Yep. In a world where a lot of employees walk through metal detectors to do their jobs every day, and employee that loses his temper at work can be a scary thing. If its once in a great while with provocation - maybe - but when its easily believed he hits his wife girlfriend because he loses his temper at work, what is he doing there to start with? What happens when he hits one of your staff and you are saying “well, he had a temper…”
seems to me that folks here want to go to extremes, and to ignore the fact that people can be improved by the judicious application of punishment, with the opportunity to reform.
We forgive people all sorts of offenses without depriving them of their livelihood. Judges even let drunk drivers use their cars only to go back and forth to work, knowing that the family is so negatively effected by the loss of the man’s employment that to force them to lose that employment would be a greater crime against the family than to moderate the punishment, watch carefully for reform, etc.
I’m personally in favor of letting the justice system guide your treatment of an offender. If he or she is penalized by the justice system, short of jail, then let the offender know that you are aware of their situation and that while you don’t want to make life more difficult for them, they should be aware you are watching them for any hint that they might do something to hurt your company.
Agree with this 100%
Lots of different moving parts here. On the “never hit a woman” ideal, it has the same weakness as most “never” and “always” arguments. There are righteous and meaningful exceptions. I’ve known women who were surprisingly violent, and surprisingly strong. If a woman goes into a rage and swings a lamp, or throw a bowl, is a man not supposed to defend himself? Whoever initiates force and violence is to blame, man or woman, and the other should defend themself. No, don’t pummel the other into a coma, to stretch an argument into an absurdity, but if a woman is swinging or throwing an item as a weapon, then she deserves to be hit.
As for firing an employee proven to commit domestic violence, I’d ask if someone supporting that notion would support it for both men and women, in any position in a company, no matter how important or profitable. I’d guess the answer is ‘no’, as one would think of exceptions. The NFL is different, and Rice is a public figure working for an organization that values public perception. Hitting his girlfriend has nothing to do with his job performance, but he was sacrificed in the name of PR.
I think there’s an option everyone has overlooked here. First of all, the company should already have a policy in place before the incident. Let’s say that the policy is something like “Any employee convicted of a crime which would negatively impact on the company’s good name shall be fired with cause”. Then, when the incident happens, you sit down with the employee, point out the policy, and ask if he would like to resign for “personal reasons”. If he wants to, he can still fight it, and probably end up with a big black mark on his employment history, or he can just quietly step away and avoid at least some of the public fanfare.
See post #6.
This just pushes the question one step back, to “should the company adopt a policy that requires termination of…”
Also, if conviction is the relevant factor, this doesn’t address what to do upon arrest.
My husband worked at a mine in Northern BC. His boss was a pill and treated the people on his crews like crap. Then one day he didn’t make it onto the plane that would take him to the mine site. Seems he was in jail for beating up a prostitute while he was in a drunken rage. The company gave him a couple of choices, rehab or firing. He took the rehab. After rehab he didn’t treat the crew any better he was still a horses ass.
I don’t trust the cops enough to fire an employee over an arrest. If an employee is convicted of domestic violence, fighting dogs, child abuse, rape, etc I would fire them due to days missed.
Legally or ethically? Legally in the USA you can fire anyone for almost anything (except race, religion, and a few other things).
If there’s a video of quality at least as good as the RR video, I would fire. If, for some reason, the guy was irreplaceable at his position, I’d send him through an anger management class and have him train a replacement, and then terminate upon conviction.
If his behavior harms your business in any way fire him, if it doesn’t ignore it.
Actually, some states do prohibit employers from making employment decisions based on arrest records. Federally, the EEOC states that employment decisions should only be based on the conduct that caused the arrest if the conduct is job-related.
And even that may be an iffy cause if the employee was able to let the employer know that he would be out of the office for a few days to take care of personal matters.
Unless there are very specific guidelines, the employee would be bringing up how Sue from accounting had to take 3 days off for her custody hearing, and Fred in shipping had to take 2 days off for his divorce hearing and Jim had to be out for a couple of days because his kid was fixin’ to be sent to juvie… and blah blah blah.
This is why workplaces need good HR guidelines.
He’s got a wife? And kids? I’m going to punish them because he hits them? When they dump him, I’ll consider the same. Perhaps his partner will need a job after she dumps him: his might be vacant around that time.
This illustrates a lot of the problems with the “no-drop” and “must arrest” domestic violence policies held by most (all?) prosecuting attorneys in the country. The neighbors hear a fight and the police are called. The woman is found with a red mark on her cheek. Man is arrested, charged with domestic violence, and as a condition of his bail is ordered to have no contact with her. She tells the prosecutor that yes he did smack her, but she wants it dropped. No dice, says the prosecutor, we will not drop the charges.
First, this attitude is very paternalistic. We assume that women are such delicate flowers that they cannot make a rational decision on what is the best course for themselves and/or their families. We assume that they are simply chronically abused and are incapable of leaving the relationship if they choose. Maybe their entire relationship consists of each of them getting drunk and slap happy? Should the state get involved in what is essentially agreed upon mutual combat in a private home?
Second, and in keeping with the spirit of the thread, the man might be the sole provider of this family. He now faces a job loss and alienation from his home and children. This further harms the alleged victim of domestic violence. Her only recourse is to file for divorce or separate maintenance to get some type of child support or alimony. This further puts a wedge in a family with problems that may have worked themselves out had the state not decided to be a referee.
I’m not unsympathetic to truly abused women. In the old days, the police would look the other way and chalk it up as a family problem. Today it seems the pendulum has swung too far the other way.
Can you tell us what makes a woman “truly abused”?
Do you think women are incapable of domestic violence?
Nothing. If they are showing up on time, not engaging in illegal behavior on company property/time and doing their job / meeting target quotas etc, then they are meeting their obligations to you and the company.
Their outside life is simply not your concern.
My question to you would be: Why do you think you have the obligation, or right, to act as a second judge, jury and executioner of this person? Do you also do so with employees who get traffic tickets, or are in an argument with their HOA? What about civil cases they may be involved in, or a child custody or divorce case? What about wills, you handling those too?
I’m not trying to be snarky (too much, maybe a teensy bit), my point is, you’ve become aware of possibly derogatory information about this individual NOT related to conduct at work. You may have firing authority, but why do you presume you have ANY responsibility to act at all?
Regards,
-Bouncer-
So the better solution would be to let the ability of the abusive husband to threaten the wife with further violence be the determinant of whether he gets charged - and the more credible his threats, the less likely he’ll be charged?
If the alternative to that Kafkaesque dilemma is a smidgen of paternalism, I’m OK with that.