In this overly litigious day and age, there aren’t many workplace acts left that are so over the line that they qualify as drop-dead, you’re-fired-on-the-spot, no-additional-proof-needed offenses.
In fact, there’s only one that readily comes to mind as I think back over a long career of managing far too many people who seemed hellbent on doing something stupid that would get them canned. You know what I’m talking about—it’s taking a punch at someone while on the job.
Generally speaking, people who get physical with other people in the workplace lose their job, and usually pretty quickly. And, that’s what is probably going to happen at The Washington Post, where a longtime editor recently blew his cool over a story and came to blows with a reporter who called him something incredibly vulgar that I can’t repeat here.
According to Washingtonian.com, “Details are sketchy, but numerous witnesses report that veteran [Washington Post] feature editor Henry Allen punched out feature writer Manuel Roig-Franzia on Friday. The fracas took place in sight of Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli’s office. Brauchli rushed to separate the two. It should be noted that Allen is nearly 70, but he served in the Marines in Vietnam. He also won a Pulitzer Prize in 2000 for criticism. Both apparently came into play when Allen jumped Roig-Franzia.”
Gentle readers will need to read the Washingtonian version (or this report from the Washington City Paper) to get the full flavor of what was said and the circumstances that led up to the comment and fistfight, but it’s safe to say that the altercation is a reflection of the pressures people are feeling in their jobs during these uncertain times.
“Hooray that there is still enough passion left somewhere in a newsroom in America for violence to break out between colorful characters in disagreement over the quality of a story. … Newsrooms used to be places filled with interesting eccentrics driven by unreasonable passions—a situation thought of as ‘creative tension’ and often encouraged by management in eras when profits were high and arrogance was seen not as a flaw but a perquisite of being smart and right. Sadly, over the years newsrooms have come to resemble insurance offices peopled by the blanched and the pinched and the beetle-browed; lately, with layoffs thought to be on the horizon, everyone also behaves extra nicely to please the boss.”
I’m old enough to remember the era that Weingarten writes about. I experienced it as a very junior editor at the old Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, a long-dead Hearst newspaper that was well-known for such eccentric and passionate newsroom behavior.
I saw fistfights in the newsroom and at the watering hole we called a bar that was just across the street, people falling-down drunk on the copy desk, and all sorts of other behavior that was casually ignored back then but that would get you quickly canned now.
It was colorful, it was fun, but mostly, it was all fueled by the intense passion people had for their work. This is what Gene Weingarten remembers, and it is an era that, for better or for worse, is long gone.
Today, passion in the workplace is defined as work that you find incredibly meaningful or challenging (known now as employee engagement), and managers are all for more of that, but they tend to draw the line at having so much passion for the job that it pushes you to punch someone in the nose.
Back in the days that Weingarten and I remember, passionately defending your work was viewed as a good thing, not something that you worried about losing your job over. Managers back then were more concerned about channeling that passion back into improving the work, and HR was only consulted when the situation got so out of hand that the line manager couldn’t control it anymore.
So, there’s almost something retro to reading about fisticuffs taking place in a major American business over part of the job that people are passionate about. Unfortunately, passion like this gets you fired today, and HR is involved at the first hint of trouble and to make sure all the legal bases are covered so no one, least of all the company, gets sued.
So it goes in the American workplace, circa 2009. You be the judge of whether that’s good or bad.
This isn’t some subjective observation on my part, but rather, what I have learned firsthand from managing people for the better part of 30 years. But one reader of this blog thinks I’m dead wrong on this subject and makes a very articulate challenge to my point of view.
“The problem with the examples here is that they typify the worst kind of sleazy behavior by married people with a substantial power differential between themselves and the people they’re having affairs with. All the office romance bans in the world aren’t going to begin to stop that behavior—the egos are too big and the sense of power too inflated.
“What such policies will do is push normal, healthy relationships underground, so that no real discussion with the employer can take place. You may call it prattle, but it’s unrealistic to believe that people won’t have workplace romances. The best policies I’ve seen accept this and deal with it an adult fashion instead of forcing the employees to try to fly below the radar.”
