Re: Arbitrary, but lenient

HUD has a Table of Offenses and Penalties. Item #10 states: "Loss, misuse of or damage to Government property, records, or information." The penalty for a first offense is "Reprimand to 14-day suspension."
Termination is far too severe a penalty for this offense. If the employee damaged property in a fit of rage, then I think that sending the employee for counseling might be in order.

Re: Arbitrary, but lenient

If the employee damaged the computer and other office equipment in a fit of rage, I think firing them is the right move. Who wants to work with someone who cannot control their temper to the point where they are damaging items in the office? Want to be standing next to that person when they go into a rage? How about across the room if they throw something in your general direction? I don't.

I have a right to expect my workplace to be safe from physical harm, whether that means compliance with OSHA standards or firing violent coworkers.

Of course, we are speculating that the person was in a rage when this damage occured, but I cannot imagine an agency that would fire someone for accidently dropping a laptop. . . .

Re: Arbitrary, but lenient

The employee damaged property, he did not hurt anyone. There is no evidence that anything was thrown or that any other employee was in any danger. The penalty was far too severe.

Even if another employee had been subject to harm the employee should not be fired. The correct response in this case would be to send the employee for a fitness for duty exam.

In the office in which I work one employee assaulted and seriously injured another employee. The injured employee had to be taken by ambulance to the nearest hospital.

The attacker was not fired, she was given a 30 day suspension. Of course, the attacker was a black female so that had a great deal to do with the lenient punishment. If the guilty party had been a white male he would have been fired.

Re: Arbitrary, but lenient

Standard gov employee PAP defending the indefensible. If that had happened on the outside not only would he have been terminate but either prosecuted or made to pay for the damage.
This hiding behind some reg is sheer nonsense. And you wonder why the public is demanding accountability from the CS

Re: Arbitrary, but lenient

To Engineer HUD:

In spite of the sentiment that he "did not hurt anybody", his OUTBURST, which resulted in a piece of equipment being destroyed could have as easily been someone's face. Notice, the key word OUTBURST denotes a personal flair up, not an accident, as in, he accidentially dropped the thing.

This kind of irresponsible idiotic behavior is not needed in any workplace and he should have been fired outright, without return to work.

If he worked next to you, or a member of your family, likely you would have a much different opinion about his being returned to your side.

This type behavior, in a child, would deserve a good corporal spanking. In an adult, firing is nice.

May be, he could meet with someone someday that might just dust his clock if he expresses his "dumba**" behavior in the wrong crowd. That sometimes works on those stupid people that think they can do as they wish and get away with it.

Re: 342 Day Suspension Case

What do you think should be done with Managers who consistently violate rules, regulations, to the point of sexually harassing comments, known by employees and Management and other abusive conduct and rather than remove the Manager responsible, they continue to move the employees to suit the Manager. How long should employees have to deal with such violations??

Re: 342 Day Suspension Case

unhigh what does this have to do with the post??

Re: 342 Day Suspension Case

To the VA Person:

That's what the VA's Compliance & Business Integrity Hotline is for: 1-866-842-4357.
Or, alternatively, the IG Hotline: 1-800-488-8244.

Document the heck out of them & have a packet of incontrovertible evidence available. It took about four years, but a whole string of managerial deviants is now out of the VA system.

But be ready when they come for you.

I spent 40 months sitting in a room doing nothing --- not allowed to do my job --- while a multi-level effort was invested to deflect multiple IG and Office of the Medical Inspector investigations, but our group finally got thru to the Secretary's office in Washington & then they went down in flames.

So be prepared --- they will try to come for you and your friends, but I can testify they don't always succeed.

Re: 342 Day Suspension Case

I agree with "Operations Supervisor - SSA - Thu Oct 9, 2008 9:06 AM - - The disciplinary process certainly is broken - I see it everyday. Put yourself in this employee's shoes...I am so enraged or spiteful, I will damage an agency computer...if I am caught, I may get a 14 day suspension (and in the USPS, it is a "no time served" suspension). Now picture the same scenario, except you work in the real world, a Mom and Pop shop, or a roofing company, where you have to actually work to earn a living. Do you think Mom & Pop will do anything less than fire you?

Alright, knowing that, you hire two people - one goes to work for the government, and the other for Mom & Pop. Which one is more likely to "blow" and cause damage, hurt profit, hurt fellow employees?

The discipline process, if you are trying to correct behavior is terribly broken. Unfortunately, it's those Human Resource people who never ran an operation who are our armchair attorneys and Monday morning quarterbacks...

Re: Missing the Point

The "suspended" employee should get back pay. It should be obtained by garnishing the arbitrator's wages as a penalty for malpractice. This would set an example whereby future arbitrators could learn the need for careful deliberation before rendering decisions.

Re: Missing the Point

HR Spec is right. If there is anyone to blame here, its the arbitrator who issued a sloppy decision. If s/he had specified the grounds on which a 342 day suspension was appropriate, none of this would have happened.

Re: Missing the Point

Agree that the arbitrator did not issue a very good decision, which often is the case. Some arbitrators just don't want to be hard on either party, so they try to soften the blow by issuing vague decisions. I've been an Agency rep on some cases that I wonder if the arbitrator slept through the whole proceeding, based on the decision issued.

Re: Damage Property ... Then What?

It seems odd that he would be fired based upon hearsay evidence from another employee. Maybe management just wanted to get rid of him.

I was threatened several times by another employee; he even threatened to kill me. He also assaulted me twice. He was not fired nor was he disciplined in any way. He was, however, promoted from a grade 12 to a grade 14.

I should note that the offending employee is black and I am white. At HUD it is perfectly acceptable for minority employees to do anything they like.

Re: Damage Property ... Then What?

No One Special, you were not entitled to know what happened to the perpetrator. And the alleged threat was not made against you, so your involvement was minimal and ended when you made the notification. Apparently, the investigation must have turned up more than you knew; therefore, removal must have been appropriate.

Re: Damage Property ... Then What?

HUD Engineer,

Why not involve the police after you were assaulted, or the IG? Probably a dumb question, but ...