My daughter is 32 - still fighting words - and sometimes, the consequences for throwing that punch is absolutely worth it.
Fire whoever came up with the salesman competition that incentivizes people to sabotage sales of the dealership. That’s just bad business.
The cat was driving the car at the time. . .
“Daughter’s … honor … insulted! Must … redress … with violence!”
I get that this attitude is predictable among many people, but I’m not sympathetic. Even the Klingons in this thread presumably must agree that Frank’s daughter remains just as marriageable, and her dowry price will be unaffected.
“Fighting words” may be a defense to an assault charge in some circumstances, but it wouldn’t stop me from firing Frank. Tony is vile and should be fired as well, of course, but we’re all going to encounter vile people from time to time, and insults to family honor strike me as within what a civilized person simply has to bear. I get angry sometimes when someone cuts me off in traffic, but even if he put my life in danger in the process, I’m not entitled to yank him out of his car at the next red light and deck him. Why should “honor anger” be more acceptable than road rage?
How many potential customers scurried away when Frank escalated the incident? What if Tony is 75 years old, and broke a hip when he hit the ground? What if it’s not Tony but Antonia saying terrible things, and Frank outweighs her by sixty pounds; does he get a pass for punching a small woman?
I’m not in HR, so take this with a grain of salt, but some browsing of HR sites suggests that absent a claim of self-defense, hitting another employee in the workplace nearly always means termination.
“Whoever sells the most gets a bonus” is bad business? That just so bizarre I’m not sure how to respond. “Don’t sabotage your coworkers” shouldn’t need to be written down, and is at least half the reason Tony and Mike are getting fired. But saying you can’t have workplace competitions to do better because an idiot might try to sabotage someone just seems… counter-intuitive.
I should not have to deal with it at work, I’m sorry.
For me - its not so much about “her honor” - she is unlikely to ever know about the comment, and as the comment is only meant to provoke me into something - well, it would work.
“pay to fuck her” - I’ll remind him who he’s talking about -
“pay to rape her” - well, thats just so far beyond the pale and introduces an abject threat of violence against my family.
Scumbags like Tony count on others wanting to be “civilized” and not make a scene. Tony, and people like him, use other people wanting to be “civilized” as a social weapon. When a Tony runs afoul of of somebody “uncivilized” and catches a beatdown, I consider that a good thing.
Here’s my take:
-Frank gets fired. Almost every workplace has specific rules against violence, he clearly violated those rules. There are consequences for defending one’s honor.
-Tony gets fired. Not just for harassment, but for choosing to subvert sales to win the competition. He actively tried to take money out of the company coffers to pad his.
-Mike gets, at minimum, formal training on handling harassment in the workplace and put on a documented performance improvement plan. If he is the used car manager he should be able to handle a case as blatant as this without involving his boss.
-Steve gets a discussion on priorities and is tasked with coming up with a documented plan to open communication channels to prevent a recurrance.
“Oh, no, Toonces, watch out…!”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_hwerqogzQ
That’s a coward’s excuse. But if you want to look at it that way, how many potential customers will leave when they find out you fired Frank for punching a pedophile?
Then he should keep his fragile bones in mind the next time he mounts a prolonged campaign to drive someone into a blind rage.
Then she probably just learned a valuable lesson about trying to use chivalry as a shield while being a reprehensible piece of shit.
Right. I might go so far as to not fire Frank “for cause”, since he was so clearly provoked. Mike also, not for cause.
(Usually, being fired “for cause” means no unemployment and you can mention this to future employers)
Frank also has a possibility of a lawsuit against the dealership. He went to management and complained about a hostile work environment. They admittedly did nothing.
Tony’s suit could go through but I’d like to see him explain to the jury his remarks about the wife and daughter.
Tony’s defense is what? My boss should have stopped my inappropriate behavior before I drove a man over the edge? Other people heard him.
What does Tony need a defense for? He wouldn’t sue for wrongful termination, he would sue for assault (or an unsafe work environment). All he has to show is that the dealership demonstrated a reckless disregard for a safe, violence-free work environment (and if they don’t fire the guy who punched him, he might have a case) or something similar.
Bullshit. You can’t create the unsafe condition and then sue for it. Franks response was forseeable.
Morally, I totally agree with you… but it seems to me that Tony’s lawyer could argue, perhaps successfully (as ridiculous as it sounds), that by failing to act on Frank’s complaints, the dealership was allowing an environment in which harassment was acceptable behavior, and by not firing the puncher (assuming they didn’t fire Frank), they’re allowing an environment in which violence is acceptable behavior.
Tony sues. Frank and Geoff’s lawyer’s first question is going to be what happened immediately before the punch. The next question will come from the jury box: “Can we punch the creep too?”
Not just morally. What Tony did was engage in systemic verbal assault.
You might be right, but the jury could fully believe Tony’s a jerk and still find in his favor. The lawyer would probably claim it was all jesting in good fun until that jerk Frank started throwing punches.
I agree. I’m only arguing that, from the point of view of the business (and from my experience working), they might have to fire Frank to protect themselves from a lawsuit from Tony.
I definitely could be wrong about this, but “Frank has to be fired” is what my experiences with HR at various companies and organizations tell me.