Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 16
Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2
« Previous | Next »
Tough Choice in Short Time Doesn't Equal Coercion
Total Comments: 16
Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.7116 | +0.0013 | +3.51% |
| F | $12.1775 | +0.0497 | +2.07% |
| C | $9.4002 | -0.9235 | -43.24% |
| S | $10.4051 | -1.2566 | -47.42% |
| I | $12.2414 | -0.9997 | -50.56% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $11.1768 | -0.8749 | -38.72% |
| L 2030 | $11.4481 | -0.7783 | -34.24% |
| L 2020 | $11.8446 | -0.6618 | -28.86% |
| L 2010 | $13.2444 | -0.3625 | -14.33% |
| L Income | $12.4113 | -0.2200 | -7.86% |
December 2, 2008
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Ample opportunity and, actually, grace...
DVA
Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:37 AM
Post Reply
This agency was being kind. As others have said, they did not have to give him anything but the proposed action. He got the option to go out totally clean.
The above is based on the belief the employee will see the benefit, which most don't, which is why we do not do this. Issue the proposed, let the employee decide.
We proposed removal, the employee took early retirement. They appealed. We pointed out the employee had the option to retire or wait out the final decision. We did not lose.
Trying to be nice is not well received so why go there. Issue the action and let them fight it out, or retire, or resign. I bet TSA thinks twice in the future.
And a question to the NAYsayers, considering what he was charged with, breaching security, in today's climate, would you want to get on board at his airport if you knew of the serious problems there? Hmmmmmmm....
I have had the union defend drunks, but they won't ride with them. Do they not have faith in their client?
Re Re I have never understood this logic
AF
Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:18 PM
Post Reply
I got home to find that it appears my example was too emotional for some to follow the logic, though I had thought a fellow engineer would be able to separate the emotion from the logic. Yes, you're right, it is a crime. One reason is the victim had no choice. If the logic held, there would be no crime since it was a"choice." Yes, there may be other crimes in getting there, but don't they in some ways also relate to who controls the choice? Hence the "logic" fails on it's own. But let's try this in a less emotional way. If I control all the choices so I get my desired outcome and you don't (heads I win, tails you lose), then do you really have a choice? Or think of price gouging -- laws are in place to protect people from those who would take advantage of times when there is no real choice -- "take it or leave it" is not a price defense. Remember, nowhere did I say he shouldn't have been fired. All I said was it should be decided on the merits, not avoided on technicalities.
Tough Choice in Short Time
DoC
Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:12 PM
Post Reply
The only aspect of this story that somewhat haunts my reasoning faculties is that it appears he was fired mainly because he had complained up through the management hierarchy about the poor performance of his boss (who was also fired).
He may actually have been the good guy in this case, as in so many cases I've witnessed where the bad ones take the credit and the good ones take the road.
Who was the actual guilty party in the malfeasance? Were they both incompetent? Did his boss (who by also being fired clearly was incompetent by implication) simply create an impossible situation (lack of resources or control, etc.) and indirectly cause the security breach?
I guess we'll never know, as usual.