Cindy-I believe that your real question was missed. As I see it, you feel the ee should have been terminated and I agree with you. However, as you discovered, other managers felt differently. Therefore, be advised that this is a somehwhat common occurrence. I don't know who made the final decision to suspend. I am assuming it wasn't you. I believe you understand the long term consequences of ignoring a company policy. However, for some reason, you were not listened to. You should try to learn from this. Particularly, learning one of the hardest things about this job and that is telling all the idiot managers (I say this sarcastically and not angrily)that it doesn't matter if it's a long term ee, it doesn't matter if it's a "good" worker, it doesn't matter if it's a "nice guy with a family", if certain rules are not enforced by the company, the company will pay the price.
I agree with Pork's observation that your zero tolerance policy was just stretched into a zero tolerance plus one.
That said, I think it would be fun to make this guy prepare and conduct a diversity training session for fellow EEs complete with all the bells and whistles. This could be some logical consequences of his conduct.
It's funny this thread came up now since I have a similar situation. We also have a zero tolerance policy on harassment which includes racial slurs. The perp used the word "bojangles" that was directed to one AA. The intended victim didn't here the word but another AA did and was offended. After investigating the matter, this was not the firm time the "comment" was utilized.
I wanted immediate termination based on the policy, but would settle for unpaid suspension. HR folks and dept mgr want one-day paid suspension to think about it.
After reading the thread in response to cwells, perhaps I'm being to harsh? Thoughts?
HHAYNAL: Mark's idea is right on and would give everyone the opportunity to tune in to the sensitivity issues in our language. For at least 50 % of we humans would rather "PEE our pants" rather than be the focus of a subject in front of a group of people! Lessons will be learned by all and the terror in the hearts of leading another sensitivity seminar would be profound!
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-23-04 AT 08:19AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Hell, I thought Mr. Bojangles was an old Cajun guy who used to dance in New Orleans for pocket change. The recollection I have is that he had a symbol instrument that he rapped against his leg when he danced and sang and had gold chains around his neck that he said were 24 carat. I've thought that since Arlo Guthrie sang the song, or whoever did sing it. I'd hate to be terminated for something one of us totally misunderstood. Maybe we should all just be required to refer to our co-workers as Mr. Or Miz so and so. (No offense meant by so and so).
Ironically we have a gentleman on the Forum who named himself Pork and we all lovingly poke at Pork. I remember a guy who was suspended in school for referring to a classmate Porky.
The objective of discipline should be to change behaviors and bring employees in line with standards and expectations, not to find a reason to quickly fire them all for our personal notions of racial insensitivity. Someone said yesterday that he had had the N word used against him. His reaction to the thread therefore was more emotional than reasoned. Those of us who find themselves in that situation should recuse ourselves from the disciplinary process, if we cannot extricate ourselves from emotional memories and current emotional reactions. If a fat boy beat me up when I was a kid and everytime I am in a disciplinary meeting with a fat employee I have flashbacks to that earlier event, I ain't got no business at all in the process. Now, I will be humming Mr. Bojangles the rest of the morning. Ray, give me a c-minor.
Ahh; How could I forget that. He came to Mississippi State when I was a Freshman. Bet you cannot tell me who wrote "Up Against The Wall Redneck Mother". No, it was not Jerry Jeff. It was a member of his band.
Zero Tolerance policies usually dictate what the penalty is for crossing the line that has been drawn, such as in most Zero Tolerance Drug/Alcohol Policies. I recommend follow it to the letter regardless of length of service, as you Company's actions will set the tone for any future events and the tone for potential litigation. Even us "older" employees know what is acceptable or not, whether or not we agree or not.
If this person is a supervisor of any level and retained, he has a huge hole to climb out of to gain respectability with his staff, and the idea of leading a diversity training session would be a good ladder.
Great advice from all, look forward to info to help me on one of my own problems.
I agree with Don that you need to define Zero Tolerance. Suspension, final warning and referral to the EAP was not tolerance - it was warranted discipline.
I think institutions and organizations have zero tolerance policies because they like the way it sounds. In reality, circumstances are rarely cut dried. My point is that we place people in positions of authority partly b/c they have proven their ability to consider circumstances and act appropriately on the facts presented. Then we put zero tolerance policies in place so they no longer need to use that skill.
It leads to kids being suspended for pen knives b/c there is a zero tolerance weapons policy, or for having Advil b/c there is a zero tolerance drug policy. I'm sure similar instances happen in the employment arena.
This reply is written without viewing the earlier responses. I have always viewed racially insensite comments in two ways. If it is a quick comment delivered in the heat of a battle, that is one path. If it is delivered by a person who has a history of not just racial comments, but a racist history - that is a more serious path. It sounds to me that with a 30 year employee, that I would have hoped he would have been long gone if there were prior incidents. I do not see a termination. A short suspension would be in order.
