[cpw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pspivak Being a manager I empathize with you. 1. As long as the merchandise did not actually leave the store, no police report was filed, they said that it was their intention to pay for the merchandise they set aside, I think that management was a little harsh in the suspension. I think a written reprimand and revocation of the privilege of putting merchandise aside might have been a better option. Suspension is a last step effort before termination. To keep off shaky ground, documentation of informing them about the store policy and suspension of the privilege for a period of time, or revocation, might have been a better idea. To single out an employee (you said the policy was kind of loose) in a protected classification (e.g. women, minorities) may lead to exposure. 2. With regard to the security cameras you should contact your local labor board or your HR attorney for the laws governing your state. In my opinion the installation of security systems is a privilege of ownership. The expectation of management is that employees are following policy so they should have nothing to worry about. 3. In terms of the receipt issue I think that it first MUST be dealt with in a confidential manner. Bringing it up on a public forum such as this could put your job in jeopardy. At the very least you owe the employee the respect of confidentiality as a manager. DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN!!! If this is a first incident of making false claim, you might ask the employee if they would like to amend the expense report first. Please remember that you found out about the problem from another employee so any action you take will lead to some amount of friction in the workplace. It could be even worse if you escalate this to a written warning or suspension. If this is a possible “first offense” I would rather put the “fear of god” into the employee and let him know you are going to give him a break, but that he is going to need to regain your trust. Sometimes that can be a lot more effective then a written warning, a disgruntled worker, and an uncomfortable work environment.

These are, IMO, all well reasoned points and suggestions.
As to the privacy issue, I felt this was all anonymous enough (no names, etc.) though your point is well taken.
I just really needed some other perspectives on this. Thx for yours.
I can see both sides of the issues, but the end result of this recent rash of "crackdowns" is just making me enjoy my job alot less. I understand that being a mgr is not all a bowl of cherries; just not sure we're headed the right direction here.
CPW

 

[cpw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricardo diaz I stashed a green throw blanket once. I bought it later that week, though. If I had been caught, I would have deserved any punishment. Even being fired. I'm not sure if the same goes for your single parent employee, but I know that if I don't like the rules set for me, or the managers, or the emplyees, then I can just put my two weeks in and stick it out until I quit. Your job is to do what the owners tell you. As much as I hate it when our managers yell at us, I know it's not personal because when it gets right down to the bottom of it all, it's their job or ours, they choose their's.

Trust me. I'll take care of my family but we all have choices to make about the environment we choose to work in as well.
CPW

 

[PFKMan23]

Given the circumstances, I think being written up/reprimanded is warranted. And heh, maybe she and the other employee were being "made an example of" and maybe not. Honestly, I've been put into leadership positions and crackin down is never fun, be in in the workpalce or otherwise.

I hate to sound mean, but single parent or not, she made a choice about what she did in regards to that. She got punished. Adverse circumstacnes don't give you license to break rules. I mean from what you've told us, they aren't that unreasonable at all. So yah, being written up and reprimanded, is warranted.

As far as the other stuff, stuff like adding survalence cams, is a bit more tricky,

 

[BlindTiger]

You guys pay for commutation costs? that's pretty unorthodox.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Oh yeah, the owner has recently installed security cameras w/out employee knowledge. Anyone know if that's legal?

This is an issue that has been challenged in court and to my knowledge with the employer winning in every case unless the employee can show actual personal damges through misuse of the content.This goes directly to my feelings on jusy because something is illegal does not make it wrong any more than something being legal making it right.
Electronic monitoring of employees in the workplace without their knowledge is just dead wrong on so many levels it should not be legal .It is sick and no more than voyuerism combined with a total lack of trust for the employees.No trust means no respsect and that is a recipe' for disaster down the road when the top down is more adverserial than it is team.

just my opinion but the more I see regular folks give up daily freedoms and never put up a fight yet scream at the government for doing the same thing on far more important matters I have to wonder What ? Why would someone willingly go along with this ? Why do they allow cameras in every parking lot watching everythiing they do ? At every red light ? Most bridges ? In the workplace ? Even worse the latrines and any locker rooms at work where privacy should be totally first priority !
The only place left where we can have any part of privacy is behind closed doors at home and even there I wonder just for how long.Not when cameras will come into the home but when since obviously no one cares enough to stop this BIG TIME intrusion any where else and we all know rights are not taken away all at once but nibbled at until there is nothing left

 

[rickcr42]

BTW folks.When you go to work for someone it is to receive compensation for services rendered which in most cases is "pay".
No where I know of is there anything about signing ownership papers where you turn over your life to the employer for them to do with you as they will.They PAY you but do not OWN you unless you allow it to happen and trust me,they will take as much as you allow them to and never look back................

