Your Thoughts - Workplace Violence

[Fleetmon]

Background:
Very recently my wife was thrust into a situation where she was required to provide information concerning another employee's lack of business judgement that ultimately resulted in this employee being terminated......the termination will take place at COB today. The employee will be presented with the facts and evidence of why they are being fired.

The situation:
Due to cost-saving measures and some mis-guided people "skills" (for lack of a better description), it has been decided the individual will be terminated with a two-week notice "to help them get on their feet", presumably to find another job. During business hours this building has several unsecured entrances.....after hours, all entrances are via card-swipe, valid ID recognition.

The issue:
My wife and I both legally carry firearms but are not legally able to in the State that we work in (we commute from one State to another) therefore, her firearm is separated from it's ammo and the firearm is locked in a small safe that is kept in the trunk. She has very limited access to either while in this State and if caught with a firearm in her possession would result in immediate arrest and a mandatory sentence if found guilty. To sum it up...she will be entering her place of employment Monday morning and forced to work with a potentially hostile employee.

The dilemma:
I think allowing this individual to continue to work after being terminated has the potential to become a workplace violence tragedy. My wife has no recourse other than use leave, which she may do, or take her chances that nothing will happen. Not that it is really relevant (although it could be) but this individual is also foreign and is of a nationality that views women as "inferior" and also values their lives as they would a dog.....their words, not mine.

I've offered to take this to a higher level (we work for the same company) and I personally feel if this individual is allowed to physically work the next two weeks then my wife should be given administrative leave rather than having to use personal leave. Our company will NOT give this individual administrative leave for the two-week period since it "may set a precedence". The person making the decision is very weak and typically takes the easy way out when dealing with personnel issues.


What are some of YOUR views on this matter and what would YOU do in this case?

 

[KD0AXS]

Originally Posted By: Fleetmon
The person making the decision is very weak and typically takes the easy way out when dealing with personnel issues.


Sounds like this person has no business being in a management/supervisory position. Management is no place for people that are unable to make tough decisions. "Terminated" means exactly that, you don't work here anymore, pack your stuff and go home. Even if violence wasn't a concern, someone who knows they are being fired isn't going to be a productive worker and will likely have an impact on other employees as well.

 

[Donald]

There are two issues here, lack of proper security for the building and the two week notice.

They could give the guy a 2 week notice and just give him a check and not allow him to work. He will not do any work anyway. Would you?

The building security is another issue. Even if he was terminated at COB with no notice, if the building was unsecure, he could come back in a day, week, month.

The notice is reasonable as makes sure people who quit will also give 2 weeks notice.

I was part of a layoff and had access to the building, my office and my laptop for a month until the last day.

I would say that your wide should request a security guard during business hours.

I now work in a computer center where we need to swipe an ID, plus there are guards at the desk 24x7 (always).

 

[javacontour]

Wow! Usually two week notice is hand over your badge, etc and we'll pay you for the next two weeks.

I think I'd go to my supervisor and say I don't feel safe working with this person, and ask what they are doing to ensure safety in the office.

If she really feels unsafe and admin leave isn't given, ask to work at home, or other options. Finally, take vacation.

 

[Gotch]

2 weeks notice for termination! Unheard of...unless it is of mutual consent or a layoff (which it doesn't sound like). Your wife should be given leave until this person is gone. Especially if she is being "named". Whoever set this up has no clue on what they are doing. If they want to "help get them on their feet" then he should be given 2 weeks pay but not stay at the workplace...

Wow is all I can say...

 

[LeakySeals]

I think termination and "laid off" could be getting confused here. But there's more to this termination story than is being told if somebody's so afraid they are reaching for a gun. Being a "rat" has its consequences, let that be a lesson for the future.

"No snitching" is the modern phrase for what I suspect is behind the worry.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

I've never heard of anyone being given 2 weeks before they are fired. When you're fired ... that's it.

When I handed in my two week notice at my last job, my employment was over the next day.

 

[Fleetmon]

No confusion.....it's termination. This individual failed the initial probation, was given an extension on probation for three months, and finally, given a "final, FINAL warning" with another two months probation. They obviously didn't make it.

Unfortunately for my wife, she is her supervisors assistant and was expected AND required to provide information.

I like the logic you put into your thoughts LeakySeals....you sound like the type of person who won't say anything to anybody if it's "not your job".....I'd say something here concerning your flawed thought process but I won't because I've already had a vacation from BITOG and don't care to have another. It IS people with your thought process that makes the U.S. what it is today....uncaring and get all you can while nobody is looking. Your "thoughts" remind me of someone that will stand by and do nothing while someone spanks their child in public because they were acting like a child. Being a rat or snitch? Just so you know....public safety depends on everyone in THIS workplace doing their job and doing it correctly. That said, ****!

I am pushing her to take leave (it's not like she doesn't have plenty, just the idea of it) and will take this to a higher level if need be....not just for her but the others in the office as well.

