Your Thoughts - Workplace Violence

[fsskier]

Large corporations often have a set policy, and I suspect for reasons well grounded in experience.

I worked for 45 years for a major defense/aerospace corporation. With a unionized labor force, layoffs -by seniority- were often announced over a month in advance and employees worked until the last day. People laid off in an orderly and "perceived to be fair" way are very unlikely to retaliate. And, I suspect they all want their jobs back when better times return. This could sometimes be as many as 1,000 employees, or as few as 1 or 2

However, employees fired for cause would be taken to their office or work station, allowed to collect personal items then taken to the door. Almost like an ejection seat, no notice, a check and good by and good luck.

I suspect that experience has proven these policies to be prudent.

 

[azjake]

Not to make your concerns worse, but taking the 2 weeks off won't prevent this guy from waiting in the parking lot once your wife goes back to work, or finding out where you live and going to your home. Look if there really is questions about this guy's mental stability and his attitude towards women, why did the company hire him in the first place.

If I was your wife I would be bypass her supervisors and contact the company's lawyers directly. Maybe if you/she get the lawyers involved and they understand you will hold the company responsible for any harm that comes to her they will talk some sense into management.

 

[pbm]

If I was your wife I'd tell her boss to 'grow a set' and do the dirty work himself/herself...

Delegating these type things to a subordinate shows a lack of leadership and more....

 

[DuckRyder]

I'm going to assume there is a credible threat.

I my advice would be:

• For your wife to send an e-mail or otherwise written account of the credible threat to management. Keep a copy.
• Most large companies have a threat hotline. Use it to report the credible threat.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: pbm
If I was your wife I'd tell her boss to 'grow a set' and do the dirty work himself/herself...

Delegating these type things to a subordinate shows a lack of leadership and more....


I dont think we have established this as an abnormal thing. If she is usually doing this, and this situation is extreme, then again, cite it heavily with the evidence to the superiors, and do your job up to the point where security is a consideration and then refuse. With the right paper trail, that two years more work becomes a moot point in court.

If not, its fearmongering, and there is little basis to justify any other action.

 

[Fleetmon]

Thanks (to most of you) for the replies. I escalated this myself this morning and the individual will be terminated at 5PM with two weeks administrative pay. Entrances will be secured until further notice (they should be all the time anyway buy Vendors visit her office frequently and need access I suppose. My building is typically secured so it's not an issue.

I'm not sure if the previous actions for this individual was intended as it was outlined or was a case of an inexperienced person (wannabe) making what they thought was a fair decision....fair to the individual but potentially dangerous to other employees.

My wife is not a rat/snitch and was merely doing her job.....her contracts are multimillion dollar and multi-year duration and mistakes cost, potentially, millions as well as potentially causing safety issues to the public, facilities, and environment. She is a dedicated employee.

As far as firearms....as I said later on in this thread, it was not relevant and shouldn't have been stated to begin with. She would be prepared to deal with any required course of action anywhere but the archaic-minded politically-ruled State she must work in. Yes, she has the option to resign but why should she because of an incompetent employee that was terminated for (more than) just cause.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Fleetmon
As far as firearms....as I said later on in this thread, it was not relevant and shouldn't have been stated to begin with. She would be prepared to deal with any required course of action anywhere but the archaic-minded politically-ruled State she must work in. Yes, she has the option to resign but why should she because of an incompetent employee that was terminated for (more than) just cause.


Youve yet to confirm if this employee is truly a violent threat based upon previous knowledge/experience, and it would also be helpful to know if this is her typical duty in executing her job.

 

[Fleetmon]

I don't think anyone can determine if an individual is a true threat until that time comes....this person does have issues with women in general and does not think they belong in a workplace....I was told "jobs are for men not them".

Her job is to review contracts and related documentation for completion, correctness, and ready to go public. So, yes, it is her job. Without her doing her job, costly change orders can be generated or worse, jobs must be rebid.

I don't see how YOUR questions are relevant to this discussion.....circumstances such as this COULD lead to a situation of workplace violence. If I could be certain this individual would not react in a negative manner OR take is out on someone else, then there would have been no reason to seek other opinions.

 

[Donald]

Originally Posted By: 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.


