I had to fire two of my favorite employees

Anonymous 1

Unread post

Frau Holle wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:28 am Ugh.

How dare you... really. To think that you should have such control over other people.
I have the right to enforce policies that they agreed to follow. If they didn't like the policy no one was forcing them to start working here in the first place.
Anonymous 1

Unread post

I personally agree with you but the policy is what they felt was important. I don't think training two new people is nearly as much as the company lost in the law suit though so cost wise it's probably much cheaper to have this policy and enforce it.
Anonymous 3 wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:21 am Me neither. I'm sure the company has their reasons for not wanting employees to fraternize. But wouldn't it be more cost effective for the company to just give the two employees the option for one of them to leave???? Makes no sense whatsoever to me that they'd terminate both employees.
Anonymous 6 wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 12:22 am Wow, I’ve never seen that rule actually be enforced anywhere I’ve ever worked, lol. They shouldn’t have announced it.
User avatar
Frau Holle
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4852
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:32 pm
Location: Far away

Unread post

Anonymous 1 wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:44 am
Frau Holle wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:28 am Ugh.

How dare you... really. To think that you should have such control over other people.
I have the right to enforce policies that they agreed to follow. If they didn't like the policy no one was forcing them to start working here in the first place.
And I say again... ugh. How dare you think you should have such control over people.
“ I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night “ - Sarah Williams
Anonymous 3

Unread post

The bottom line is: The company divulged the policy and the employees disregarded it. The corporation that I work for has a similar policy. It has come up that two co-workers started dating. And in the few occasions that this did crop up, either one of the employees left the company or the company offered one of them a position in a department that would not pose a conflict. But again...Your company has a policy. If they chose to disregard it, that's on the two employees. I honestly don't know how a company could prove that two employees were "engaging" though. lol
Anonymous 1 wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:46 am I personally agree with you but the policy is what they felt was important. I don't think training two new people is nearly as much as the company lost in the law suit though so cost wise it's probably much cheaper to have this policy and enforce it.
Anonymous 3 wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:21 am Me neither. I'm sure the company has their reasons for not wanting employees to fraternize. But wouldn't it be more cost effective for the company to just give the two employees the option for one of them to leave???? Makes no sense whatsoever to me that they'd terminate both employees.
Anonymous 6 wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 12:22 am Wow, I’ve never seen that rule actually be enforced anywhere I’ve ever worked, lol. They shouldn’t have announced it.
SummerDream
Marchioness
Marchioness
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:10 pm

Unread post

So, no choices for the two? One quit, transfer to another department, given a chance to end the relationship? Getting fired without being given options or counseling about it prior to the firing has opened the door for a wrongful termination lawsuit. But on the other hand, I think the unemployed couple got the better end of the deal, because now they can move into another company who actually cares about their employees.
SummerDream
Marchioness
Marchioness
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:10 pm

Unread post

Anonymous 5 wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:20 pm
Anonymous 4 wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:18 pm how dumb are they to even say anything
People talk. Some people in my workplace were found out because of coworkers who told on them.

They play the game and deny it. Which is how situations like this usually play out. Of course, everybody knows they’re lying, but without an open admission, nothing can be done without the company getting into trouble.
SummerDream
Marchioness
Marchioness
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:10 pm

Unread post

Anonymous 6 wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 12:22 am Wow, I’ve never seen that rule actually be enforced anywhere I’ve ever worked, lol. They shouldn’t have announced it.
I’ve never seen that rule actually enforced either, beyond moving one to another department. They shouldn’t have admitted to anything when first questioned. If there isn’t a confession of wrongdoing, there can’t be a firing. They should have just transferred one of the employees. Going the route they went doesn’t make the company look good.
Anonymous 5

Unread post

SummerDream wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:31 pm
Anonymous 5 wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:20 pm
Anonymous 4 wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:18 pm how dumb are they to even say anything
People talk. Some people in my workplace were found out because of coworkers who told on them.

They play the game and deny it. Which is how situations like this usually play out. Of course, everybody knows they’re lying, but without an open admission, nothing can be done without the company getting into trouble.
In my company, someone saw them together holding hands. We hired a private investigator because they denied it. One was a manager and the other was working beneath him, so it was a huge issue of preference and conflict of interest.
Anonymous 1

Unread post

SummerDream wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:28 pm So, no choices for the two? One quit, transfer to another department, given a chance to end the relationship? Getting fired without being given options or counseling about it prior to the firing has opened the door for a wrongful termination lawsuit. But on the other hand, I think the unemployed couple got the better end of the deal, because now they can move into another company who actually cares about their employees.
It isn't wrongful termination. They knew the policy and agreed to follow it and then didn't. The policy is very clear. Termination of both employees. You don't get to agree to follow w perfectly legal policy and then file for wrongful termination when it is enforced.
Traci_Momof2
Princess
Princess
Posts: 11091
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 12:32 am
Location: Southwest USA

Unread post

Anonymous 1 wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:00 pm My company has a very strict no dating policy. There was a lawsuit years ago and after that they put the policy in place.

Two people in my department announced they were dating. Upper management found out and told me I had to fire them. The employee said they didn't think the rule was serious. She was crying and begging me not to. We were pretty close friends but I know that is never going to be the same again.

I knew she kind of liked him but I didn't think she would go against the rules like that. I hate the whole situation. I hate the stupid policy and I hate that I had to be involved in any of this.
I get that you feel bad about all of it. But they should have handled it themselves before management had to step in.
I used to work for a company that had a no-dating policy within the same department. It's actually quite common because you don't want the appearance of favoritism. Well, my manager at the time started dating someone else in the department. She reported to a different manager but it was still all the same department. They knew about the rule, so since he had a management level position and she had a lower position, she decided to quit and find a job elsewhere. They did this on their own just from knowing the rule and wanting to date. Management didn't have to step in at all. And before I left that company myself, he was still working there, she had a good job elsewhere, and the two of them were planning their wedding.

If your friends had followed policy, at least one of them would still have a job there. They brought this on themselves.
Locked Previous topicNext topic