“Hopefully he will have enough sense to not get drunk and insult the bosses wife in public. Now get the fuck out of my office and send that other idiot in here on your way out!”
At this point any further argument is moot. In this scenario, Patrice and LeMoyne fucked up and now they have to go deal with the consequences. It’s largely irrelevant if they think Geoff is an arsehole or idiot or unprofessional. They aren’t the ones in charge.
Also, this is not “treating your employee like a feudal serf”. In your mind, does “kissing the bosses ass” mean “refraining from holding court with a bunch of drunken jerkoffs cracking jokes about how you wouldn’t fuck the boss’ wife with a stolen dick”?
Let’s be clear. Patrice and LeMoyne are the assholes. What they were doing wouldn’t have been cool even if it wasn’t their bosses wife. The fact that they did it at an event where their boss could (and did) overhear them makes them stupid on top of it.
What is it you think is “insecure” about not tolerating someone making crude remarks about your wife?
In a civilized society when those crude remarks are not slander and do not present a reasonable threat of violence, we expect adults to tolerate them. Free speech isn’t just about speech you like, it means you tolerate the speech you don’t. Patrice and LeMoyne were crude and I would have told them so, walked away from the conversation, and avoided hanging out with them socially in the future. However, that doesn’t mean I would try to get them fired from their jobs which is easily as much a violent act against them as Geoff trying to punch one of them. Geoff is acting insecure. He probably realizes deep down his wife is ugly, he loves her anyway, but he doesn’t like to be reminded of this fact. And if he hadn’t been listening in he wouldn’t have overheard anything.
Err, that’s exactly what they were doing. “Just outside the door of the wedding venue” isn’t exactly a private room, a park bench or a cosy corner table…
To my mind, eavesdropping requires some level of mens rea, but Geoff didn’t go outside with the intent to overhear them. They impinged on him. That’s not eavesdropping, that’s them being public.
Let me ask a question - if L&P had been making fun of G’s wife because she was, say, immigrant Asian, rather than ugly, would that still sit fine with those saying “Don’t fire them?” Say they said things like:
“I bet she love him longtime! ‘Sucky-fucky, five Dollar!’” and “He must like sideways pussy!” Would it be “insecure” to fire them then?
I’m not sure “misogynistic” is the right word for L & P. They’re clearly jackholes, but their hateful remarks don’t seem to be about Donna as a woman. They’re about her being UGLY. They might well have said similar things if Donna were a hot chick married to a troll.
I have fired people for gossiping before, and would again. Gossips have a hugely negative effect on morale and productivity. They also spend an enormous amount of time gossiping instead of working. Given the nature of the conversation, I’d say these are pretty nasty people, and their comments were viciously prejudiced. I have every reason to believe that this is their accustomed MO in conversation and that if they don’t think twice about insulting their employer’s spouse, there’s no reason to believe they have any scruples whatsoever about bad-mouthing anyone.
Why would I continue to employ someone who I know is a risk to create a hostile workplace for anyone whose attractiveness is not up to their standards? And how would I ever expect to maintain authority in a workplace where people feel free to speak so rudely about my loved ones?
I’m betting Stephen soon discovers that the other salespeople have been held back by LeMoyne’s negative presence, and that overall sales will remain steady in the near-term, and move up in future as repeat customers begin to build. People who need your goods may buy them in a pinch despite a negative encounter, but they won’t recommend you or come back themselves.
Employing jerks will always come back to bite you. Never hold on to an employee who you couldn’t trust to be a manager; and how could you possibly trust these two to manage anyone? Are you going to divide the staff by attractiveness and make sure they only manage good-looking people?!?
There’s much more of an expectation that women be hot than the other way around, though. Just look at the fat guy/hot wife sitcom dynamic.
*But *I was more referring to the crude sexual remarks. C’mon, even if it was a hot woman/troll situation, you’re not often going to get “I bet he goes down easy” remarks - much more likely to be about his bank account. That’s the misogyny I mean.
