EnderWiggin Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Actually in this case it is, because if he wasn't investigating the situation and basically refusing to investigate then she didn't abuse her power. You're not even listening to what we're saying! _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Doesn't sound like you are, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Doesn't sound like you are, either. I'm not listening to what he's saying? I'm not the one saying the same thing over and over even though everyone has pointed out where in the documented case he was wrong. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinchyB Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Doesn't sound like you are, either. No we hear you... she was justified in firing the guy... but unfortunately she went about it the wrong way and let her personal issues with they guy get in the way. Hence why this is an Ethics issue and not a Legal issue (As of yet). Now, we are taking bets... who will be the first to acknowledge that Palin did actually act unethically... Garfield (10 to 1) or Corinthian (7 to 1) or neither (1 to 1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Well, she may have violated ethics laws. That doesn't mean she acted unethically. Especially since, as you say, she had justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinchyB Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Well, she may have violated ethics laws. That doesn't mean she acted unethically. Especially since, as you say, she had justification. Ummm... you really can't say she may have violated ethics laws and then in the next sentence say that doesn't mean she acted unethically. As in order to violate an ethic law (or act in this case) you do actually have to do something unethical, which they found she did. Justification for the firing is 100% irrellevant if you go out of your way to fire someone due to an issue you may have them. I like to refer to the below equation in this instance... (reasons to fire someone x 1) + (personal issues x (-1000)) If the end result is a negative number... there is an issue and you better cover yourself... ie... get a judge to right off on it... hire an outside impartial lawyer... have everything documented... don't do anything stupid that could increment yourself... wait for them to really mess up and then make an example out of them... What you don't do is use reasons they've already been punished for to fire them or fire their superior for disagreeing with your assessment. Both of those a no no's. The later one you can probably get around, but the first one is much more difficult. Had she done any of the first things she could have avoided this, or at least minimized it. It's just like how you would run a business... cover yourself 100%, document everything, and don't do anything too horribly dumb (but this last one happens in every business anyway ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Ummm... you really can't say she may have violated ethics laws and then in the next sentence say that doesn't mean she acted unethically. As in order to violate an ethic law (or act in this case) you do actually have to do something unethical, which they found she did. Justification for the firing is 100% irrellevant if you go out of your way to fire someone due to an issue you may have them. I like to refer to the below equation in this instance... (reasons to fire someone x 1) + (personal issues x (-1000)) If the end result is a negative number... there is an issue and you better cover yourself... ie... get a judge to right off on it... hire an outside impartial lawyer... have everything documented... don't do anything stupid that could increment yourself... wait for them to really mess up and then make an example out of them... What you don't do is use reasons they've already been punished for to fire them or fire their superior for disagreeing with your assessment. Both of those a no no's. The later one you can probably get around, but the first one is much more difficult. Had she done any of the first things she could have avoided this, or at least minimized it. It's just like how you would run a business... cover yourself 100%, document everything, and don't do anything too horribly dumb (but this last one happens in every business anyway ) Negative. Your equation is highly flawed. That -1000 is completely arbitrary. If you have a personal disagreement with someone, you can in business fire them without cause. In Palin's case she had more than the one instance as reason to fire the guy. She was well within her legal rights to fire the guy. While she may not have had the right to fire Wooten, however she can fire a guy that is not doing their job. Question: Was Wooten fired under the new guy? or did Palin just stop going after Wooten after she fired Monegan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinchyB Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 If you have a personal disagreement with someone, you can in business fire them without cause. I see a lot of lawsuits in your future. Every business in the U.S. would fail due to liability costs if this were true. In Palin's case she had more than the one instance as reason to fire the guy. She was well within her legal rights to fire the guy. While she may not have had the right to fire Wooten, however she can fire a guy that is not doing their job. Again... and hopefully the last time but I doubt it... him being fired is not the issue... it's Did she violate the Ethics Act in firing him and the panel, the majority of which were republican, all agreed with the report in that she did