If caught with a firearm its not the job, its jail. I assume they work in NJ or NY. Unsure of NJ, but in NY, posession of a concealed handgun without a permit is a felony. And a permit issued in other counties is not valid in NYC.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Fleetmon
I don't think anyone can determine if an individual is a true threat until that time comes....this person does have issues with women in general and does not think they belong in a workplace....I was told "jobs are for men not them".

Her job is to review contracts and related documentation for completion, correctness, and ready to go public. So, yes, it is her job. Without her doing her job, costly change orders can be generated or worse, jobs must be rebid.

I don't see how YOUR questions are relevant to this discussion.....circumstances such as this COULD lead to a situation of workplace violence. If I could be certain this individual would not react in a negative manner OR take is out on someone else, then there would have been no reason to seek other opinions.


My angle is that youre prone to living in excessive fear. Its OK, you have every right to. But that's why you have to have machine guns and carry all the time.

Nothing youve said indicates to me that this person is an imminent threat. You say that her job is to review contracts; to me that is not to hire and fire employees within the company. So I still cannot tell if this is her routine duty or something out of the ordinary. If it is her day to day duty, then she knows how these things work. Firing someone face to face is never a comfortable situation, there is absolutely nothing new there, and anyone experienced would know that from years of doing it.

You emphasizing "COULD lead to a situation" indicates to me that she has never done it before and youre just building more fear from your typical basis. We can never be certain, thats why its your right to carry and own your machine gun and all that (I get it, she cant at her workplace, which is why youve posted it in this forum area and why youre concerned). But again, someone experienced in firing people or being involved in that process should know the stress and behaviors that typically are part of it.

But it looks like you have no clue about the situation and so are just building fear with no basis. Just like others, you dont hear what you want and so just dismiss. If I just said that she should carry and ignore the law, then you probably wouldnt be saying that what Im asking is irrelevant.

Lots of people make stupid comments about women in the workplace. I dont connect that to violence due to being canned. This is highly speculative and Ive yet to hear of a basis for it. if this person is known to be violent or has had other scuffles, etc., it would be different. But youre just not giving basis.

It would be like me saying that I have to go and fire your wife, and since she carries a gun, she is likely to be violent. Is there any basis? No, Im fearmongering based upon questionable things.

Im not belittling the potential of violence against your wife. Youre just not giving any practical reason for it to be the case. People get fired by the millions...

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Fleetmon
I don't think anyone can determine if an individual is a true threat until that time comes....this person does have issues with women in general and does not think they belong in a workplace....I was told "jobs are for men not them".

Her job is to review contracts and related documentation for completion, correctness, and ready to go public. So, yes, it is her job. Without her doing her job, costly change orders can be generated or worse, jobs must be rebid.

I don't see how YOUR questions are relevant to this discussion.....circumstances such as this COULD lead to a situation of workplace violence. If I could be certain this individual would not react in a negative manner OR take is out on someone else, then there would have been no reason to seek other opinions.


My angle is that youre prone to living in excessive fear. Its OK, you have every right to. But that's why you have to have machine guns and carry all the time.

Nothing youve said indicates to me that this person is an imminent threat. You say that her job is to review contracts; to me that is not to hire and fire employees within the company. So I still cannot tell if this is her routine duty or something out of the ordinary. If it is her day to day duty, then she knows how these things work. Firing someone face to face is never a comfortable situation, there is absolutely nothing new there, and anyone experienced would know that from years of doing it.

You emphasizing "COULD lead to a situation" indicates to me that she has never done it before and youre just building more fear from your typical basis. We can never be certain, thats why its your right to carry and own your machine gun and all that (I get it, she cant at her workplace, which is why youve posted it in this forum area and why youre concerned). But again, someone experienced in firing people or being involved in that process should know the stress and behaviors that typically are part of it.

But it looks like you have no clue about the situation and so are just building fear with no basis. Just like others, you dont hear what you want and so just dismiss. If I just said that she should carry and ignore the law, then you probably wouldnt be saying that what Im asking is irrelevant.

Lots of people make stupid comments about women in the workplace. I dont connect that to violence due to being canned. This is highly speculative and Ive yet to hear of a basis for it. if this person is known to be violent or has had other scuffles, etc., it would be different. But youre just not giving basis.

