Company threatening jobs

[mtsummitx]

In some states they are. My state is a right to work state, meaning I can fire anyone at anytime without giving them a reason. I can't imagine what it's like to be an employer in other states, though I'm sure there's a reason they have those laws in place.

There's a reason those laws are in place. There is another thread on here about what happened to a gentleman for telling his boss he was a gun guy. He didn't get fired but was treated very poorly because of it. Now rmk, you say you can fire for any reason, well lets just imagine you worked for a tree huggin hippie who found out you were a snowmobiler, which caused you to get into a pizzin match with this tree huggin hippie boss. Well, he hates anything with an engine and decides he doesn't want you working for him anymore and fires you. How's that right to work working out for you now?

I'm not trying to start an argument with you, just want to help you see the other side of the coin. All good clean hypothetical fun

 

[rmkMatt]

I understand completely why some states have those laws, just said I can't imagine being an employer in those states.

I am an employer (8 employees), I would never play games with any of them nor fire someone just because I could. On the other hand, I would hate being held hostage by an employee you couldn't fire. Lucky for me I could terminate anyone here for no reason at all.

 

[TIM]

it sucks for the company, that they have to threaten people with there jobs, just to have honesty from there employees.

install securtity cameras

 

[skidoorulz]

Let's just keep this going and say that maybe the company is to blame for employees not coming forward. A lot of you have said that the ones that knew were just as guilty as the one who did it. But there just might be some underlying reason why they didn't feel they could talk. A company that would threaten employees like was done, could very well have made their own bed.
As far as the employer who made the statement about an employee holding him hostage in a non right to work state. Anyone anywhere can be terminated! All it takes is management or the owner to do their job as management or owner and document poor performance and steps taken to turn that performance around to no avail, and then you have every right to terminate. But you have to do your job! Just because you may not like someone does not give you the right to terminate anyone. And if you were to let someone go for no reason at all, well that would just make you an azz and word would get out and your prospects for good employees would get a lot smaller.

 

[rmkMatt]

Again I agree. I think some places common sense is gone so there is a need for more laws. Let's say for example at my business someone crashed a bumper on one of the trucks. In my world, my hand would tell me right away and if he was a good hand it would be chalked up to an honest mistake. If the guy was a new guy that I wasn't convinced was gonna turn out, I would let him go depending on what the real story is. That's my right as the owner in this state, I get to make the decision whether or not the guy is worth keeping. I could fire him without giving him a reason although we would both know it's because he wrecked the truck for whatever reason. In some states a guy could wreck a truck because of negligence and you can not fire him, you have to warn him and give him the opportunity to do it again.

I'm sure we all agree that if you know a guy is not what he says he is in an interview, you don't want to feel trapped with the guy because you can't fire him. He can quit at anytime, why can't you fire him at anytime? Why does the owner owe him anything?

I don't condone manangers that are power hungry and get off on power trips over other employees at all. I believe whoever is in charge should be an example of what the company wants from everyone. I work harder and longer than anyone in my business, my general manager is next, and so on and so on. I have the common sense not to be an ***, but I reserve the right to not have to keep a guy that is worthless. It's simple in my company I pay you to make my life easier and make me money. You get what you want, I get what I want and everyone goes home happy. On the rare occasion where I've hired a dud, I've let them go right away and am thankful the state believes that's my right to do so.

It sounds like you work at a poorly managed company with low morale. I wouldn't want to work where I'm constantly toyed with either. I am also the kind of guy that would tell you if I screwed something up and offer to pay to fix it if it was indeed my fault. Like I said, common sense.

 

[mtsummitx]

Probationary periods are for weeding out your hiring mistakes. In MT a company can terminate at will for no reason if you are still on your probationary period. Some companies ar 90 days, some 180, some a year. But once you get through your probationary period there needs to be some job protection for the employee. I would be willing to bet we have all had a boss somewhere along the line that would fly off the handle and fire someone for really no good reason. Is that fair?? Now, I will agree. Sometime it does make it tougher to get rid of a bad employee. I have seen many keep their jobs far longer than they should have, but as mentioned in a previous post, more times than not that is because management has not done their jobs when problems arise and take the proper steps towards being able to terminate someone. Not saying it is a perfect system, but as an employee I would rather not work in a right to work state. Just MHO

 

[skidoorulz]

RMK you and employers like you are the reason these laws that protect employees exist. You said it yourself. You would keep one employee and chalk it up as an honest mistake, but you would fire another employee who may have been a questionable employee, for making the same mistake.

 

[rmkMatt]

Why should that not be my right? Please do explain.

 

[skidoorulz]

You'd be able to get up in the morning and shave if you treated people like that? If so there is nothing that I would be able to explain to you that you would understand.

I will explain. You won't like it but here goes. Man up! terminate the questionable employee for what he should be terminated for! Don't take the chicken **** way out and terminate him for something that you wouldn't fire someone else for.

 

[rmkMatt]

I think you're attacking the wrong guy.

I risk everything to run a business, my employees risk nothing. If they want to quit tomorrow they can, why can't that be a two way street for the guy that has the risk?

I assure you I'm not a power crazy *** that wants to fire people. It's the opposite, I do everything I can for my team and I want them to work here for their career. I hate turnover and will go out of my way to help a guy fit in with us, but when you know a guy doesn't fit, why do I owe it to him to give him several chances? I'm not talking we don't like each other type stuff, I mean the guy sucks can't do the job period. Why am I the evil one for letting him go?

 

[rmkMatt]

So you'd fire a 30 year guy for his first screw up just the same as a two week guy that doesn't listen and screws up right away?

