Comments on: Hung-over employees and the Web don’t mix http://www.hrblunders.com/hung-over-employees-and-the-web-dont-mix/ The worst mistakes, catastrophes, and near-misses Sat, 24 Jul 2010 21:23:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Top 10 HR Blunders of 2008 | HRBlunders.com | The worst mistakes, catastrophes, and near-misses http://www.hrblunders.com/hung-over-employees-and-the-web-dont-mix/comment-page-1/#comment-7105 Top 10 HR Blunders of 2008 | HRBlunders.com | The worst mistakes, catastrophes, and near-misses Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:09:01 +0000 http://www.hrblunders.com/?p=408#comment-7105 [...] Hung-over employees and the Web don’t mix. This story turned out to be a hoax. Supposedly, Australian Kyle Doyle called out sick one day to [...] [...] Hung-over employees and the Web don’t mix. This story turned out to be a hoax. Supposedly, Australian Kyle Doyle called out sick one day to [...]

]]> By: Was Facebook sick day star framed? | HRBlunders.com | The worst mistakes, catastrophes, and near-misses http://www.hrblunders.com/hung-over-employees-and-the-web-dont-mix/comment-page-1/#comment-5396 Was Facebook sick day star framed? | HRBlunders.com | The worst mistakes, catastrophes, and near-misses Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:03:17 +0000 http://www.hrblunders.com/?p=408#comment-5396 [...] blogs and Web sites, including this one, recently wrote about Kyle Doyle, an Australian call center employee who allegedly got caught [...] [...] blogs and Web sites, including this one, recently wrote about Kyle Doyle, an Australian call center employee who allegedly got caught [...]

]]> By: Prakash http://www.hrblunders.com/hung-over-employees-and-the-web-dont-mix/comment-page-1/#comment-5202 Prakash Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:58:08 +0000 http://www.hrblunders.com/?p=408#comment-5202 Although we all should certainly understand and "feel" for her as a recipient of domestic violence, we also need to remember we are NOT DCF nor are we social workers, we are HR professionals and most of you are "keying" into her problem, rather than the FRAUD she committed. If your employee was so starving and hungry that they robbed a store to get money to buy food and you found out, would your rationale still be the same and would you want to still keep the person? Stop allowing your heart to rule your head, business is business, as cold and as hard as it sometimes is. The liability of keeping her is simple, as a company who knows that she has conducted fraud, any further fraud, dependent on the situation, conducted after proof of our knowledge, COULD be construed as "aiding and abetting" a known criminal and although it would be VERY hard to prove, it would be equally as simple to have a case brought against the company. Whether the case is thrown out or not, the "mark" against the company would still be there: explain that to your board/company owners. Although we all should certainly understand and “feel” for her as a recipient of domestic violence, we also need to remember we are NOT DCF nor are we social workers, we are HR professionals and most of you are “keying” into her problem, rather than the FRAUD she committed. If your employee was so starving and hungry that they robbed a store to get money to buy food and you found out, would your rationale still be the same and would you want to still keep the person? Stop allowing your heart to rule your head, business is business, as cold and as hard as it sometimes is. The liability of keeping her is simple, as a company who knows that she has conducted fraud, any further fraud, dependent on the situation, conducted after proof of our knowledge, COULD be construed as “aiding and abetting” a known criminal and although it would be VERY hard to prove, it would be equally as simple to have a case brought against the company. Whether the case is thrown out or not, the “mark” against the company would still be there: explain that to your board/company owners.

]]> By: Been there http://www.hrblunders.com/hung-over-employees-and-the-web-dont-mix/comment-page-1/#comment-5201 Been there Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:29:06 +0000 http://www.hrblunders.com/?p=408#comment-5201 Larry, domestic violence is an issue that many people turn their heads and avoid. How would you feel if you had a sister, daughter or even your own mother was a victim of domestic violence? Wouldn't you have wanted someone to reach out to them and help them. In the Chicagoland/suburb area, there are over 600 cases of domestic violence called in daily. Unless you have had personal experience, you should not be so judgemental. You need to have a heart here. As far as forging, that is wrong, but that is between the doctors office and that person, not you. Maybe this employee needed someone to ask her if she was ok, not "can" her. Have a heart. Larry, domestic violence is an issue that many people turn their heads and avoid. How would you feel if you had a sister, daughter or even your own mother was a victim of domestic violence? Wouldn’t you have wanted someone to reach out to them and help them. In the Chicagoland/suburb area, there are over 600 cases of domestic violence called in daily. Unless you have had personal experience, you should not be so judgemental. You need to have a heart here. As far as forging, that is wrong, but that is between the doctors office and that person, not you. Maybe this employee needed someone to ask her if she was ok, not “can” her. Have a heart.