I've never heard of the two-week notice thing either and it seems to be something new and/or the person heading up personnel is in an acting capacity at this time and is salivating to get the job permanently. I agree that termination with two-weeks pay is admirable and I hope the person finds another job quickly.....I do not understand the logic of allowing them to return to the office. There are provisions to secure this building at all times but certain individuals make the rules. I know the individual involved and they are not of a violent nature......HOWEVER, remove an individuals means of comfort and they COULD act irrationally.

 

[bepperb]

So everytime someone gets fired your wife is going to need two weeks of leave? Or is there more to the story than you are letting on.

Don't get me wrong, the "your fired... in two weeks" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard and the employee won't be productive and could probably open up a huge liability for the organizaion... but the idea that because your wife can't carry a gun she shouldn't go into work is a bit nuts too. She's the assistant to the person who fired the employee? Is the person who actually fired the employee going into work for these two weeks?

 

[JHZR2]

I believe that some advance notice must be given for layoffs, but this isnt a layoff.

That said, I think that either (1) there is a lot of unnecessary fear here, or (2) there is a precident for this person being questionable in terms of stability, being violent or aggressive.

I think you need to look long and hard about if it is #1 or #2. People get fired all the time. We could live in the world of what ifs, but they just generally arent practical. Or, if there is a real basis, then the full case should be made, and Id either take it to the next level, and/or refuse to perform the activity on the basis of whatever the past precedent is. None of us know just how really bad news this person is. But if there are facts, state them, and if not, then realize that it is just speculation and then there isnt much ground to stand on. Is she delivering the firing and giving the reasons? The question of if she is going tohave to take off every time someone gets fired? To me that means inability to do her job and grounds for her termination for failure to execute. So be careful of that perception too.

If the what ifs of security are so real and not based upon fear alone, Id recommend changing jobs to one in a state where protection is allowed. I cant make that determination, nor anyone else. But if the workplace is that hostile and dangerous, and unprotected, then it may be a valid decision.

 

[Roadkingnc]

Your wifes firearm is a useless piece of metal in the trunk unloaded. If I were her and was afraid for my safety I would carry it and risk loosing my job if caught. Looking for a job is a much better alternative than dying. Talking to upper managment about her concerns should be done asap.

 

[supton]

Concealed means concealed. Carry a deeply concealable firearm, if you truly worried, for the period of time. Then go back to normal if nothing happens.

We all have to make our choices, and live with them.

I agree, 2 weeks in the office after termination is asinine. Heck, a number of my coworkers who, after giving 2 weeks notice, were escorted out the same hour. Industrial spying was likely the reason (none given, mind you)--you don't work here, you're going to work for the competition, so be gone.

If the person being fired has issues, I'd talk to management and state my fears about this 2 week quasi-employment. I'd make it clear that my work morale was going to suffer, and my hours in office would too.

That all said and done, I wouldn't do any of the above if I thought the person was stable and was just a run of the mill bumbling idiot. Not everyone fired goes postal.

 

[Fleetmon]

I think I communicated the issue incorrectly.....I was not trying to say she is/was in danger because she can't carry her firearm in her workplace.....this has nothing to do with rights concerning gun control, right to carry, etc. Re-reading my thread makes me realize that paragraph has no relevance on the issue.

The two-week notice has me irked though and I also think the company is potentially making a huge mistake. The purpose of this thread was get an opinion on what others think of this workplace policy.

I think if it came to an unarmed confrontation, my wife could easily take this individual but take away a persons livelihood, then all bets are potentially off.

My wife is reading the replies for this thread and will make a decision later today....leaving the company because of another person's inability to do "what is right" is not right to her....she has 28 years and a little less than two years from full retirement....why throw it away because someone cannot properly do their job and gets terminated and another person is trying the caring approach?

 

[Cardenio327]

I'm all about guns, but if your wife thinks wandering around an office carrying a gun will solve something, she: A) needs to find a better place to work at; or: B) needs to dial down the paranoia a notch.

LeakySeals has a valid point: Every action has a reaction. Kudos to your wife for doing the right thing and dropping a dime on the guy, but come on, a paid vacation as a reward for doing her job? If she must use her vacation time for the 2 week break, she should just man up and use it.

By the way, there is something wrong with management as was posted various times above. The subject should be escorted out of the building upon firing, and if they feel sorry for him they can cut him a check for 2 weeks and tell him they don't want to see him ever again. Time to look for a new job.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Fleetmon

I think if it came to an unarmed confrontation, my wife could easily take this individual but take away a persons livelihood, then all bets are potentially off.

My wife is reading the replies for this thread and will make a decision later today....leaving the company because of another person's inability to do "what is right" is not right to her....she has 28 years and a little less than two years from full retirement....why throw it away because someone cannot properly do their job and gets terminated and another person is trying the caring approach?


