Firing contest by boss leads employees to quit

[ElNono]

Firing contest by boss leads employees to quit
State judge sides with ex-workers, citing 'intolerable' work environment

A Bettendorf businessman, branded as the “boss from hell” by some of his employees, offered prizes to workers who could predict which of them would next be fired.

A state judge has called that a “deplorable” act and sided with the company’s ex-employees.

Read more (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111002/NEWS/310020058/Firing-contest-by-boss-leads-employees-to-quit?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFrontpage)

[LnGrrrR]

Sounds like a pretty idiotic boss.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol....$10? Add cheap to the list behind arrongant asshole.

[Halberto]

Oh wait, was she a great big fat person?

[TeyshaBlue]

lolz

[Wild Cobra]

Only read the posts, not the link, but my immediate thoughts is he did such a thing to have other employees rat out the slackers he didn't know about.

[Yonivore]

1) He owned the business and, even if distasteful, it was not illegal to have such a contest.

2) The contest did not require anyone turn anyone else in for conduct that would cause them to be fired; the owner hired a secret shopper to evaluate employee performance. If anything, (and, IMO, I think this was the purpose of the contest) it gave them fair warning their adherence to rules was being observed and that a failure to abide by them would result in termination.

3) The employees voluntarily resigned which, regardless of the tastefulness of the contest, disqualifies them from unemployment benefit.

4) Nothing in the story indicates the "offended" employees attempted to address their grievances through any channels that may have been afforded them by their employer -- conveniently, there's no mention of whether or not such a process existed.

5) Quitting, and giving up a source of income in this economy, is seriously stupid. Don't play the game. Quit talking on your cell phone, wear the fucking shirt, don't let your friends behind the counter, take off the hat, park where you're told, and be courteous to customers. Sounds like the owner was having a problem with widespread disregard of the rules and wanted to bring back some decorum.

I think the judge got it wrong.

In the future, I bet the employer just hires the secret shopper and fires employees without such an "offensive" warning.

If I were the employer, I'd be tempted to sue the former employees for slander or defamation.

[DMC]

If I were the employer, I'd be tempted to sue the former employees for slander or defamation.

You wouldn't get anything. They are unemployed.

[Yonivore]

You wouldn't get anything. They are unemployed.
I'd settle for the judgement.

[ElNono]

4) Nothing in the story indicates the "offended" employees attempted to address their grievances through any channels that may have been afforded them by their employer -- conveniently, there's no mention of whether or not such a process existed.


State records show that at least two QC Mart employees sent letters to company managers objecting to the contest. One worker wrote that the contest was “bizarre and unprofessional.” Another worker wrote that it had “created an atmosphere of distrust, intimidation and paranoia.”

Did you read the story?

[clambake]

where is the slander and defamation?

[Yonivore]

State records show that at least two QC Mart employees sent letters to company managers objecting to the contest. One worker wrote that the contest was “bizarre and unprofessional.” Another worker wrote that it had “created an atmosphere of distrust, intimidation and paranoia.”

Did you read the story?
Yep; I read it.


Shelsky said she and her store manager, along with a few other employees, quit as soon as they saw the memo and realized it wasn’t a joke or a prank.

“It was very degrading,” she said. “We looked at that, then looked at each other, and said, ‘OK, we’re done.’ ”
Shelsky was the subject of the article and the unemployment dispute.

[clambake]

where is the slander and defamation?

[ElNono]

Yep; I read it.

Did anything in the story indicated that the "offended" employees attempted to address their grievances?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If I were the employer, I'd be tempted to sue the former employees for slander or defamation.
You can't sue for slander and defamation when you've done every single thing the employee claimed you did.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

where is the slander and defamation?

[ChuckD]

You can't sue for slander and defamation when you've done every single thing the employee claimed you did.

Exactly. Being (truthfully) outed as the modern day Ebeneezer Scrooge <> being defamed or slandered.

[Yonivore]

You can't sue for slander and defamation when you've done every single thing the employee claimed you did.
I would make them support the claim he was "from Hell."

I don't know many people that find "convenience store clerk" the most rewarding career choice. Yes, it's honorable employment but, I can see where a generation of people raised to believe they're entitled to a job -- regardless of their own work ethic -- could see a disciplined employer as being "from Hell" and creating a "hostile work environment" by demanding they adhere to company policies regarding store operations and employee conduct.

If the local convenience store chain where I live is any indication, I'd fire about half the staff and keep looking for employees with the work ethic of the half I didn't fire.

[Yonivore]

Exactly. Being (truthfully) outed as the modern day Ebeneezer Scrooge <> being defamed or slandered.
How does requiring employees to adhere to a code of conduct equate to being a modern day Ebeneezer Scrooge?