]]> By: Cat http://www.hrblunders.com/hung-over-employees-and-the-web-dont-mix/comment-page-1/#comment-5180 Cat Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:50:20 +0000 http://www.hrblunders.com/?p=408#comment-5180 Ah, a "hangover" itself is not an illness...but what is a hangover, really, but an upset stomach, a headache, and exhaustion? Are those separately not excusable illnesses? Just wondering. And if he was so sick (I myself have been there a time or two, haven't most of us?), what the heck was he doing on his computer anyway?? Unless his is parked in his bathroom or something... And I see what you all are saying about the liability issue with the woman who was abused forging the notes...however, I agree that maybe a warning should have been given, unless the policy was so clear as to forgo that option. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and unless you have been in her boat, you have no idea what you will do to cover things up. HR Dude, you called me out and said that I was unaware of when Larry discovered his former employee's deception...I guess his use of the word "canned" at the end of his story was what really irked me, and made me feel that he terminated her after finding out what was going on. Domestic abuse is everyone's problem....too many women and children are killed each year because of that "not my problem" attitude. OK, I'm off the soapbox now. And "rukidding", if firing someone for being not too bright was an option, trust me, a certain percentage of the world would not have their jobs...CEOs, regular Joes, and everyone in between!!! :) Ah, a “hangover” itself is not an illness…but what is a hangover, really, but an upset stomach, a headache, and exhaustion? Are those separately not excusable illnesses? Just wondering. And if he was so sick (I myself have been there a time or two, haven’t most of us?), what the heck was he doing on his computer anyway?? Unless his is parked in his bathroom or something…

And I see what you all are saying about the liability issue with the woman who was abused forging the notes…however, I agree that maybe a warning should have been given, unless the policy was so clear as to forgo that option. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and unless you have been in her boat, you have no idea what you will do to cover things up. HR Dude, you called me out and said that I was unaware of when Larry discovered his former employee’s deception…I guess his use of the word “canned” at the end of his story was what really irked me, and made me feel that he terminated her after finding out what was going on. Domestic abuse is everyone’s problem….too many women and children are killed each year because of that “not my problem” attitude. OK, I’m off the soapbox now.

And “rukidding”, if firing someone for being not too bright was an option, trust me, a certain percentage of the world would not have their jobs…CEOs, regular Joes, and everyone in between!!! :)

]]> By: rukidding? http://www.hrblunders.com/hung-over-employees-and-the-web-dont-mix/comment-page-1/#comment-5109 rukidding? Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:27:30 +0000 http://www.hrblunders.com/?p=408#comment-5109 Mel, saying someone who sprains their ankle playing basketball is the same as someone who drinks too much and gets a hangover is insane. One is an accident - unless you are saying he accidentally got drunk?? If the person was an alcoholic that's an entirely different situation with ADA - but how the situation is presented suggests it was just a guy that got drunk, was too hungover and then got caught lying to his boss because he posted his lie online. If it was a one time issue - I probably wouldn't of fired him, but I would have docked him a vacation day for sure. On a non HR side - he should have been termed for not being very bright. Mel, saying someone who sprains their ankle playing basketball is the same as someone who drinks too much and gets a hangover is insane. One is an accident – unless you are saying he accidentally got drunk?? If the person was an alcoholic that’s an entirely different situation with ADA – but how the situation is presented suggests it was just a guy that got drunk, was too hungover and then got caught lying to his boss because he posted his lie online.

If it was a one time issue – I probably wouldn’t of fired him, but I would have docked him a vacation day for sure.

On a non HR side – he should have been termed for not being very bright.

]]> By: Mel http://www.hrblunders.com/hung-over-employees-and-the-web-dont-mix/comment-page-1/#comment-5106 Mel Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:51:27 +0000 http://www.hrblunders.com/?p=408#comment-5106 Hi HR Dude. I feel we are on a different topic - and you may be really stretching in your example... In terms of people who are being unethical and/or exposing the company to risk, I take a pretty firm stance. For us, a core value is honestly and trust. So, a person can make and fess up to an honest $500,000 mistake (yep, it has happened) without any negative ramifications. However, a person who lies or tries to cover up a $1,000 mistake will be dismissed. My industry is one that cannot allow people to cover up mistakes - to do so may, literally, cost lives. Sometimes I'm at odds with other leaders: Example: We charge more for insurance for people who smoke (another hot topic). We had someone who lied and said he didn't smoke to get the lower premium. The powers that be only required him to pay the back premiums. I would have voted for dismissal. So, we could stretch and consider that person under your question of liability because they were committing fraud - but we didn't go there. By the way, my train of thought was... "Well heck, why doesn't every smoker claim they don't smoke and get the lower premium. If we only make them pay back premiums if we find out they smoke, it's worth the chance. (I may not be quite as soft as I seem) :o) I'm the legal guru in my company so I do take liability and exposure very seriously. I'm also the one who has to approve dismissals. I've managed to care about the people and protect the company simultaneously. Hi HR Dude. I feel we are on a different topic – and you may be really stretching in your example… In terms of people who are being unethical and/or exposing the company to risk, I take a pretty firm stance. For us, a core value is honestly and trust. So, a person can make and fess up to an honest $500,000 mistake (yep, it has happened) without any negative ramifications. However, a person who lies or tries to cover up a $1,000 mistake will be dismissed. My industry is one that cannot allow people to cover up mistakes – to do so may, literally, cost lives.