Because you wrote it from the aspect of not having a firearm nearby which creates a dangerous situation. If this is the case, and she is in mortal danger, then two years more on the job should be irrelevant. If youre fearmongering, then we need to call a spade a spade for that too.

Whining that you cant have a firearm but that she needs to stay on because she has two years to retirement, and because she wants to make a stand against managements ability to do what is right is silly. Is she trying to be a martyr? If there is danger, cite it. The reason why you carry a firearm is because you are living in fear of what may happen and need the protection. Im not against that since you and your wife likely are functioning, mentally stable people not likely to go postal. That is your determination, and the fact that you carry implies that there is a constant and very real danger to yourselves. 200-some-odd million others may disagree, but I have no issue with you making that determination.

But since you appear to be prone to living in fear, you need to determine, again, if this is just an extension of that behavioral characteristic, or if there is a real basis for danger here. Buffoons get fired all the time. This IS an irregular situation, and Id definitely protest it. But if there IS a basis for danger, then Id cite it very clearly and explicitly, and determine the right approach. To me, that means going to upper management, the local police, etc. with the concerns.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Cardenio327
I'm all about guns, but if your wife thinks wandering around an office carrying a gun will solve something


One quibble: carrying a firearm solves nothing. It's just an option for when it all goes to heck. And even then, it's not always the right option (in the cases where it's not quite all gone to heck).

 

[Doog]

My company never terminates anyone on the premises. We call them only on a Friday evening or Saturday morning at home and instruct them not to return to work on Monday. This is done only after all of their access has been deleted from locks, computers etc. Then all of their personal belongings are inventoried and FedExed to their home. They are advised that any final paychecks will be sent after 21 days if they do not return to the premises. This allows a "cool off" period and has worked like a charm.

The policy was implemented after a terminated secretary's armed intoxicated husband came looking for the General Manager after he fired the guys wife from her part time receptionist job. Luckily he came at lunch hour when everyone was gone and the GM convinced him that he was a new "temp guy just doing book work". The local PD arrested him later that afternoon.

 

[The_Jeff]

I don't understand the 2 week thing either. Does the getting fired guy have some key role in the company that's not otherwise fill-able? How productive is he going to be? I expect a typical reaction would be to sabotage the business not become violent towards a person... but this only after watching a passive-aggressive narcissist at my office. (There are more than one kind of crazy, of course.)

If you wanted to be nice to him and give him 2 weeks' severance, just cut a check and still kick him out.

My company uses those electronic door fob things and we can lock someone out, but usually just confiscate the fob. We used to get memos about not letting so-and-so in the building, as we're all chivalrous sorts who'll hold the door open if two of us arrive at the same time.

The proper course of action would have been to hire and train the guy's replacement-- they had plenty of warning-- then can him, take his access card, show him the door, and warn him to not trespass on the property again.

When corporate fires a manager, they take them out to lunch or dinner and do it at the restaurant.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: Fleetmon


My wife is reading the replies for this thread and will make a decision later today....


Tell her to be safe. You never think it could happen where you work until it does. I saw it first hand. The local police came to our office and recommended we arm ourselves for a period of two years minimum afterward because the guy who invaded our "space" was a multiple offender and chronic alcoholic. He was sentenced to 4 years and did 6 months and got shock probation.
Our GM notified the landlord and they removed the "gun free zone" sticker from our building. The guy never came back.

 

[UNC151]

Originally Posted By: Fleetmon
No confusion.....it's termination. This individual failed the initial probation, was given an extension on probation for three months, and finally, given a "final, FINAL warning" with another two months probation. They obviously didn't make it.


Originally Posted By: Cardenio327
By the way, there is something wrong with management as was posted various times above. The subject should be escorted out of the building upon firing, and if they feel sorry for him they can cut him a check for 2 weeks and tell him they don't want to see him ever again. Time to look for a new job.

I am in upper management and I FULLY agree with this. Obviously, there may be more to the whole situation, but based upon what I read in the first quote above, the whole "giving him another chance" routine speaks of weak management that cannot make a decision or does not have the spine to do so. If the terminated employee was not working out during the probation period that was the time when he should have been released. What else is a probation period for but to judge the performance and viability of a potential employee? Certainly, if the information as told is correct, it should not have been a surprise in the slightest to the terminated employee, who had three separate instances of being informed they were not performing as required. If a manager is properly engaged with the staff, there should be no need for a "rat" as described--the manager should have a clear picture whether or not the employee is performing and is melding into the existing team. It sounds like the terminated employee is not the only one who deserved more scrutiny.

As to the question of what should be done--if management is too lame to properly "terminate" someone, they (or he) will likely not support giving your wife paid time off either on a "maybe so". If there is a possibility there could be violence (this needs to be a fairly certain thing), then your wife should escalate this up the management chain or to HR. If the company does not have these capacities, then take the vacation time if the threat is substantial enough and re-evaluate the value of working for a company with such integrity/values. I am a pro-gun person, but I am highly skeptical carrying a weapon in this instance is the appropriate thing to do.