[ChuckD]

How does requiring employees to adhere to a code of conduct equate to being a modern day Ebeneezer Scrooge?

Uh, the firing contest? That was fucking psychotic.

[Yonivore]

Uh, the firing contest? That was fucking psychotic.
No one was required to participate.

[ElNono]

Thankfully there are regulations penalizing those that create hostile work environments.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I would make them support the claim he was "from Hell."
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[ChuckD]

No one was required to participate.

No one would be required to participate in a wet t-shirt contest, were he to have one of those, either. Do you think that would fly?

There are lines you don't cross as an employee or as an employer. He crossed them. If they're slackers, fire them and be done with it.

[Yonivore]

No one would be required to participate in a wet t-shirt contest, were he to have one of those, either. Do you think that would fly?
If he were a Beach Bar, yes.


There are lines you don't cross as an employee or as an employer. He crossed them. If they're slackers, fire them and be done with it.
Well, it's not the contest that was at issue in the court case, it was whether or not the employee who quit was entitled to unemployment. It was in the employee's interest to make the case conditions were so oppressive, quitting was tantamount to being fired.

I don't think a non-compulsory contest over who will be fired for non-compliance with company policies rises to that level. The story states the employer was known as "The Boss from Hell," but, other than some vague allusions to a "hostile work environment," no offense -- other than the contest -- was offered as evidence of the hostility.

Sounds to me like a bunch of minimum wage grade employees saw an opportunity and found a lawyer to take their case before an idiotic judge that doesn't know a quitter from a fired person.

[TeyshaBlue]

Having been an employer, my perspective is the guy had no idea how to manage or motivate his employees. Rest assured that the likelihood of this being an isolated event approaches zero. I suspect there was additional testimony offered in this case that sunk the idiot.

[Yonivore]

Having been an employer, my perspective is the guy had no idea how to manage or motivate his employees. Rest assured that the likelihood of this being an isloated event approaches zero. I suspect there was additional testimony offered in this case that sunk the idiot.
The story did not indicate the judges determination was based on anything but the contest.

I've been an employer of minimum-wage earners and my perspective is the guy was sick and tired of unprofessional behavior and he was tired of firing people for unprofessional behavior so, he sent out a warning in the guise of a contest.

Stupid idea but, neither illegal or hostile.

As for it being an isolated incident? Probably not. The guy was probably a frustrated jerk that despised his employee base because they didn't share his idea of what constituted proper workplace decorum.

I'm still not sure what all the upset is about. He proposed a contest to guess who he would next fire for insubordination. It wasn't like he asked for suggestion on who he should fire, he was perfectly comfortable with making that decision on his own.

Framed another way, it wasn't a contest over guessing who would next be fired; it was a contest over recognizing who would be the idiot that, after being warned as a result of the contest, didn't heed the warning that secret shoppers would being dispatched to all the stores to see who was not adhering to store policies. To me, that person needs to be fired.

[ElNono]

Stupid idea but, neither illegal or hostile.

Not according to the judge.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Yonivore obv. knows more about employee rights violations than a judge who's been elected to rule on them.

[Wild Cobra]

Thankfully there are regulations penalizing those that create hostile work environments.
Yes.

I wish my employer would enforce those rules against two co workers.

[Yonivore]

Yonivore obv. knows more about employee rights violations than a judge who's been elected to rule on them.
The judge wasn't ruling on a rights violation. The judge was ruling on whether or not a former employee was entitled to unemployment benefits.

I think a judge that would have been asked to rule on whether or not any employee rights were violated would have laughed this out of court.

Tell me, DoK; what employee rights do you believe were violated?

And, how did the contest contribute to a hostile work environment?

[Borat Sagyidev]

If I were the employer, I'd be tempted to sue the former employees for slander or defamation.



Are you really that stupid or are you just trolling?

[Borat Sagyidev]

I would make them support the claim he was "from Hell."

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/123/337889974_fdd029b0f2.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1ysODn_1Nr4/TQgcql7dCUI/AAAAAAAAEYk/FJmSoc21DaA/s1600/smart+lawyer.jpg

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The judge wasn't ruling on a rights violation. The judge was ruling on whether or not a former employee was entitled to unemployment benefits.

I think a judge that would have been asked to rule on whether or not any employee rights were violated would have laughed this out of court.

Tell me, DoK; what employee rights do you believe were violated?

And, how did the contest contribute to a hostile work environment?
I'll answer all those questions after you explain how the employer was slandered. The fact that you think an employee rights violation suit would be laughed out of court, but you think the employer could have sued for slander and defamation for being called, "The employer from hell" is funny. By that logic, someone can sue for slander anytime he's referred to as an "asshole" since he's not actually an asshole.