It would be like me saying that I have to go and fire your wife, and since she carries a gun, she is likely to be violent. Is there any basis? No, Im fearmongering based upon questionable things.

Im not belittling the potential of violence against your wife. Youre just not giving any practical reason for it to be the case. People get fired by the millions...


Wow.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder


Wow.

Ive yet to see anything yet that indicates the basis of a potential threat, nor anything that is imminent. I still cant tell if firing people is actually in her job description.

All these things influence the final approach and best actions.

Originally Posted By: Fleetmon
What are some of YOUR views on this matter and what would YOU do in this case?

 

[mechanicx]

This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where the incompetent manager Elaine has a scary employee that everyone wants fired. She's afraid of him and instead of firing him she repeatedly promotes him making all her other employees mad at her lol.

 

[Tempest]

Check the laws / company policy for pepper spray and largest knife she is allowed to posses. Having a purse (assumption) would make carrying these things easier.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Check the laws / company policy for pepper spray and largest knife she is allowed to posses. Having a purse (assumption) would make carrying these things easier.


Good ideas. I really hope that this is all just overdone and that a sensible solution occurs.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
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.


Down here, it's a legal 4 weeks "notice", which in my industry is usually interpreted as 4 weeks pay to your account while you are escorted to the gate.

Too much prior history of shenanigans in the 4 week period (one boilermaker welded solid bar instead of tube into a boiler, another dropped mill balls into superheater pendants).

 

[Fleetmon]

Geez...read what was written....I already said this has NOTHING to do with firearms. Her job does not include firing people; she was brought up in this persons hearing due to her discoveries.

You want proof this person is a threat? Most of the time the proof comes in the form of vandalism, phone harassment or, in the worst case, dead bodies. This individual has already stated women have no place in the business world thus their opinion of the "rat" as some of you might want to call her, could lead to an escalation.

We are absolutely not living in fear.....as said, ONCE AGAIN, the firearms have NOTHING to do with this. In retrospect, it this thread probably should have been asked in General rather than the firearms section. I guess I was implying if a situation arose HERE, she would have a way to defend herself with more than harsh language.

I don't agree with the decision to give this person two weeks notice thus the reason I elevated my concern to higher ups....and they agreed 100% that circumstances as they were, COULD be an invitation to violence. Also as stated, but what some of you obviously did not take time to read or are too ignorant to understand, is the person is now terminated and given two weeks administrative pay, I.E. two weeks pay but cannot return to work.

Live in NY or NJ? No freaking way! Your governors and their administrations are wannabe mafia who could care less about YOU!

Anyway, the situation is resolved (at least as far as my wife having to work near this person over the next two weeks.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Fleetmon


You want proof this person is a threat? Most of the time the proof comes in the form of vandalism, phone harassment or, in the worst case, dead bodies. This individual has already stated women have no place in the business world thus their opinion of the "rat" as some of you might want to call her, could lead to an escalation.

We are absolutely not living in fear.....as said, ONCE AGAIN, the firearms have NOTHING to do with this. In retrospect, it this thread probably should have been asked in General rather than the firearms section. I guess I was implying if a situation arose HERE, she would have a way to defend herself with more than harsh language.

I don't agree with the decision to give this person two weeks notice thus the reason I elevated my concern to higher ups....and they agreed 100% that circumstances as they were, COULD be an invitation to violence. Also as stated, but what some of you obviously did not take time to read or are too ignorant to understand, is the person is now terminated and given two weeks administrative pay, I.E. two weeks pay but cannot return to work.


So there is no history of this person being a menace? They arent being fired on the grounds of fighting or some such thing?

I get it though, now that its real clear. Your wife is coming across as the whistleblower, at least in perception, so one can see her as the cause of the termination.

No need to make an attack or get testy. You didnt make it clear to many of us that the person was terminated and not allowed back. If you had, that aspect wouldnt have perpetuated through so many peoples' posts.

Since it is two weeks severance pay and the person isnt hanging around, I'm not seeing the issue again anyway. Its not like the person is in the office. A disgruntled employee making an issue is a disgruntled employee making an issue, always has, always will be... Nothing new in this situation. Be careful, check your car and home, use common sense. This sort of thing has been done millions of times before.