violate the ethics act. So, she could have fired him without violating the ethics act had she done so differently. Unfortunately the way she went about did violate the act. Again, focus on the ethics, not the firing of the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I see a lot of lawsuits in your future. Every business in the U.S. would fail due to liability costs if this were true.Yup. Even in right-to-work states, employers are liable if they are found to have fired people using discriminatory practices and/or in retaliation. Doesn't mean they aren't fired, just means the person doing the firing (usually all by themselves as the company will settle their portion of the lawsuit out of court) is in a lot of doo-doo. Not sure how many employment law classes KinchyB had to take for his Masters degrees, but I seem to recall having to take a few for the one I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Hah you haven't seen how things have been working around the real world have you.... Figures.. all book not practical experience. While I don't think this is a direct flame, this stinks of arrogance, assuming something of someone else and what their experiences are, or are not, regardless of your opinions of KinchyB, I think his time in Kavars has revealed him to be a well researched person, please tread carefully when making comments about others which could be untrue, consider all of yourselves warned I'm stamping down on these snarky comments, more like these will result in infractions being issued - j7 In practice they can manufacture a reason after the fact. Seen many businesses do this in practice. There just isn't enough pressure on them by the terminated employees. "Business ethics" is an oxymoron. Regardless. the -1000 number is purely arbitrary. I could easily rewrite that equasion with if reason to fire person(x 1) > personal issues(x 10) then fire the guy. However that does not take into account that I may have a personal problem with someone, and the person may also be either not coming in to work, or passing their work off on someone else(as was the stated case for Monegan). Or even one big reason would outweigh even 10 personal issues. Monegan was fired for not doing the job he was hired to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinchyB Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 There just isn't enough pressure on them by the terminated employees. "Business ethics" is an oxymoron. Exactly, it's up to the employee and in this case the employee fought back and was vindicated. If the employee does nothing then the business can do what it wants, which is why the employee must understand and know what rights they have. P.S. if you took the equation seriously I'll do a better job of making things that are 100% made up blatantly obvious in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Exactly, it's up to the employee and in this case the employee fought back and was vindicated. If the employee does nothing then the business can do what it wants, which is why the employee must understand and know what rights they have. Not exactly. In the case of discrimination, a suit can be filed by the EEOC on behalf of the employee after the employee or a witness files a complaint and the subsequent investigation finds evidence of wrongdoing. Not terribly relevant to the exact situation that we're discussing, however I do think it falsifies what little of Tommycat's post I could see in your reply as well as corrects the impression that employee is always on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinchyB Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Not exactly. In the case of discrimination, a suit can be filed by the EEOC on behalf of the employee after the employee or a witness files a complaint and the subsequent investigation finds evidence of wrongdoing. Not terribly relevant to the exact situation that we're discussing, however I do think it falsifies what little of Tommycat's post I could see in your reply as well as corrects the impression that employee is always on their own. Good point... there is always the EEOC. Admittedly the one example I thought of with this was an employee filing a complaint on his own behalf (which in that case was BS, but no one got fined or last their jobs because of it fortunately), but Achilles is correct, someone else could also file the complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Some organization will even hold an employee liable if they witness an unethical act (i.e. sexual harrassment, etc) and fail to report it to their boss/human resources department/ombudsman's office/et cetera. Altruistic? Hardly. No company likes having to step into a courtroom and some are better at avoiding it than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 If you have a personal disagreement with someone, you can in business fire them without cause. I see a lot of lawsuits in your future. Every business in the U.S. would fail due to liability costs if this were true. Wisconsin is an at-will employer state, meaning someone can be fired at any time for no cause at all, with the exception of something like racial discrimination or other violation of a fed regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Wisconsin is an at-will employer state We're discussing Alaska. ...meaning someone can be fired at any time for no cause at all, with the exception of something like racial discrimination or other violation of a fed regulation.Again, we're discussing whether or not she violated ethics regulations, not whether or not the individual deserved to be fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.