[ElNono]

The judge clearly ruled that BECAUSE of the contest that created a hostile work environment, the former employee was entitled to unemployment benefits.

There's no doubt the contest was at the center of the ruling.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The contest creates a hostile work environment because it means your co-workers might have something to gain from you being fired and you wouldn't be able to trust anyone you were working with. Seems pretty simple tbh.

If he just sent a notice out that secret shoppers would be around and that any cashiers who violated the code of conduct would be fired, he woulda been fine as that woulda been perfectly reasonable and professional. He's obviously cheap as fuck and has a hard time parting with money (:lol $10), sending a warning memo woulda been cheaper and more professional. All the employees agreed to the rules when they were hired so they were already subject to enforcement.

From my experience working at shithole jobs through high school and parts of college, he shouldn't have been blaming the employees themselves for violating rules. I've had minimum wage jobs (or close to it) where the employees adhere to every rule and take it seriously while I've had minimum wage jobs where the employees don't give a shit and follow whatever rules they want. The difference usually is the managers.

Managers who have favorites, play politics, don't recognize which employees do their jobs well, and let the employees they like get away with stuff cause the unprofessional environment where no one cares. The managers who view everyone as equal and judge employees based on job performance rather than personality match are the ones who get a professional work environment where rules are adhered to.

There was even a situation at my current job/internship where I could have raised hell, gotten a few people fired, and gotten a settlement for a "hostile work environment", but since I've always been treated with respect and I've always been recognized for doing good work, I let it go and didn't press for anything to happen.

[Agloco]

1) He owned the business and, even if distasteful, it was not illegal to have such a contest.

2) The contest did not require anyone turn anyone else in for conduct that would cause them to be fired; the owner hired a secret shopper to evaluate employee performance. If anything, (and, IMO, I think this was the purpose of the contest) it gave them fair warning their adherence to rules was being observed and that a failure to abide by them would result in termination.

3) The employees voluntarily resigned which, regardless of the tastefulness of the contest, disqualifies them from unemployment benefit.

4) Nothing in the story indicates the "offended" employees attempted to address their grievances through any channels that may have been afforded them by their employer -- conveniently, there's no mention of whether or not such a process existed.

5) Quitting, and giving up a source of income in this economy, is seriously stupid. Don't play the game. Quit talking on your cell phone, wear the fucking shirt, don't let your friends behind the counter, take off the hat, park where you're told, and be courteous to customers. Sounds like the owner was having a problem with widespread disregard of the rules and wanted to bring back some decorum.

I think the judge got it wrong.

In the future, I bet the employer just hires the secret shopper and fires employees without such an "offensive" warning.

If I were the employer, I'd be tempted to sue the former employees for slander or defamation.

rofl, Yoni going to bat for this guy.

It's in poor taste, even if it's within the letter of the law (which I'm not convinced of).

[Yonivore]

rofl, Yoni going to bat for this guy.

It's in poor taste, even if it's within the letter of the law (which I'm not convinced of).
I'm not going to bat for "this guy." I'm going to bat for business owners who will have to pay out more unemployment benefits for bums that argue they were fired when they simply quit because, well, they're quitters and crybabies because their boss is a bit insensitive.

I said it was distasteful but, I don't see where the contest violated any laws.

[Yonivore]

The contest creates a hostile work environment because it means your co-workers might have something to gain from you being fired and you wouldn't be able to trust anyone you were working with. Seems pretty simple tbh.
Except that the firings weren't contingent on the contest outcome; the firing would have already taken place before the employer knew how anyone predicted.


If he just sent a notice out that secret shoppers would be around and that any cashiers who violated the code of conduct would be fired, he woulda been fine as that woulda been perfectly reasonable and professional. He's obviously cheap as fuck and has a hard time parting with money (:lol $10), sending a warning memo woulda been cheaper and more professional. All the employees agreed to the rules when they were hired so they were already subject to enforcement.
I think the contest got their attention more than would a "warning memo." Obviously, to me anyway, this employer was having trouble with employees adhering to certain policies.


From my experience working at shithole jobs through high school and parts of college, he shouldn't have been blaming the employees themselves for violating rules. I've had minimum wage jobs (or close to it) where the employees adhere to every rule and take it seriously while I've had minimum wage jobs where the employees don't give a shit and follow whatever rules they want. The difference usually is the managers.

Managers who have favorites, play politics, don't recognize which employees do their jobs well, and let the employees they like get away with stuff cause the unprofessional environment where no one cares. The managers who view everyone as equal and judge employees based on job performance rather than personality match are the ones who get a professional work environment where rules are adhered to.
I agree. I definitely would have fired the Manager at the same time I fired the employee -- unless the Manager is able to demonstrate they've sought compliance from the employee.


