business owner would think this was something they could do on a whim.

I also disagree with those people who say now they know why the e3mployee has a bad attitude. No, you don’t. This was one (albeit badly handled) incident. The OP has repeatedly mentioned that nothing like this has happened before, and that they operate a pretty friendly and happy business. If a manager calls you into their office and asks about why you might have a bad attitude about certain things, the best answer to that question is a long long way from “I’m fine.”

You ask the manager questions:
“What has caused you to perceive me as having a bad attitude?”
“How should I have handled incident X?”
“Yes, I think this poslicy is flawed, we should change a, b, and c to make it better.”

None of this means changes are going to come about right away, but it certainly is more likely to keep you on better terms with management than just “I’m fine.” “I’m fine” is the answer of someone who plans to screw over the company the day after they hand out bonuses.

42

I don’t see how an employee resigning is “screwing over” anybody. Bonuses are based on past work, they’re not an advance on next year’s salary.

43

Maybe they just meant leaving without giving notice; the implication was she would quit on the spot.

44

I beleive the implication was that she would show up for a regular shift, collect her bonus, and then resgn effective immediately.

Professionalism dictates that you give an employer notice if you plan to leave your job. Jut dropping them with no notice (if you knew about leaving) is kinda jerkish.

45

There are two issues.

Issue One: the head receptionist has been moody and emotional for a while, for unexplained reasons; management speculates on substance abuse as a cause; she can’t or won’t explain, but an alternative might be she’s been diagnosed with cancer, for instance. Note the evidence is just as good for that as for abuse. And management listens to a ‘friend’ of hers, after the money issue and upset occurred, who reports her for planning to quit or to get fired.

Reading the posts, this may weigh with the OP as much as the theft. It needs to be addressed separately, regardless.

46

Issue Two, the money:

Funny how some items here that are management’s responsibility, somehow are being handed off to the employees.

“All three receptionists swore…it had to be an employee that stole the money.”–Why are they the crime experts here? If someone can’t imagine an alternative, it may well be lack of knowledge rather that a proof that there was no alternative.

“The head receptionist herself suggested lie detector tests.”–and management went along.

“the owners decided to split taking the money out of the receptionists checks who did not watch the drawer.”–Ok, that was a management decision.–wait, it was an employee suggestion, "the other two receptionists both volunteered to have that money taken out (one wanted to pay all of it herself) "

“She did make a judgment call (leaving one person at the desk by leaving for lunch with the other receptionist) that also created the opportunity for theft.”–it was not a management decision, designing the money-handling, that created the opportunity? (see other posts for proper money-handling techniques).

Post #9 seems to say that since management bends in favor of the employees in certain (generous) ways, they can bend rules the other way at their own discretion. I’d prefer to see proper standards in place.

Management changed the cash procedures, but “We asked them to vote on how they wanted it done” and it sounds as if the office still doesn’t have a proper procedure.

“Do you approve of how your management is handling this situation?” and all three 100% approved–again it’s up to the employees somehow, management is off the hook for their handling.

All this would make me very uncomfortable, whether as an employee or as a manager.
Another item for Issue One, prior post:
Two of the three agree to be clipped a hundred, and the third is upset when she’s clipped. Management doesn’t understand this. (Put this line under Issue One, prior post.)

47

Last year, about $210 went missing from our office safe. Only I and our bookkeeper had access to it, and I knew i hadn’t taken it, and I was pretty damned sure she hadn’t taken it. The employee that brought me the money searched his vehicle; the building from which he’d brought it was carefully searched; we examined the receipt he’d brought me to make sure I’d understood what we were signing; and I spent one frantic evening digging through the recyclables to see if somehow the envelope with the money had been accidentally thrown away. We looked everywhere–I mean everywhere. It was gone.

And by everywhere, I mean everywhere except for this bizarre little pocket on the door of the safe, exactly the size of an envelope, and into which the envelope of money had fallen at some point, becoming perfectly invisible unless you saw this thin pocket and peered directly into it. We found it a couple weeks later.

I’m not saying that there’s a pocket on the door of your safe; but I’m saying that when you think you’ve exhausted all other possibilities, you’ve not.

Daniel

48

This is an accurate statement.

From the registration agreement:

49

I don’t know if the checks have been docked. If they haven’t, don’t do it! Under no circumstances do it! The only time you can do it is if the employee confesses to stealing the money and signs an okay for the money to be taken from the paycheck. Otherwise, danger! Danger!

I would refuse a polygraph test because I don’t think they are good enough. If I were very junior, I would be cowed by others volunteering for it, afraid for my reputation and my job. It’s such an extreme measure that if I suggested it, I would certainly be joking. It’s like something from a bad sitcom.

I’ve never worked in a cash-heavy business, so I have nothing to offer regarding that. But $300 shouldn’t be that big a deal, to subject four employees to a lie detector test. That pegs my absurd-o-meter.

50

This office as described is far better than well-meaning; they have put considerable resources into making themselves a first-class place to work.

But things have gone elsewhere in a handbasket.

The point here is the concept of clear-cut, normal, professional business practices, particularly in handling money (decision-making also). It appears that if correct practices had been followed, the $300 gap would be one person’s unquestioned responsibility.

Doing it professionally makes life so much simpler.

51

You make an excellent point, Left Hand. Employers need to be very careful in these situations to not burn bridges with employees (sort of like when you lose the remote at home and run around accusing everyone else of stealing it, then find it in the fridge the next day, except with quitting and possible lawsuits!).

52

Of course, were I the manager, I’d be very…careful about relying on a polygraph to tell me anything conclusive.

53

You probably don’t need me to tell you that you guys really handled this situation in the worst possible way.

If I were one of the suspected employees, I would have refused the polygraph test. And if my boss ever told me that they were docking my pay because of a situation like that? Well, I’d haul their collective asses in front of the state Labor Board.

54

Put me in the group that feels like polygraphing everyone over $300 is insulting, disrespectful and petty. I don’t care if one of them suggested it. You should have declined. You said this person has worked there for a long time and has been a loyal and reliable employee. How do you think she feels about being suddenly being treated like a criminal after all that time? Even if she sugested a polygraph, she probably didn’t think you’d put her under the lights.

as for firing her- I don’t see that you have any grounds except that someone else told you she was planning to quit. The way I see it, you should decide if she’s worth keeping around. If she is, then you should apologize to her for the way you treated her and make her feel valued and respected again. If you think she’s not worth keeping, then maybe you should be prepared preemptively to hire somebody else. I would suggest asking her straight out if she plans to walk and maybe you can resolve the problem that way.

Anyway, I think polygraphing everyone was over the top (especially over such a paltry sum) and it’s not the kind of thing that inspires loyalty or respect from employees. I don’t even agree with the decision to take money out of the paychecks of people who stole nothing.

Polygraphs are totally unreliable, by the way.

55

A polygraph? Over $300? You have to be kidding! If I were any of the receptionists, I’d have taken the polygraph test and started looking for a new job immediately afterwards.

And judging by the responses in this thread, so would a lot of other people in the same situation. I don’t think the OP can be confident of holding onto his staff now.

Just

(A polygraph test? Really?)

56

I can’t believe you gave them polygraph tests. Why didn’t you just hire a tarot card reader to tell you who stole the money?

57

The tarot card reader wanted $1500, but the polygraph was only a grand. They’re trying to cut costs now that the till is down $300. Verge of bankruptcy, you know.