 

[blip]

Ahhh... Middle management... God how I hated it! I worked for a while as an HR director at a political action organization and had to deal with these sorts of things... Some of the most misereable days of my life. The worst part was that often I knew the employees were working as hard as they could, but at times I was still forced by people above me to fire them. It was hell... I'm so glad to have left it.

Anyway, you have my deepest sympathy.

Fom my perspective I think that pspivak's advice is right on. (Though I'm with Rickcr on the camera issue... It's all just another brick in the wall, right.)

 

[cpw]

There are all kinds of good reasons to have the cameras. We (management)were told they were going to be put in (eventually). We even agreed it was a good idea; there's shoplifting, etc.
what kinda bugs me, is that the ops mgr was told to have them installed but not to tell the employees (including mgrs apparently).
CPW

 

[Genetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpw There are all kinds of good reasons to have the cameras. We (management)were told they were going to be put in (eventually). We even agreed it was a good idea; there's shoplifting, etc. what kinda bugs me, is that the ops mgr was told to have them installed but not to tell the employees (including mgrs apparently). CPW

I dont have the same view about cameras being always evil (Edit it seems we share this view. But I may be wrong.). But I have ONE big condition they must be put IF and only IF they are responding to an already existing problem. Using this as a prevention tool is quite another story.

Amicalement

 

[Nisbeth]

The first step in the process must be to clear the slate and then let everyone know that from now on, the standing policies will be enforced - and then do it, even if it means firing people! Noone respects policies that are never enforced and although its not your fault if people do something wrong, that does not mean it can't be your problem. I would settle these matters amicably and then inform the employees people who have behaved incorrectly that one mistake is the house limit. Everyone else should then be told very clearly what the rules are from this point on. That way, if anyone ever steps out of line again, you will have every reason to fire them and noone will be able to fault you for anything

/U.

EDIT: If you're having problems with theft it might be useful to think about the procedures you have for inventory management and how often you count your inventory and also how your employee purchase procedures are organised, i.e. do you need a manager to give you the employee discount and where do you store items that you have "reserved" until your next payday. Use this to find (and close) possible loopholes which some employees may use to for personal profit.

 

[cpw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nisbeth EDIT: If you're having problems with theft it might be useful to think about the procedures you have for inventory management and how often you count your inventory and also how your employee purchase procedures are organised, i.e. do you need a manager to give you the employee discount and where do you store items that you have "reserved" until your next payday. Use this to find (and close) possible loopholes which some employees may use to for personal profit.

There is no place to store items as they can be put on acct till the end of the month. Very fair really. I'm just concerned about the culture were moving toward. I realize these infractions are not OK and need to be dealt w/, it's just the way they're being dealt w/ that is starting to send a concerning message, IMO.
CPW

 

[plainsong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpw There is no place to store items as they can be put on acct till the end of the month. Very fair really. I'm just concerned about the culture were moving toward. I realize these infractions are not OK and need to be dealt w/, it's just the way they're being dealt w/ that is starting to send a concerning message, IMO. CPW

I agree with you. Higher-ups area so quick to solve everything with firing. You're right to feel bad about that, and it doesn't send out a good message at all. I think a written up official warning would suffice, and to make it clear that you are being very merciful when people higher up would have their jobs for it. Three strikes and you're out.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

I'm just concerned about the culture were moving toward

that is my point.You tell folks right away "I do not trust you and will spy on you at will" and you have already ruined any shot at anything but an adversary relationship.This is putting the honest into the same box as the dishonest and if someone wants to ever piss me off all they have to do is either call me a liar or in other ways let it be known I am not trusted at which time the job would be so low on my list as to not make it at all.

Worse is who is watching the watchers ? Who is holding them to the same high standard they impose on others at will and without any roadblocks ? Why not just fire everyone and start all over since obviously no one trusts anyone ?
Same old story folks.Those who have the power impose it on the powerless and in this case through the blackmail of "if you do not like it quit !" .This for some is not an option if they like to eat or have an actual roof over their head in bad weather so they instead bend over and take another hard shot straight up their *** while convincing themselves it feels good or it only hurts a little then after a while not too bad at all then before much longer they don't even notice anymore that they are being fked and with a 2X4 hard.......

 

[acs236]

I don't know the law in Nevada, but I would guess that there is no legal issue with the cameras.

But, aside from avoiding the privacy issues, I would think it makes sense to the tell the employees. You don't have to point out each camera, but let them know they're there -- that is, if the goal is to deter theft. And that is the goal, right?

To not tell them reminds me of a scene from Dr. Stranglove: "What's the point of building a doomsday machine if you're not going to tell anyone about it?!"

 

[Mr.PD]

In regard to the 2 people that got the 3 days off.
I think that was fair. Three days ain't that much time off, and it sends a strong message to all employees.
The request for taxi rembersment, sounds like the guy is trying to rip off the company. You say that taxi expenses are not covered. Just deny the whole trp, and put the guy on notice. Next time it will be seen as attempting to steal.