Just Cause and Progressive Discipline (employee, credit card, unemployment, employers)

[Tonyafd]

Many of us who have been around the block know that a firing can happen as easily as saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.
There is a better way. It's called just cause. Just cause requires that the employee really does something wrong. Progressive discipline is the punishment of an employee for doing something wrong in a non vindictive manner. If an employee does something that warrants punishment, they first get a warning. If it happens a second time, suspension may be in order. Firing of a trained employee should only take place when the relationship is irretrievable.

[fishbrains]

I agree with this, have worked in organizations, and owned businesses that hVe always followed this principle.

[G-fused]

Terminating someone is not easy at all. Many orgs make people jump through crazy hoops - it is frustrating and time consuming.

[Rowan123]

Except that there are people that will manipulate the system and do things that barely stop short of "just cause" and in the meantime they are disruptive and/or a drag on production. Company expenses go up because there is a lot of dead weight. IMO that wouldn't be a better system.

As noted, most companies have several steps that need to be followed before someone can be fired (unless there is something like theft or violence) because they don't want to be sued. I've seen it drag on for months before someone is terminated.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by G-fused

Terminating someone is not easy at all. Many orgs make people jump through crazy hoops - it is frustrating and time consuming.

I had a case more than 15 years ago when I "inherited" a new team member after an annual re-org. While his previous reviews were very poor, I always believe in starting a new relationship with no preconceptions so I met with him, asked him how I can help but did ask why he felt he got poor reviews previously. He gave some sound reasons and I assured him it was a new year with a clean slate.

Unfortunately, within a few weeks it was clear that his reviews were indeed accurate, so I had another conversation with him outlining my expectations, and what he would need to do to meet our goals. And then had a follow up call a couple of weeks later; despite his assurances that he would improve there was really no change at all. Many excuses with no real reason.

He was also starting to complain about health issues, his bad back, etc., and that he couldn't really travel (travel of 50% was required in this position.) I communicated that as customer-facing travel was required, the only valid options were to look for another position within the company or to go out on medical leave until the issue was resolved (at this point nothing was documented medically to HR.)

I suspected that he knew if he was going to be let go he'd go on disability first. Our company's policy was that if an employee goes on disability while not on a performance improvement plan you'd have to wait until they return to do anything. Which means you're short a person while still paying for it in your budget.

My predecessor didn't do anything to remedy the situation, or for the company, and decided it was easier just to pass him to another manager than take any action. He also never documented anything. As I just started documenting the issues putting him on a PIP for poor performance would have been difficult.

Ultimately I found a reason that worked around this which HR agreed with - company policy stated that anyone in a position who traveled for work more than 10% of the time was required to have a company credit card, and he didn't have one (it's really hard to NOT qualify for a company card - you're individually responsible but they don't have the same credit requirements.) I ultimately put him on plan giving him 30 days to get a company credit card as outlined in the policy.

Not surprisingly, within a week of receiving the PIP he went out on disability and never came back to work.

The reason there are hoops are three-fold.

1) To make sure that all managers go through a proper due diligence process, working with HR. You don't want to be discriminatory, or to go against company policy.

2) To make sure that you're in fact looking to let go an underperforming employee, and not a high-achieving one in the wrong position or under the wrong manager.

3) To make sure you have proper documentation so that if there is legal action you and your company are well protected.

[BusinessManIT]

All of this sounds strange to me in an "at will" environment. Sure, I think that employees should be given reasonable chances to improve before being let go. However, the types of employers that graced my experience were the "fire quick and fire often" kind who had no compunction in keeping around employees who couldn't keep up with their workload or who they judged weren't a good fit. Those companies didn't seem to be concerned about having any repercussions about firing anyone or any worries about being sued by anyone.

[Suburban_Guy]

We get it, OP, you love unions.

As touched upon, this unnecessary fear mongering by some in regards to job stability serves no useful purpose. Majority of jobs aren't looking to fire every single employee on a whim. I've been in the NON-union work force for nearly 20 years. I have never seen anyone fired immediately without good cause (falsifying records, lying on resume about school, not wanting to do work, sexual harassment). If you are a decent employee who works hard and comes to work on time, you'll do fine.

I've experienced horrible workers and it was a pain trying to get rid of them even in an at will state job.

[Tonyafd]

Originally Posted by Suburban_Guy

We get it, OP, you love unions.

If unions were more common it would have slowed down the movement of jobs abroad. The loss of a job because your boss is a bully is a tragedy.

Originally Posted by Suburban_Guy

If you are a decent employee who works hard and comes to work on time, you'll do fine.

Most of the time you are right. When times are lean people take jobs that they might not have taken otherwise. This is when you meet the nastier bosses because they have openings even in a recession. Then you find a union job where the rules are laid out and the rules don't get made up as you go along.



Is that plain enough?

[LTU2]

Montana has eliminated at will employment (emphasis added), read -904 then -903 for "just cause" definition.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/39_2_9.htm

Unemployment case law also addresses this when an employee is found discharged without cause.

The Model Employment Termination Act, (META), terms it "good cause". No state as far as I know has adopted META though.

[Serious Conversation]

Originally Posted by G-fused

Terminating someone is not easy at all. Many orgs make people jump through crazy hoops - it is frustrating and time consuming.

In an at-will environment, people can be fired at any time for any reason unless it's for a protected reason or for no reason at all. It's very easy to do.