There was even a situation at my current job/internship where I could have raised hell, gotten a few people fired, and gotten a settlement for a "hostile work environment", but since I've always been treated with respect and I've always been recognized for doing good work, I let it go and didn't press for anything to happen.
You're probably the exception.

Hell, I wouldn't have been offended by this contest. I probably would have said, "that's pretty fucked up," and I wouldn't have played. But, I would be the guy wearing the company shirt, leaving my hat in the car, my cell phone in my pocket (on silent), parking in the right place, keeping unauthorized people from behind the counter, etc...

[clambake]

there is nothing to suggest that the employees the judge ruled for had not taken their jobs seriously.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Except that the firings weren't contingent on the contest outcome; the firing would have already taken place before the employer knew how anyone predicted.
People participating in the contest could do things to get co-workers fired. That's what I was referring to.



I think the contest got their attention more than would a "warning memo." Obviously, to me anyway, this employer was having trouble with employees adhering to certain policies.
A waring memo plus employees being fired after violating the rules woulda gotten people's attention after enough employees were fired. I think if he did all the warnings and firings without the contest, it woulda been more effective and wouldn't have resulted in this.



I agree. I definitely would have fired the Manager at the same time I fired the employee -- unless the Manager is able to demonstrate they've sought compliance from the employee.
:tu, the fact he's sending secret shoppers in means that he can't get the managers to enforce the rules he wants.

[ploto]

The only issue I have is with the worker who quit claiming a hostile work environment when she quit as soon as she read the memo. How can she claim this memo created a hostile work environment when she did not even work there anymore? The contest was stupid, but not to me illegal or grounds for the person to receive unemployment. She did not even try to address the issue; she just immediately quit.

[Oh, Gee!!]

pay no mind to yoni. he doesn't know anything whatsover about the law or how it should be applied in any given circumstance. he's a dipshit who uses (without citing) the arguments of educated people to make himself feel smarter than he actually is.

[Oh, Gee!!]

iow, he's a fucking moron.

[Yonivore]

People participating in the contest could do things to get co-workers fired. That's what I was referring to.
In the context of the contest, how would they be able to do that?


A waring memo plus employees being fired after violating the rules woulda gotten people's attention after enough employees were fired. I think if he did all the warnings and firings without the contest, it woulda been more effective and wouldn't have resulted in this.
You'll notice I never said the contest was a good idea.


:tu, the fact he's sending secret shoppers in means that he can't get the managers to enforce the rules he wants.
Meh; secret shoppers are a legitimate tool to evaluate employee performance in large chains of stores.

[MannyIsGod]

The only issue I have is with the worker who quit claiming a hostile work environment when she quit as soon as she read the memo. How can she claim this memo created a hostile work environment when she did not even work there anymore? The contest was stupid, but not to me illegal or grounds for the person to receive unemployment. She did not even try to address the issue; she just immediately quit.

The moment that memo went out it was a hostile work environment. If its bad enough, you're don't necessarily have to work it out. IE, if your boss commits some very high level of sexual harassment and you then quit I don't think you could say that you had to "try to work it out" first.

[Agloco]

I'm not going to bat for "this guy." I'm going to bat for business owners who will have to pay out more unemployment benefits for bums that argue they were fired when they simply quit because, well, they're quitters and crybabies because their boss is a bit insensitive.

I said it was distasteful but, I don't see where the contest violated any laws.

Fair enough. Perhaps your gripe is better taken up with the jackass who perpetrated this in the first place?


The only issue I have is with the worker who quit claiming a hostile work environment when she quit as soon as she read the memo. How can she claim this memo created a hostile work environment when she did not even work there anymore? The contest was stupid, but not to me illegal or grounds for the person to receive unemployment. She did not even try to address the issue; she just immediately quit.

I'm not certain that you'd need any substantial length of time to come to the "hostile work environment" conclusion. Minutes? Hours? What suffices here?

[Jamtas#2]

I'd agree with a settlement against him for creating a hostile work environment and a sum being attached to that. I don't like that it opens up acceptance to file for unemployment benefits considering the employee did quit on her own. From the way the article was written, it appears the employee only brought the hostile claim up once unemployment was denied.

[RandomGuy]

I would make them support the claim he was "from Hell."

I would make you explain why that speech isn't covered by the first amendment.

Then I would laugh at your stamming attempts to do so. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Yoni is as predictable as the sunrise for taking the most dickish position on any given issue possible. Its like he has a special spidey sense for opportunities to be a total dick about something.