Now, let me be clear: I have never, ever called for a formal ban on office romances. In fact, here’s what I said about this last year at Valentine’s Day: Office romances have always been part of the equation in any workplace since the dawn of time, and there’s no evidence that the problem has gotten appreciably better or appreciably worse. Yes, sometimes office romances go bad, but the trend The New York Times was touting back in 2007 was to not get too worried or worked up about co-workers dating.
I certainly understand that very pragmatic viewpoint, but my own opinion on office romance hasn’t changed—hype, trends and surveys notwithstanding. It’s a bad idea. That’s because, in my experience, they go bad all too often. And, spoiled office romances leave the participants—and the co-workers around them, who have to live with the bitter, sometimes litigious aftermath—much worse off as a result.
Yes, I’ve written about the fallout from high-profile office affairs like the recent one with ESPN’s Steve Phillips (who just got fired for his bad judgment) and David Letterman before him. And yes, I agree with reader HR PS that these two examples DO “typify the worst kind of sleazy behavior by married people with a substantial power differential between themselves and the people they’re having affairs with.”
As bad as those are, the ones that drove me crazy were of the more mundane variety, like the three-month relationship between two co-workers who sat next to each other. When something like that goes sour, it affects everyone around them, generally for the worse. And, it’s a management headache I’ve had all too often.
But am I wrong here, as reader HR PS says? Can pragmatic office policies realistically deal with affairs of the heart, or are they just a Band-Aid approach to an emotional and hard-to-handle workforce problem?
According to The New York Times’ college sports blog, “The university announced Monday that Locksley had been reprimanded for punching Jonathan Gerald, the team’s wide receivers coach, before the Lobos’ 37-13 loss to Air Force on Sept. 19. Gerald, who is known as J.B., has been on leave and missed Saturday’s 20-17 loss to New Mexico State.”
No one knows exactly what caused the fisticuffs, but New Mexico’s terrible 0-4 start this season may have factored into it. Coach Locksley has apologized for his actions (To wit: “I apologized to Coach Gerald, the coaching staff and our team for my poor judgment. I would also like to apologize to Lobo fans. Like I remind our players, when mistakes are made, you acknowledge them and deal with the consequences.”), but it looks like he will remain on the job for the time being despite his actions.
As I’ve written before, violence has no place in the workplace, and getting physical with a boss or co-worker is usually a surefire way to get fired in any universe. That’s what I thought was true, but now I would amend that statement and add, “unless you are a head football coach at the collegiate or professional level.”
“Boeing’s main white-collar union said … that the company’s plan to cut a generous education perk can’t be applied to its members without negotiations,” the Seattle Times reported, although it looks like the aerospace giant is going to fight with the union about that.
“The [Boeing] company, while acknowledging that union members will retain the benefit for now, said it does want the new restrictions that it’s imposing on college-course subsidies for nonunion employees to apply equally to union members, too,” the Times story said. That’s because “the benefit is not written into most of Boeing’s labor contracts,” according a company spokeswoman, and “whether Boeing can impose the change against the union’s will appears to be a gray area.”
I’ve dealt with unions over items not in the actual labor contract, and it is a marvelous little thing called “past practice,” which generally refers to a labor practice “that has been recognized and accepted by the parties and used several times in the past.”
Boeing management asserts that most of the company’s union contracts “include no specific reference to the [educational reimbursement] program but only a general clause stating that Boeing cannot impose benefit changes ‘without at least sitting down with the union.’ ” Boeing management plans to do that, they say, but the fact that this was all announced before the big sit-down gives you a pretty good clue as to where this is all going.
I’m all for educational benefits, and there’s no doubt that this is a great perk that has benefited a great many Boeing workers over the years, as I’ve seen firsthand. But, it may just be a perk that’s unsustainable in this severe and turbulent economic environment. Here’s hoping that Boeing and its unions can get together and discuss this in the context of how to help the company to succeed and get through this recession. That would be a win-win negotiation both sides could be proud of.
