dilemma

globex · March 2005

I have a dilemma. I have two employees, J & P. J asked P if he knew where he could obtain a car inspection sticker without having the car inspected. P said he knew someone who did inspections and gave him the number. J called the person. J then asked P to pick up the sticker for him. Even though I am sure it is illegal, J brags about it! Yes, J is stupid.
Now the dilemma. We have grounds to terminate J. We do not want to terminate P but cannot think of an out to avoid discrimination charge. Any thoughts?

TN HR · March 2005

I'm a bit confused. Are you terminating based on the inspection sticker fiasco? If so, why? Given the information you've provided, I cannot see why you would execute "J" without also executing "P".

Gene

Dasher · March 2005

Me either! Something is being left out -- come on, come clean with us so we can help you.

marc · March 2005

I am not a District Attorney, but I play one on TV. Looks to me like you have co-conspirators here. Bust them both, the first one to give up the supplier gets to walk.

Seriously, if your grounds for termination are because of the illegal sticker situation, both must go.

ritaanz · March 2005

Why would the company get involved in something that does not concern them?

globex · March 2005

J is someone who is supposed to be a salesman but cannot sell a sandwich to a starving man. As such, he uses his car, for which I pay him a weekly auto allowance. Further, as our salesman, he represents us. Were he to be stopped or, heaven forbid, have an accident the bogus sticker would be found out. Someone would then, probably ask if we knew about it, which we would have to say yes. Therefore, we might be liable along with him. Is that clearer?
And yes, I am afraid my only choice is to let them both go. More feedback, please.

Don D · March 2005

"J is someone who is supposed to be a salesman but cannot sell a sandwich to a starving man."

Neither could I. Because a starving man has no money.

Methinks you are looking for any reason you can find to terminate J and are hanging your hat on something that has nothing to do with the business. If you employ a man whose car cannot pass an inspection, how can you claim to be worried about him representing your company?

This matter has nothing to do with the business or his performance. What are the remote possible chances someone would ask you down the road if you had heard anything about this supposed fiasco? And it someone did, which they will not, you should tell them you don't meddle in the personal lives of your employees.

globex · March 2005

cute Don...and yes, I would like to term. him without UC exposure. See my post to ritaanz about the legal matter.
It does have to do with his performance or lack thereof.

TN HR · March 2005

It's a far stretch to think that you have any exposure on the bogus sticker deal, however, if it helps you sleep better then terminate both of them.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but it seems to me from this and your previous posts (the one about the female ee getting ready to lose her child support comes to mind) that the culture in your organization needs to change. There's no real way to sugar coat this one. Get out, and stay out, of ee minutiae that is best left for breakroom and smoke shack gossip.

Gene

lnelson · March 2005

Agree with TN HR, if you want to term "J" then do it for performance issues leave the other stuff out of the equation.

globex · March 2005

TN HR...you have me at an advantage. I do not recall the female ee getting ready to lose her child support. It is due to too much gin and old age.

globex · March 2005

ritaanz
First, as I said, I was afraid that since he uses his car on company business, that so lawyer would look to everyone to hang liability on. It seems the posted opinions disagree. That is great.
Second, it was my feeling that if someone would lie and cheat like this, he also might lie and cheap me.

Don D · March 2005

"cute Don...and yes, I would like to term."

Although you took it as such, I didn't intend for my post to be 'cute'. I intended it to be right on target, which I suggest it is. You're living a charmed and naive life if you have time to worry that an employee who might lie about his inspection sticker might also lie to you about something else. Sure he might. So might everybody else in your building. At least he's open about it.

If you want to worry about a UI issue, then term him for the inspection lie and watch the results. Now certainly you would not lie to the UI appeals referee and tell him you knew nothing about the inspection sticker. Well, if you were to do that, should the referee not assume that you might also lie to him about other things...........?

Are you sure this guy is not an illegal alien and that's the real reason you're gunnin' for him? Get Pork to run the numbers on him. You may find out he's Jack the Ripper. x:-)

Whatever · March 2005

As I see it, the bogus inspection sticker is a bogus excuse to discharge someone. If he is such a terrible salesman, why don't you fire him for being a terrible salesman or why haven't you fired him for being a terrible salesman? I may be wrong, but I have the feeling we still do not have all the facts.

TN HR · March 2005

I agree with Whatever about not having all the facts here. I think this can of soda has a dead rodent in it..........Or as Pork would say "SOMething aint write in the HOG house".

globex · March 2005

No, as I told whatever, you got it all but I would be interested, in the cause of communication, to know what you think I may not have told ya'll.

Whatever · March 2005

The issue of the bogus sticker appears to be an excuse to do what should have been done previously. I do not understand (and you have not explained) why a terrible salesman had not been previously fired. Therefore, there is a feeling that we do not have all the facts.

globex · March 2005

No, whatever, you got ALL the facts.

SandiF · March 2005

>No, whatever, you got ALL the facts.

But, why haven't you fired him?!

globex · March 2005

my wife is in charge of sales. i have asked repeatedly to term him but she keeps saying he has a lot of things in the works. i say, yes but he has not sold a machine in the entire time he has been here. she finally put him on probation, so i have made some progress. for those who work with their wives, i think you will see the problem. i get on her all the time about crossing to service (one of my areas) so i cannot cross into her's. there, that is all, i think.

National Guard · March 2005

Boy, those wives just won't do what their told to huh? I hope this is not an issue of respecting your wife's decisions; and a lot of misplaced anger.

marc · March 2005

He just needs to have an understanding with his wife similar to the one I have with mine. I always get in the last couple of words....they are "Yes dear."

globex · March 2005

after 33 years, at home it is "yes dear" but at work, not so often.

dchr9203 · March 2005

Sounds like your trying to get "parental" based on hearsay, and even if it were not, it has nothing to do with your company. It is his car, he's responsible, and you simply say you had no first hand knowledge of any inappropriate activities, if it should come up, which I doubt it will. As for your termination issue, if you have an employee who is not performing, then fire him, period. If you have grounds to terminate that are directly applicable to your company and policies and are not based on hearsay, then terminate. If both parties are involved, then terminate both. Base your employment decision(s) on relevant facts pertaining to your policies, including expectations for performance, and leave it at that, and be consistent. What applies to one should apply to all.

CindyG · March 2005

Do you have other salesmen that work for you using their own vehicle? Is it your common practice to check their inspection stickers? What does your liability insurer require?

If it's not a common practice to check, I agree with the others and continue with the performance plan/probation period. If he fails, then terminate him based on substandard performance.

lynn2008 · March 2005

CindyG gets close to the matter - what are the requirements you have for employees who use personal vehicles for company business? If you require them to maintain a certain level of insurance and meet all DMV laws and such, you probably have grounds to terminate the employee for driving an "illegal" vehicle as an employee. If he denies his bragging statements, and you require proof, it could be difficult as the inspector who sold the sticker would probably tell you "all was OK" and you would have no proof. If all locker room BS stories were true, we would have to fire everyone.

The person who gave them the sticker could be made to go also.

If you have no policy, make one immediately. Then do what everyone else says and properly terminate him for performance.

Good luck!

globex · March 2005

thank you and I shall. Yes, the seller would either be fined, have his inspection priviledge revoked, go to jail or possibly all three.

globex · March 2005

we do not have any other salesperson. The truth is that it would never have come up if he were not going around the office bragging he had purchased the sticker. We are very close to the police station and have a lot of policemen coming in, in plains cloths, to buy coffee. I would hate for him to brag in front of them.

dchr9203 · March 2005

In my experience, bragging doesn't necessarily equate to truth telling.

dilemma

Comments