Sometimes I’m at odds with other leaders: Example: We charge more for insurance for people who smoke (another hot topic). We had someone who lied and said he didn’t smoke to get the lower premium. The powers that be only required him to pay the back premiums. I would have voted for dismissal. So, we could stretch and consider that person under your question of liability because they were committing fraud – but we didn’t go there. By the way, my train of thought was… “Well heck, why doesn’t every smoker claim they don’t smoke and get the lower premium. If we only make them pay back premiums if we find out they smoke, it’s worth the chance. (I may not be quite as soft as I seem) :o )

I’m the legal guru in my company so I do take liability and exposure very seriously. I’m also the one who has to approve dismissals. I’ve managed to care about the people and protect the company simultaneously.

]]> By: Mary http://www.hrblunders.com/hung-over-employees-and-the-web-dont-mix/comment-page-1/#comment-5105 Mary Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:43:16 +0000 http://www.hrblunders.com/?p=408#comment-5105 Wow! A lot flying with this one. HR serves two purposes. First to protect the company from liablity by ensuring policies are written in a manner that is legal and protects the employer and acts a guideline for employees as to what the company expects from them. Ensure that those policies are adheared to and applied equally without discrimination. Second, to ensure that the company is not violating the rights of the employees and are acting in a fair and reasonable manner. If this is done correctly, the company's liability will be minimal. There will always be employees that will take advantage and sue the company no matter what. The key is in the documentation. If policies are violated document it. If you have a progressive discipline policy, follow it, document it. Begining with the first verbal warning. This is what the courts are going to look at. How has the company handle similar situations in the past. If your documents are in order you should be okay. Employees are a companies greatest asset. If you remove the human (soft)side, you will have greater turnover which result in huge monetary cost of retraining, lost productivity which will affect the companies ability to provide the goods or services. Which ultimately affects all our jobs. Wow! A lot flying with this one. HR serves two purposes. First to protect the company from liablity by ensuring policies are written in a manner that is legal and protects the employer and acts a guideline for employees as to what the company expects from them. Ensure that those policies are adheared to and applied equally without discrimination. Second, to ensure that the company is not violating the rights of the employees and are acting in a fair and reasonable manner.

If this is done correctly, the company’s liability will be minimal. There will always be employees that will take advantage and sue the company no matter what. The key is in the documentation. If policies are violated document it. If you have a progressive discipline policy, follow it, document it. Begining with the first verbal warning. This is what the courts are going to look at. How has the company handle similar situations in the past. If your documents are in order you should be okay.

Employees are a companies greatest asset. If you remove the human (soft)side, you will have greater turnover which result in huge monetary cost of retraining, lost productivity which will affect the companies ability to provide the goods or services. Which ultimately affects all our jobs.

]]> By: Prakash http://www.hrblunders.com/hung-over-employees-and-the-web-dont-mix/comment-page-1/#comment-5104 Prakash Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:30:13 +0000 http://www.hrblunders.com/?p=408#comment-5104 Mel of course it is about the people, ESPECIALLY from our standpoint, if it wasn't we shouldn't be in HR, but compasion only goes so far. HR IS about compassion, but based on the laws of the land. She did not seek out assistance from the company, committed fraud and thusly, once it was known by the company, produced liability for the company. It is about the PEOPLE, not the person, what is best for ALL the employees. Our job is not only to provide compassion, but to provide documentation that will stand up in court as well. As for the situation you told us about, I applaude your "new" leader, people SHOULD be paid fairly and I am SURE that when you were deciding what to pay them, as a good HR professional, you consulted the LAWS to determine what was a "fair and equitable distribution of wealth". Mel of course it is about the people, ESPECIALLY from our standpoint, if it wasn’t we shouldn’t be in HR, but compasion only goes so far. HR IS about compassion, but based on the laws of the land. She did not seek out assistance from the company, committed fraud and thusly, once it was known by the company, produced liability for the company. It is about the PEOPLE, not the person, what is best for ALL the employees. Our job is not only to provide compassion, but to provide documentation that will stand up in court as well. As for the situation you told us about, I applaude your “new” leader, people SHOULD be paid fairly and I am SURE that when you were deciding what to pay them, as a good HR professional, you consulted the LAWS to determine what was a “fair and equitable distribution of wealth”.

]]> By: HR Dude http://www.hrblunders.com/hung-over-employees-and-the-web-dont-mix/comment-page-1/#comment-5102 HR Dude Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:10:48 +0000 http://www.hrblunders.com/?p=408#comment-5102 Two completely different situations there, Mel. How about an example that has to do with liability? I would like to know at what point, Mel, do you say enough is enough when an employee is taking the company for a ride? I wonder how much risk your company is in right now? *Shudder at the thought* Two completely different situations there, Mel. How about an example that has to do with liability? I would like to know at what point, Mel, do you say enough is enough when an employee is taking the company for a ride? I wonder how much risk your company is in right now? *Shudder at the thought*

]]>