 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 25, 2023 - 8:07 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
Gee, I would like to think my employer wouldn’t ruin my livelihood before I’m found guilty of a crime. Further more I’m pretty sure the rich elite aren’t fired until such a verdict comes down. I’m not aware of any defacto precedent that employers fire staff over issues not related to work.
If someone was arrested for a felony, I would be surprised if the person was not fired/placed on unpaid administrative leave/or otherwise cut loose. The association looks bad on the employer, and depending on the crime, the employer has to deal with being constantly hounded by the press, being contacted endlessly by customers, fellow employees and others appalled by the crime, and even fielding death threats. Most employers don't want to deal with that type of blowback whether deserved or not. The sad reality is that no matter how many times people say innocent before proven guilty, the vast majority of people assume someone who has been arrested is guilty until proven otherwise. And that is nothing new.
Yeah, never seen a cop who's caught on tape seemingly murdering a defenseless citizen get anything worse than "administrated paid leave".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 26, 2023 - 7:38 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
nuts_score
(Member)
|
I also wanna play a little thought experiment with you, Sol, if you would oblige. I've always been fascinated by your thoughts.
You are an employee for Company. You perform very well and uphold an exemplary ethic for your peers. One day, another employee, John A, assaults you in a private setting. You notify the authorities and press charges against John A. You resume work as soon as you are physically and mentally able to. While you don't draw attention to the heinous event perpetrated against You, it is still known by your peers and your employers. Days after your return, John A also returns to the workplace. His demeanor is odd. He acts as if nothing happened yet rumor spreads around the workplace about the events. You find out that John A was able to post bail and is awaiting hearings. Months, maybe even years pass and You still feel uncomfortable to be in the same workplace, where You are held in high esteem, while John A also holds his position. Eventually hearings begin and John A is out of the office for extended times. So are You. Your employer has not terminated John A but allowed him to continue receiving income in light of the events. They even promoted him. Before the hearings, a peer reaches out to You to console You and to ask about how You feel that Company has not terminated John A after the events occured.
Your response?
"Can Company fire him? Yes. Should they do it? No."
Is this indicative of how this hypothetical situation would occur if it happened to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 26, 2023 - 9:08 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
I also wanna play a little thought experiment with you, Sol, if you would oblige. I've always been fascinated by your thoughts.
You are an employee for Company. You perform very well and uphold an exemplary ethic for your peers. One day, another employee, John A, assaults you in a private setting. You notify the authorities and press charges against John A. You resume work as soon as you are physically and mentally able to. While you don't draw attention to the heinous event perpetrated against You, it is still known by your peers and your employers. Days after your return, John A also returns to the workplace. His demeanor is odd. He acts as if nothing happened yet rumor spreads around the workplace about the events. You find out that John A was able to post bail and is awaiting hearings. Months, maybe even years pass and You still feel uncomfortable to be in the same workplace, where You are held in high esteem, while John A also holds his position. Eventually hearings begin and John A is out of the office for extended times. So are You. Your employer has not terminated John A but allowed him to continue receiving income in light of the events. They even promoted him. Before the hearings, a peer reaches out to You to console You and to ask about how You feel that Company has not terminated John A after the events occured.
Your response?
"Can Company fire him? Yes. Should they do it? No."
Is this indicative of how this hypothetical situation would occur if it happened to you?
I appreciate the thought experiment and maybe you'll be surprised to learn I'm more in agreement with you there.
But before I get into that, we are generally talking about someone who's accused of a crime outside of the work place. Lets say a spouse claims they were physically assaulted at home and your employer finds out about this, what should they do? If you as an employee have a great work record, a team player, never got into a fight, never been threatening to other staff members, should you're employer take preventive measures and fire you? I say no. The accusations are not work related and have no baring on how you perform your job.
Now in your thought experiment if the accusation is work related then I agree with you the potential victim must be protected from the potential abuser. I would suggest separating the employees from one another and moving one of the two into another department. Maybe even another facility if the company has more than one office until a verdict comes down.
Often when we talk about domestic/sexual abuse with actors the employer will terminate the relationship (because of bad PR I guess?) when the actor otherwise had no history of being abusive on set. This is where I think its over reaching for an employer to fire an employee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Quade( Black widows) ' why Lord do you make men out of clay and mine out of shit?'. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