Here’s what I’m talking about: In Barcelona, Spain, a judge has ruled that “insulting your boss with one particularly foul obscenity is not grounds for dismissal,” according to an Associated Press story in the San Francisco Chronicle.
The obscenity in question “translates as ‘son of a bitch’ and was used by a worker against his boss during a January 2008 money dispute in the northeastern city of Gerona. The worker, who also called his boss ‘crazy,’ was promptly fired,” the AP report says.
The worker lost his first court challenge but later won on appeal with the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia. “Without a doubt, both expressions (either calling the boss ‘crazy’ or an ‘SOB’) are insulting,” Judge Sara Maria Pose Vidal said in the ruling, a copy of which was obtained by the AP.
But she noted that when the man called his boss crazy, he had been on his way out of the office and the boss did not hear it. She also wrote that the “son of a bitch” remark “should be viewed in linguistic context.”
Here’s the part of the judge’s ruling that I love: “The social degradation of language has caused the expressions used by the plaintiff to become commonly used in certain settings, especially in arguments,” Pose Vidal wrote, calling the dismissal a disproportionate punishment.
In other words, the Spanish court said that the term “SOB” is common—so common (at least in Spain) that it has passed the point of being considered something that someone should get fired for.
The AP story didn’t say this, but it seems clear that calling your boss a “son of a bitch” is now considered protected workplace speech in Spain. How long before that ruling makes it across the pond and takes root here in America’s workplaces?
My guess, given the rise in so much boorish behavior, is that we’ll see it sooner than anyone cares to imagine.
It was the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes who described the life of mankind when in his natural state as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” and it’s an apt description of the mood of many American workers as we approach Labor Day 2009.
Here’s some research that bears this out: It’s Adecco Group North America’s latest American Workplace Insights Survey that was conducted for Adecco by Harris Interactive. It shows that as Labor Day rolls around, a majority of workers are dissatisfied with their employers, particularly in these three areas—compensation, career growth and retention efforts.
The numbers break down like this:
• Two-thirds (66 percent) of American workers are not currently satisfied with their compensation.
• Additionally, 78 percent are not satisfied with their company’s overall retention efforts, while 76 percent are not satisfied about future career growth opportunities at their company.
• Working relationships are also strained, with almost half (48 percent) of workers saying that they are not satisfied with the relationship they have with their boss and 59 percent saying they are not satisfied with the level of support they receive from their colleagues.
• Workers are also critical of their organization’s brain trust, with 77 percent saying that they are not satisfied with the strategy and vision of their company and its leadership.
• In addition, some 68 percent of workers say they aren’t satisfied with their company’s contribution to their retirement plans.
“What workers are telling us,” says Bernadette Kenny, chief career officer at Adecco Group North America, “is that even during a recession, just having a job does not equate to job satisfaction. Employers need to be conscious of the concerns their staff is managing through on a daily basis and proactively come up with the appropriate solutions to improve retention and reduce the current and future high cost of turnover.”
I think Bernadette Kenny is on to something. Yes, everyone who has managed to avoid becoming another unemployment statistic should be happy that they’re still working, but that’s not exactly a rallying cry that’s going to get your workforce fired up and more engaged. Smart managers, as Kenny correctly points out, need to be actively plugged in to what their staffs are going through and looking for solutions to help them get through it.
The Adecco survey has a few suggestions for how managers can help to reward and retain workers even when dollars are tight, and for the most part, I think the suggestions are useful.
However, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: Businesses everywhere need to actively engage and help workers get past the depression and bad feelings that so many have about their work and the organizations they work for. In other words, leaders need to step forward and help their workforce get their mojo back.
This latest research by Adecco is just another in a long line of surveys that show how workers are feeling. With a possible economic recovery on the horizon, it is clearly time for America’s business leaders to step up and start helping America’s workforce out of its economic funk.
= Member Only