 

[skidoorulz]

Didn't say that. But the 2 week guy deserves an opportunity to prove himself and there is no way you can judge how an employee will work out after 2 weeks. Hell when i first started in the career I am in 32 years ago. I myself thought what in the hell am I doing here? I suck at this. I also had a boss who kept on me and pointed out my mistakes and helped me learn from them and in turn helped me succeed in what I do. If I had a boss like you sound like you may be and fire someone after 2 weeks of mistakes, I would not be where i am today.
And to answer your question. Yes I would be treated the same as a 2 week employee would be treated if we, say wrecked a truck. 1st time written warning. 2nd time written warning. If he did it 3 times in 2 weeks he would be terminated. If I did it 3 times in 2 weeks I would be terminated

 

[rmkMatt]

I think you misunderstand my point and my view on employee/employer responsibilities. Perhaps a beer someday and we can clear the air, I'm in Billings frequently.

As to your original post, I think wherever you work has some serious issues if A: There's an accident and no one owns up to it and B: Threats have to be made for someone to tattle on the others.

Clearly the company culture has room for improvement. I feel like work should be done as a team, not as two groups against each other.

 

[Mafesto]

RMKMatt is quite wise for a young 32 year old.
I would not feel insecure at all working for him.

If you are ever the one who got fired, get over it & move on.
If you had it coming, you had it coming.
If you feel you were fired un-justly, look at it as an opportunity to find a better employer who wouldn't fire you un-justly.

It's just a job. There is much in life that's far more important.

 

[mtsummitx]

Hi Mafesto, I would like to run a hypothetical by you. Let's say you have been a loyal employee working for the same company for 30 years. Retirement is in sight, you have nice company provided pension built up, and the company you work for provides your insurance once you retire because of your length of service. Keep in mind it is your companies policy that if for whatever reason, you are terminated, you will lose these benefits.

Now, lets just say after 30 years they decide to fire you for whatever reason. Whether there was a new boss that just didn't like you, or after 30 years you made 1 mistake and your comany wanted a way out of paying those benefits, either which would be completely legal in a right to work state as stated above.
Now realizing your hopes of a bright happy retirement are completely gone after 30 years of hard work and dedication would you still say "oh well, it's just a job. I'll go find another"?

I'm not saying all employers and business owners are evil. I have known some very good ones. Maybe rmkmatt is one of the good ones, if he is great! His business will do well and his employees will do well. Unfortunately, I have known far to many that are not good. To them, employees are just a #, just an expense, just a liability. And, no matter how good an employee is, to many employers feel that there will be another body to fill that place. That is why some states have laws to protect employees rights. Yes, employees have rights too.

As I said before, it is by far not a perfect system. But unfortunately these days in many cases, the gap between employee and employer is growing ever larger.
For most people, it is not just a job, it is their lively hood. It is how we own houses, it is how we feed and clothe our children. It is how we get to go out on a weekend after a big snow storm and have way too much fun! If it is just a job, then those are the employees to fire. Not someone that knew someone did something and was afraid to tattle on that person.

This is a fun debate Cheers!

 

[Jeff C]

For me as the employer, I would be thinking "if this person would not fess up, there is a trust issue"

In other words, if he was brazen enough to not be honest about this incident, that says ALOt about the persons general character and I would be thinking about what else this guy is capable of.

I would want to find out who did it, punish the person if applicable, thus making the statement "this is not acceptable behavior at this work place"

If you let this go, it only snowballs into more of the same.

 

[ruffryder]

Hi Mafesto, I would like to run a hypothetical by you. Let's say you have been a loyal employee working for the same company for 30 years. Retirement is in sight, you have nice company provided pension built up, and the company you work for provides your insurance once you retire because of your length of service. Keep in mind it is your companies policy that if for whatever reason, you are terminated, you will lose these benefits.

Now, lets just say after 30 years they decide to fire you for whatever reason. Whether there was a new boss that just didn't like you, or after 30 years you made 1 mistake and your comany wanted a way out of paying those benefits, either which would be completely legal in a right to work state as stated above.
Now realizing your hopes of a bright happy retirement are completely gone after 30 years of hard work and dedication would you still say "oh well, it's just a job. I'll go find another"?

This is why employers should not be involved with your retirement nor your health insurance...

 

[mtsummitx]

Ruffy????????????? I'm just curious what this was supposed to mean. Some companies (few though anymore) provide company funded pensions and company paid insurance upon retirement as a reward to an employee who has basically dedicated a lifetime of service to a business. Do you see this as a bad thing? I see it as a good thing to reward someone for loyalty, hardwork, and dedication.

 

[ruffryder]

Ruffy????????????? I'm just curious what this was supposed to mean. Some companies (few though anymore) provide company funded pensions and company paid insurance upon retirement as a reward to an employee who has basically dedicated a lifetime of service to a business. Do you see this as a bad thing? I see it as a good thing to reward someone for loyalty, hardwork, and dedication.

It is a horrible idea. This has been proven repeatedly when companies go through bankruptcy to shed their promises to past workers. Healthcare shouldn't be done through your employer for many reasons besides. It is a messed up system. I think all would benefit if employers only paid a salary (maybe other fringe benefits) but left retirement and health care to the employee.

I do not disagree that companies have offered really great benefits for retirees. My father has a great pension and excellent benefits. I have a 401k and that is it. Maybe a little jaded, but my father would be in a much different situation if his company went bankrupt. I would not, besides loosing my job.

 

[mtsummitx]

Ruffy, you and I aparently think on completely different wave lengths. I am thankfull for the benefits my company provides. They are not great, I pay quite a bit for my insurance, and I only have a 401k with a small company match. But it is better than nothing. I would hate to have to foot the whole bill for my insurance. I think we all know that "most" companies would not make up the difference in the employees paycheck if they didn't provide these benefits. It would simply go to the upper echelon's bonuses.

Again, fun debate