you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You want to give the impression to your employees that you will punish employees who attempt to defend themselves? Seems like a great way to get worker apathy to me.

It really depends on the specifics of what happened. If an employee went and started a fistfight with a thief I'd discipline them were I in that position. It's just stupid to risk your life for company merchandise. Call the cops and let them handle it. If it's truly just a case of they called the cops and got fired. That just tells me corporate literally doesn't give a shit if their workers are safe or not, which fair enough probably is the case.

Zero tolerance policies in general are usually just retarded. Typically they progress into zero thought policies. If a thief attacks you and you defend yourself do you get fired? If a thief asks you to perform oral sex on them and you decline does that count as resistance?

Don't engage with thieves is a solid policy for employees, beyond that though if the situation absolutely requires engagement you can't throw your employees under the bus for behaving in a reasonable manner if you want to have anything resembling a good work ethic at your company.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Where did I say employees shouldn’t defend themselves?

I said a policy that employees don’t challenge or attempt to apprehend thieves is reasonable.

Also, having a corporate policy that you don’t implement consistently is a good way to get sued when you do implement it. It’s not “zero tolerance”.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm not claiming you said that. I'm saying if we take a very uncharitable reading of this article it seems like the employees were fired because calling the police was seen as "resisting". I doubt that is actually the case, but that's the impression I've gotten from the media buzz surrounding this, and so will probably be the story that most people assume happened.

The CEO when he gave his response said they had a "zero tolerance policy" which is why I used that term. It's been my experience that zero tolerance policies are an excuse for people to pretend to not be responsible for interpreting such policies in the most strict authoritarian means possible.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Except they didn’t just call the police, they gave chase and tried to tackle the thieves.

If they were sacked for just calling the police then the CEO is a cunt. But I’m sure I’ve seen it stated that they tried to physically intervene themselves.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In that case it's a perfectly justified firing.

I don't really buy the story that "they were fired for calling the police" that's obviously outrage bait. But that's the story getting reported and that's the story that people are going to repeat.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m starting to question everything I hear now, no matter which “side” is reporting it because stories are getting twisted up and then spread when key facts are left out purely to rage bait people.

I think it’s also worthwhile to discuss stories like this, as we have been doing, to hash out the issue. I think we actually agree on pretty much everything.