Bill: And where do you put the WHITE WHO CALLS ANOTHER WHITE "HONKIE"????? OR A HISPANIC WHO CALLS ANOTHER HISPANIC, "You WETBACK", or in the case of other ethnics>>>>>>>>>whatever? All of which can be serious and in anger or just fooling around, but hurting none the less.
I stand in support of the ee leading a sensititive class for each department. He should do only that job until he has covered every department in small groups. If he refuses the opportunity to improve the lives of every employee, he would be terminated, immediately.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a little mind, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882), Self-Reliance.
I fully understand zero tolerance but sometimes it begs the situational question of things like the 30 year employee vs the two year employee. SHRM has a great web cast presented by Jonathan Segal that discusses this very issue.
O.K. Here's my two things to think about. 1) I don't like it when people say "They or he didn't mean anything by it, it's just the way they were raised" or She didn't mean anything by it, she's just part of an older generation where it was common to say that" So, does that mean I can call some one a __________(insert whatever you want) and say oh, I didn't mean anything by it, I've just used that word all my life because that is the way I was raised?
2) I vote for keeping the newer employee who makes a mistake verses the ee with who has been there a long time. Was the ee who has been there a long time just sleeping at work or something? EE has worked there all this time and really didn't know what was unacceptable in the work place? What was the ee doing all those years at the office?
I would not terminate a 30 year ee for this type of violation on a first offense nor would I terminate a 3 year ee. I would not consider this gross misconduct. Do I think it appropriate? No, not at all. would I terminate for a second offense, probably so.
Comments
xclap
That said, I think it would be fun to make this guy prepare and conduct a diversity training session for fellow EEs complete with all the bells and whistles. This could be some logical consequences of his conduct.
I wanted immediate termination based on the policy, but would settle for unpaid suspension. HR folks and dept mgr want one-day paid suspension to think about it.
After reading the thread in response to cwells, perhaps I'm being to harsh? Thoughts?
PORK
Ironically we have a gentleman on the Forum who named himself Pork and we all lovingly poke at Pork. I remember a guy who was suspended in school for referring to a classmate Porky.
The objective of discipline should be to change behaviors and bring employees in line with standards and expectations, not to find a reason to quickly fire them all for our personal notions of racial insensitivity. Someone said yesterday that he had had the N word used against him. His reaction to the thread therefore was more emotional than reasoned. Those of us who find themselves in that situation should recuse ourselves from the disciplinary process, if we cannot extricate ourselves from emotional memories and current emotional reactions. If a fat boy beat me up when I was a kid and everytime I am in a disciplinary meeting with a fat employee I have flashbacks to that earlier event, I ain't got no business at all in the process. Now, I will be humming Mr. Bojangles the rest of the morning. Ray, give me a c-minor.
I am singing Dixie, this morning, so give me a c- major, Ray!
As bur rabbit would say: Please don't throw me in the Briar Patch, and I am happy about it!
PORK
Anne Williams
Attorney Editor
M. Lee Smith Publishers, LLC
If this person is a supervisor of any level and retained, he has a huge hole to climb out of to gain respectability with his staff, and the idea of leading a diversity training session would be a good ladder.
Great advice from all, look forward to info to help me on one of my own problems.
It leads to kids being suspended for pen knives b/c there is a zero tolerance weapons policy, or for having Advil b/c there is a zero tolerance drug policy. I'm sure similar instances happen in the employment arena.
(except for attendance x:-) )
HMMMMMM
hmmmmmm
HMMMMMM
For Pork:
HMMMMMM
HMMMMMM
HMMMMMM
Since Don started this song in the minor key and Pork ended it in the major key, that is referred to as a Picardy Third.
I have always viewed racially insensite comments in two ways. If it is a quick comment delivered in the heat of a battle, that is one path. If it is delivered by a person who has a history of not just racial comments, but a racist history - that is a more serious path. It sounds to me that with a 30 year employee, that I would have hoped he would have been long gone if there were prior incidents. I do not see a termination. A short suspension would be in order.
I stand in support of the ee leading a sensititive class for each department. He should do only that job until he has covered every department in small groups. If he refuses the opportunity to improve the lives of every employee, he would be terminated, immediately.
PORK
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882), Self-Reliance.
I fully understand zero tolerance but sometimes it begs the situational question of things like the 30 year employee vs the two year employee. SHRM has a great web cast presented by Jonathan Segal that discusses this very issue.
Webcasts are available to SHRM members.
2) I vote for keeping the newer employee who makes a mistake verses the ee with who has been there a long time. Was the ee who has been there a long time just sleeping at work or something? EE has worked there all this time and really didn't know what was unacceptable in the work place? What was the ee doing all those years at the office?