Admittedly I wrote the remarks to be offensive and inviting a punch in the ball. But I don’t think “misogynistic” is the right word to describe them. But that really isn’t about the situation of the OP; more about the definition of “misogyny.”
I can’t agree with you there. Marginal closers often claim that they’d do better without competition from a particular good closer, but I’ve not seen that to be true.
And LeMoyne may well be capable of compartmentalizing his behavior–behaving one way at the dealership, an entirely different way off the clock. Hell, I do that. Work!Skald is nothing like Board!Skald, except that both think Mrs. Rhymer is the most fetching woman on the planet and neither gets drunk.
Unless Geoff has superhuman powers of forgiveness and forgetting, the wife-insulting incident likely caused a near-permanent rift in the mutual respect between co-workers. Maybe they can apologize and fix that rift, but if they can’t, then either Geoff has to leave or they do. Otherwise, the business will suffer seriously.
People, in general, are fairly sexist. Were the rolls reversed, the pair would likely be talking about how Geoff must be rich, have a 12" tongue, and/or have a 18" ding dong. While not flattering, the remarks would likely not be nearly as hateful as the hot guy/ugly wife remarks.
Here’s a test: If Patrice or Lemoyne said those things while interviewing for a position with Geoff, do you think Geoff should hire them even if they were the best candidate? It’s a difficult question to answer as calling a hiring manager’s wife fugly during your interview is generally shows such a high level of unprofessionalism and lack of judgment that it sort of renders the rest of the qualifications moot.
You seem to misunderstand the nature of “free speech”. Slander and threats of violence are not the only forms of speech not protected by the First Amendment. Hate speech is also not protected. Neither is obscenity. And like it or not, the First Amendment does not protect against a private corporation restricting how an employee expresses themselves at work.
But regardless of the laws, the concept of free speech certainly does not mean you have to sit there and take some drunken jerk making cracks about your wife. Geoff may not be allowed to physically assault the person, but that doesn’t mean he has to give them a paycheck either.
In any event, I would be secure enough to fire their ass without giving a second thought as to what anyone thought about it.
In seething anger, I would do the same. Under the cold, harsh light of logic (let’s call him Stephen), I’d need to consider the effect of losing a top performer like LeMoyne. Wouldn’t be any good to let him go and lose my own job 6 months down the road because we’re losing numbers…to the guy we let go!
Patrice stays or goes based on the LeMoyne decision. Don’t give her a chance to file a discrimination claim by sacking her and keeping LeMoyne. If they get to stay, there must be other repercussions.
The lawsuits that companies don’t want to mess with typically involve sexual harassment, race, religion, sexual orientation or some other similarly protected class. Do Patrice and LeMoyne belong to one of those protected classes?
Being a drunk asshole who got fired for making wildly inappropriate sexist comments about your bosses wife is not a protected class. And in fact, had they made those comments at work, there is a good chance the company could have been sued for NOT firing them. Do you think that story makes them appear sympathetic to a judge or jury?
And by “cook up a scenario” do you imagine that Patrice and LeMoyne will risk charges for perjury, contempt, filing a frivolous lawsuit or other sanctions for making up a bullshit lawsuit? Do you think they could find a lawyer who would be willing to risk that?
And putting that story out to the general public is a great idea. Here’s the headline. “Pair of Jackasses Fired for Being Dumbasses”. Can’t wait to see that news cycle on CNN. Could you imaging Geoff having to explain that to Donna? “I’m sorry honey. It’s true. I overheard those two idiots insulting you so I fired them the following Monday. Can you forgive me?”
During the job interview is not the same as having an off-work conversation. Notice that second to the last word OFF-WORK, it’s very important. Your boss does not have the right to dictate what you do once you are off the job. If they did people could be fired for being gay or not belonging to a certain religion, culture, social class, etc. Actually the concept of free speech does mean you have to tolerate someone making cracks about your wife if you choose to stand there listening to the conversation. If Geoff had walked away he would not have heard 90% of the conversation. Instead he choose to easedrop and discovered someone had a different opinion than him.