swampbear *that *was a funny story!
no - they dissolved the position - said it was redundant
but that’s okay - there have been many changes since then, and I’ve decided I don’t want the headaches and stress of a middle management position
Evil Captor seems to be something of a male hosebeast.
Except that he’s a bore. :rolleyes:
Evil Captor was just bitter because the story didn’t end up with anyone being handcuffed, and he was denied a good stroke thread …
Indeed, I worked with someone who was fired after a verbal then written warning for using our surveying equipment for his paid work in private time. The icing on the cake was to own up to having this equipment when someone announced it was missing and we were using hired equipment, right in the middle of the office :rolleyes:
Nice story, I only looked into the thread to see what exactly a psychotic hosebeast was 
No, you’re completely off the mark. My argument is simply that the potential scale of the problems induced by firing is so great that it more than makes up for Joan’s misbehavior, in a society with as little in the way of a safety net that we have in the US. Joan could really, seriously be harmed by being fired (she could also waltz into another job for which she’s better suited within a week, but this is not a likely prospect). While it is not Maureen’s responsibility to keep Joan employed, and her behavior was bad enough to make me think she may have some serious personality disorders to deal with, I can’t get excited or happy about it, because with all her flaws, Joan is a human being, and treating human beings badly doesn’t make me feel all good inside. YMMV. Clearly, it does.
Well, I’ve read what you’re saying, hoping to see what I was missing. And I was wrong in my initial assessment.
My conclusion is that you’re a boring asshole. Please go away.
Don’t hold yer breath waitin’.
You obviously missed the part where Maureen clearly stated that she didn’t feel too good about it either. Your juventile virtual flag waving and snide contrtulations on her “victory” were unneccesary and uncalled for.
Asshole.
You need a better long term view. Joan’s actions were capable of hurting others. If Joan had managed to lose a major client by badmouthing her coworkers, many people could be laid off - and people who were good employees. That would be a greater evil than Joan, who repeatedly acted improperly and cost the company money at least once with her incompetence, getting fired. Joan’s behavior with the CFO could have lead to a lawsuit against the company, which would have sucked up corporate resources, and given less money for the company to reinvest in its business, less growth and less jobs for others.
Joan may have had serious personality disorders to deal with, but she has had plenty of notice and its her responsibility to get those diagnosed and get help. And once diagnosed (and Maureen says she was never diagosed with mental illness), the company only has an obligation to make “reasonable accomodation.” But without the diagnoses, the company has no obligation at all.
It is, as Maureen noted, never pleasant to fire someone. The unfortunate reality is that sometimes it is. And its MUCH more pleasant to do it for cause when the employee has proven themselves repeatedly to be worthy of firing than to lay someone off because business is bad.
This is not the first time Evil Captor has bemoaned a justifiable firing
Starting with Post 83….
Evil Captor has never taken satisfaction at seeing someone get their just desserts. Another word for it is comeuppance. There are words for it because it is a common experience. People like to see just desserts meted out, or comeuppance, uh, come… up. Why else should we all comply with social rules, norms or expectations? Yes, the goodness of our hearts is all well and good, but when one person uses antisocial techniques to achieve their ends (generally taking resources away from others), corrective measures help to increase the likelihood of others showing prosocial behavior in the future.
I congratulate EC for his Christlike ability to turn the other cheek. Most of the rest of us struggle along possessing more base human tendencies.
Well, it’s pretty clearly established that Joan could have been justifiably fired a long time ago. She may not have a safety net, but that’s no one’s fault but her own.
And yes, she may not have another job to waltz into, and she may now be unemployed for a while. Like you said, many people are unemployed. So why don’t we think about the currently unemployed person who is qualified and responsible, and will soon be filling Joan’s vacant position? Like you said, this job will be someone’s livelihood. Maybe it should go to someone who deserves it, is capable of doing the job well, doesn’t create bad morale around the office, and isn’t batshit insane?
Maureen, don’t give Evil Captor 's criticism a single thought. Your company gave Joan more time than she deserved. I’m thinking the real problem is that EC would have preferred if you and your HR rep would have ripped Joan’s clothes off, tied her to the chair, and tortured her a bit before shoving her pink slip into her mouth.
Yup.
Only guy I know that regards the UN Human Rights Abusewatch webpage as pròn. 
Man, waiting for the ax to fall is tough, but it’s also rough when you have a coworker who’s waitingout her final days. We have a temp, let’s call her Tina, and she just isn’t that good. More errors than usual and not as much experience as her resume would lead on to believe. The fact that she keeps getting contract jobs for 3-6 months and not getting fired should have clued us in, but noooooo. Well, she has a weird personality, with the whole stare too long thing and spouting off non-sequitors (mainly about her husband, the chef or weird medical conditions). Finally the powers that be have decided to end her employment here. Well, that is in two weeks. And we’ve all be informed. Man, is that a weird atmosphere to be in. I’m waiting for her to flip out and start throwing glassware around the lab or something. I should hide the concentrated acids.
Let’s see what these goggles can do…
But IMHO Maureen did it the wrong way, leading to more drama, etc. IMHO what should have been done is “Joan, we have decided we no longer require your services. Here is (whatever the usual company minimum mandated severance pay + accrued leave etc+ the final check*). We thank you for your services. We will assist you in packing your personal possessions.”
Of course- we here wouldn’t have had anywhere near as much fun.
But although I agree with Maureen that Joan had to go, I disagree with many here that have said “Joan was fired for cause” or “justifiable” . “Fired for cause” (at least in California) has a specific legal meaning- and although IANAL and it is quite possible we haven’t heard the whole story- it doesn’t seem like Joan qualified. That doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t have been removed from her positition. So- I don’t disagree with what Maureen did- but I do disagree with how it was done. It appears to me that it was done in that way because of Maureens personal dislike of 'the psycho hosebeast". Just my opinion. 
- The “final check” is a requirement in CA within 72 hours or something like that.
I wasn’t so much interested in raining on Maureen, whom I consider to be as much a victim of circumstances here as Joan, as raining on the parade, which I feel is unwarranted.
What was all that “Maureen wins” crap about then?
If Maureen was a victim of circumstances, those circumstances were created by Joan. I’m sure enough people have worked with a “Joan of their own” and understand how people like them just make enough trouble to get in the way of other’s work.