Say one of my employees is accused of domestic violence. Should I punish him?

In My Humble Opinion
61

I’m not Skald, but: obligation? No. Right? Yes. Unless you’re in a state where employment isn’t ‘at will,’ an employer can fire an employee for any reason at any time, except for specifically protected reasons like race, religion, sex, and the like, as ratatoskK noted earlier.

And while he isn’t under any obligation to act as (all that stuff), we all do things that we’re under no obligation to do, because we feel we should, or because we want to, or just for the hell of it.

Now specifically this:

Executioners carry out death sentences. I’d have a real problem with a private person, employer or not, doing that. I hope you realize that’s not what we’re talking about here.

And we all act as judges and juries in the ambit of our own lives. I know a guy who kept cheating on his (now estranged, soon to be ex-) wife. Or rather, I used to know him. I don’t have anything to do with him anymore. That’s how I roll. He didn’t break any laws, but I acted as judge and jury of the part of his life - his friendship with me - that was under my control.

What right did I have to act as judge and jury? Didn’t his wife punish him enough by finally giving him his walking papers? No; I just decided I didn’t want to have anything to do with him. My life, my choice. If I were his employer, it would be: my business, my choice.

62

Of course, but that’s not what the OP is referring to, unless he is using his right to terminate willy nilly. We’re talking about using that right to act as an element of the judicial system, and so far as I’m aware that was never stated as one of Mr. Skalds supervisory responsibilities.

So you’re what, advocating for the capacious ability to terminate employees, thus affecting them and their families “just for the hell of it”? You really think that’s good corporate policy?

Sorry, I was using the second definition of the word, such that Skald, by firing the person, would be:
“a person who executes an act, will, judgment, etc.”

That’s personal, this is business. If this person was a client worth 1.3Billion dollars to your business, would you still refuse to have anything to do with him anymore? If you would still maintain a relationship, then you understand the difference between personal and business relationships. Mr. Skald has a business relationship with this individual because they are both employees of the same company, and Mr. Skald is his supervisor.

That’s fine, but you are not his employer, and neither is Mr. Skald unless he OWNS the business. Mr. Skalds job is to act to increase revenues and protect the company. Unless this person is acting in a way to create a PR issue for the company or creating an unsafe working environment or otherwise violating a tenet of employment, then the company has no financial stake in this issue, therefore it’s not their concern, nor really, Mr. Skalds.

Be careful about getting into a discussion of what constitutes the appropriate reasons to fire someone for off company activity. Neither the company nor it’s supervisory employees are part of the judicial system, and they really should not be.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

63

We are? I’m not. I don’t think the OP is, but I’ll let Skald speak for himself on that if he wants.

I’m not advocating for anything - I’m just pointing out that that already is the law just about everywhere in America, whether it’s good corporate policy or not.

Absolutely! If he’s worth $1.3B to my business, then I have a >$1.3B business, and unless my profit margins are really, really small, I’m rich, I can do whatever I want.

Seriously, in that situation, I’d have options. I’d be somewhere on the sliding scale from a business doing $1.3B worth of business, where this guy is my only client, to doing tens of billions of dollars worth of business. At the end where this guy is my only client or my main meal ticket, I could sell the business to someone else. I might not get full value if I wanted to sell quickly, but whatever. And if I’m doing so many billions of dollars that I can drop a $1.3B client, then I just drop him. In between, I might spin off part of my business, and sell the part that includes him.

Well, let’s assume that we’re talking about the owner making this decision. Because otherwise, you do whatever company policy dictates, and the entire debate goes away. (Poof.)

Why should I be careful about getting into a discussion of what constitutes the appropriate reasons to fire someone for off company activity? What happens to me if I get into such a discussion? Will I experience nausea or shortness of breath?

No, they’re part of the people system, where people can decide they don’t want to associate with other people for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all. And while corporations are not people, the people who own them, run them, and work for them are all people.

64

Also: the fact that an incident may potentially become a matter for the courts, doesn’t require that everybody else act as if it didn’t happen unless and until someone’s convicted of a crime.

65

Or, let’s not. The hypothetical is specifically about what Skald, who is a manager, should do.

66

Then what’s the point of this discussion? Zzzzzzzzz…follow company policy…zzzzzzzz…

Really, if the hypothetical itself renders moot the very discussion the OP clearly intends to start, it’s time to fight (or at least adjust) the hypothetical.

67

Or, you could open a thread where the hypothetical is anything that you want it to be. Last time I checked, we’re still allowed to do that.

68

And last time I checked, I could post as I have done.

A whole bunch of people have posted in this thread as if the OP was in a position to make policy, rather than simply follow established rules. Feel free to make an omnibus post quoting each of them, and telling them they’ve got a lot of nerve to be fighting the hypothetical.

Last time I checked, you’re still allowed to do that.