Judge Rules Boss's "Firing Contest" Created a Hostile Work Environment 314
Branded the "boss from hell" by his employees, 57-year-old William Ernst lost a court battle with ex-workers over unemployment benefits. An Iowa judge has decided that Ernst's "firing contest" memo wasn't the best management strategy, saying, "The employer’s actions have clearly created a hostile work environment by suggesting its employees turn on each other for a minimal monetary prize. This was an intolerable and detrimental work environment.” The memo reads in part: "New Contest – Guess The Next Cashier Who Will Be Fired!!! To win our game, write on a piece of paper the name of the next cashier you believe will be fired. Write their name [the person who will be fired], today's date, today's time, and your name. Seal it in an envelope and give it to the manager to put in my envelope."
Text of the memo (Score:5, Informative)
To win our game, write on a piece of paper the name of the next cashier you believe will be fired. Write their name [the person who will be fired], today’s date, today’s time, and your name. Seal it in an envelope and give it to the manager to put in my envelope.
“Here’s how the game will work: We are doubling our secret-shopper efforts, and your store will be visited during the day and at night several times a week. Secret shoppers will be looking for cashiers wearing a hat, talking on a cell phone, not wearing a QC Mart shirt, having someone hanging around/behind the counter, and/or a personal car parked by the pumps after 7 p.m., among other things.
“If the name in your envelope has the right answer, you will win $10 CASH. Only one winner per firing unless there are multiple right answers with the exact same name, date, and time. Once we fire the person, we will open all the envelopes, award the prize, and start the contest again.
“And no fair picking Mike Miller from (the Rockingham Road store). He was fired at around 11:30 a.m. today for wearing a hat and talking on his cell phone. Good luck!!!!!!!!!!”
Wow. What an asshole. In a better economy I'd hope that he'd have trouble getting workers. Unfortunately, in the current economy it is probably much easier to find desperate people willing to put up with crap.
Re:Contest Prizes (Score:4, Informative)
The leads are weak. The f-in' leads are weak? You're weak. I've been in this business 15 years ...
Re:The importance of being Ernst (Score:4, Informative)
Indirectly, through unemployment insurance contribution rates. Companies with higher turnover rates pay more into the fund that is used to pay out benefits. Accordingly most (all?) states deny benefits to individuals who "voluntarily" leave their job, though I suspect most use this same definition of "hostile work environment" to catch when an employer tries to push people into quitting rather than firing the employees.
Re:I'd do it (Score:5, Informative)
I can only speak from my own experience here, which is limited to jobs I've had in Canada, and which has no concept of at-will employment beyond a probationary period that must always be of finite duration. IANAL, of course, but I've had a disproportionate amount of experience with employment law (because I have had the misfortune on more than occasion of being employed by people who either lacked ethical conduct or else were actually violating regional employment standards).
Anyways... even if you are under contract, you are still free to quit, but there may be penalties for doing so which were outlined in the original contract. If you do not agree with those penalties, unless they are in actual violation of any laws, then you probably shouldn't take the job unless you know for sure that you aren't going to quit. If you do end up quitting, you cannot argue that you were unaware of the penalties because they were laid out when you took the job. Even then, however, you are still free to quit, but you could still potentially be sued, but the employer would have to show actual damages if the amount being sued for was to retract any already awarded wages. The things that an employee generally forfeits if they quit prematurely in such cases are things like hiring incentives... not their actual wages. Unless actual damages can be shown that the employee was responsible for before they quit, the employer cannot ever sue for wages that are already paid for work that was actually done.
An employer, meanwhile, is always perfectly free to discharge any employee who is not an effective worker. Not having at-will employment in this case isn't about guaranteeing jobs for people who can't perform jobs effectively. It is about ensuring that companies that hire employees behave professionally and responsibly when hiring and firing individuals.
The closest thing we have to at-will employment is an employee probationary period - which begins when an employee is first hired, and lasts for a finite amount of time that is outlined when the employee is first hired. Generally, this probationary period is 3 months, although sometimes it can be as long as a full year. It is the responsibility of every company to evaluate an employee's suitability with a company during this period, and there is generally a semi-formal process which happens at the end of a probationary period to put an employee into permanent status (they generally do not receive any employee benefits such as extended health or dental services during the probationary period either). After the probationary period has officially ended, firing a person involves more paperwork - an actual reason must be given, and the reason must be one that is verifiable in some way. For example, if the employee is no longer performing adequately, then the employer must advise the employee of this, and have the employee sign something stating that they have received such a notice. If the situation continues even after the employee has had sufficient time to correct the shortcoming (in a judge's determination, if it came to that), then the employer can generally terminate the employee immediately.
It is unfortunately not unheard of for employers to, under the radar, abuse the "probationary period" for employees as a means of being able to easily fire people for arbitrary and entirely unfair reasons... or so that they won't have to start paying employee benefits. Difficulty in proving such cases in court allows these companies to continue to get away with such practices.
If you are fired from your job, for any reason, you may be ineligible for unemployment benefits, unless you can show that the reason for being fired was unrelated to any sort of professional or ethical misconduct. Even then, getting fired from a job introduces delays to receiving benefits that would not normally happen. After the probationary period, an employer is required by law to state the general reason for any termination of employment on a record of employment that both the employee and the government each receive copies of. During the probationary period, it is typically assumed that the employee was simply unsuitable if they are terminated in that time.
Re:This is why labor laws exist... (Score:2, Informative)
The thing is - if you read TFA, he wasn't firing people for random reasons, or treating them like slaves, or... pretty much any other quality you ascribe to him. He was firing people for violating some pretty simple and basic work standards.
Yes, the "contest" was a dipshit move - but let's keep the karma whoring FUD to a minimum.
Re:The problem with the "I'm an asshole" boss (Score:5, Informative)
I've been in boot camp, the "instructors" (who were about our own age) were verbally abusive non-stop and humiliated people as much as possible, including name-calling and mocking people in front of others to make everybody giggle (like teachers do in school when they should be teaching).
In my opinion the idea behind it is to break your spirit, make you realise that you're not going to enjoy anything, hate every minute and (somehow) make a good soldier out of you. It's pretty much the same as: ...
1. Break one's spirit
2.
3. Profit!
I'm glad it was pretty short, but I seriously hated every minute of it. There was no bonding, no teamwork, nothing. It was simply a bunch of people humiliating another bunch of people just because they could.