Paul and Mike, who both work for a mid-sized US corporation, are having dinner and drinks after meeting clients abroad. They go back about a decade, they are not friends, but not overtly hostile. However, Paul does believe that Mike has, over the years, gained a higher position than Paul, in part by occasionally trashing some of Paul’s work. Paul believes Mike is somewhat of a Blue Falcon, and some friends of Paul have for sure been screwed over by Mike.
The conversation is lubricated by a bottle or two of wine, and subjects get personal. At some point, Paul swears Mike to secrecy, and after getting assurances of complete discretion, Paul confesses that he was recently sentenced for having wine sent directly to his home in Pennsylvania (a no-no in hat fine state) and has to do 20 hours of community service. He exhorts Mike to not tell anyone, and Mike reassures him that his lips are sealed.
But Paul lied, the conviction etc. never happened.
A week after their return to the U.S. Paul is called into the corporate HQ, where he is asked about his recent conviction, and given the impression that he is about to be fired. Paul truthfully states this never happened, and after a records search, the company apologizes and sends him home. Paul later finds out that a promotion that might well have been Mike’s went to someone else.
So: how justified is Mike’s furious anger at Paul? If the company finds out that Paul did in fact say this to Mike, likely with the intent to set him up, how justified are they in severely disciplining him? Is Paul a bad person?
Mike might have been the one to leak the story…but he might not have been. It is wrong for Paul to leap to the conclusion that Mike must have been the one to have told. Horrible coincidences like that happen in real life.
Meanwhile, if a promotion were denied to Mike on this basis, he has a very legitimate grievance, not with Paul, but with the corporation. He needs to get a lawyer and sue them, pronto. They’ve now made two very serious blunders in workplace law: accusing Paul without verifying if he’d ever actually been arrested, and denying Mike a promotion on the basis of a possible leak of a confidence.
This company needs a competent HR manager, one who comprehends workplace law and the rights of employees.
Paul was a stupid foolish jerk for placing temptation before Mike, and for lying to him. If Mike peached to management, shame on him, but he did not break the law. The corporation did, twice.
Leaving aside some of the technicalities (that HR should have checked first; that they probably wouldn’t care that much about what sounds like a misdemeanor) let’s look at what the company would want in general.
Do they care if Mike is a tattle-tale, whether or not his motives are self-serving? No. They probably won’t want to reward him, but they are probably glad to get the information he would provide (as a starting place for further investigation, let it be noted again). They would also know not to trust him with sensitive information, if it ever came to that.
Do they care if Paul committed this kind of minor offense? Probably not a lot. But it might end up on his record as a black mark for a while.
Would they care if they found out that Paul set up Mike in the way described? I think they would care the most about this. This stunt wasted their time for no purpose. In this case, I think Paul can kiss any future promotions good-bye (or something worse).
I don’t think Paul is a bad person, but I don’t think much of his workplace ethics. I don’t like it when people spend time and energy trying to undermine fellow workers. The economic health of the department and the company should come before those kinds of stunts. In other words, do your job as best you can, and let the chips fall. Learn to promote yourself better, if that’s what you value, but don’t do it by tearing other people down. If you find that other people are doing that to you, be a better person than they are. It will pay in the long run.
If Paul wants to lose his job, he can just resign instead of paying a lawyer to file a baseless suit. In the US there isn’t any workplace law that’s been violated, so unless he’s got a specific contract clause, all hiring a lawyer can do is piss off the company. Corporate HQ is being irresponsible and stupid to tell Paul they’re going to fire him for an unsubstantiated rumor instead of checking that the conviction actually happened (which should be trivial for them), but they’re not breaking the law or doing something they could be sued for. I’m really not sure what you’re saying about Mike, other than discriminating against protected classes a company can set whatever conditions they want on promotions.
I think they are both idiots with the emotional maturity of six year olds.
Did Mike really tattle on Paul? Is that why he was denied the promotion? Or is he just mad because Paul pranked him?
If corporate asks (they shouldn’t) Paul should simply deny having said anything to Mike, and suggest that Mike is making up shit because they’re enemies. That way, Mike looks like a vindictive liar and tattletale, instead of a gullible tattletale.
Sorry, “Blue Falcon” = Buddy F*cker
This particular scheme is one (I think) I talked someone out of quite a few years ago. Paul “knew” HQ would react in knee-jerk fashion, but on proof of his innocence, would turn on Mike for lying about Paul. In Paul’s original scheme, the fake conviction was for assault. I told him Mike’s tattling would be justified, but that was because it dealt with assault. Not telling could put co-workers in danger. So I tweaked the “crime” in the scenario. I’m of two minds - Paul is an idiot for starting something like this, but Mike needs to not try and screw his co-worker over by telling on things said in confidence, unless directly relevant to safety, liability etc. So I asked the TM
I don’t think “Paul” ever went ahead with this, he’s a neighbour 2 houses ago, though, so I wouldn’t know.
