Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 15
Page 1 of 2

« Previous | Next »

A Hole in the Zero Tolerance Policy

Hole in zero tolerance policy

Mr.
DAF
Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:59 AM

Post Reply

I guess there must be more than meets the eye. As far as I'm concerned, self defense is a personal right that goes back farther than our Constitution. Why should Cunningham have had any "punishment" at all?

Zero Tolerance equals zero sense

Operations Specialist
CBP
Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:48 AM

Post Reply

Under the agenciy's zero tolerance for violence policy, it appears that an innocent employee who is attacked by a mad man has little recourse but to run for his life. Should he attempt to defend himself, even in a life threatening attack, should he live, the agency will seek his removal. What a load of donkey fazoo. This is why agency management is often looked upon by rank and file with scorn and contempt.

Innocent?

HR
Fed Govt
Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:10 AM

Post Reply

Mr. Cunningham, innocent? I hardly think so. In reading the original MSPB case you'll see where poor ole Mr. Cunningham instigated this one, used a box cutter on Mr. Allmond and ran from the scene of the fight (after giving the box cutter to another employee) when the authorities showed. He deserved to be removed. Unfortunately, the mgt official was not very well prepped to provide testimony. Shame on the Agency reps.

Re: Innocent?

Aviation Safety Inspector
FAA
Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:14 PM
If Mr. Cunningham is the one that instigated the altercation I’m at a loss to understand how the AJ determined that Mr. Allmond was the aggressor. As for the use of the box cutter, if this was Mr. Cunningham’s only means of defense against a larger or more powerful attacker then I don’t see a problem using it. I’m a polio survivor and have neither the means to stand toe to toe or to run. Are you telling me that the only acceptable alternative for me is to not lift a finger and get the living daylights beaten out of me? I don’t think anyone should be required to suffer that kind of abuse just to keep from getting fired.

What Was He To Do

Head Mind Reader
Dod
Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:17 AM

Post Reply

What is an employee to do? Was Cunningham supposed to just get beat up and not fight back...that's crazy. No matter where a person is...on the clock at work, down town, at home ect..they have the right to reasonably defend/protect themselves. Seems odd that management choose to terminate him because he was defending himself. Hopefully, the other (aggressor) employee was fired.

zero tolerance?

LPN
VA
Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:20 AM

Post Reply

When I started at the VA you were told all about the "zero tolerances " Managers pick and choose how they want to follow that and who!
There was a physical fight with 2 female workers, police were involved. Guess what neither female was fired! I n the private sector you would be fired on the spot! Zero tolerance should not even be stated if it will NEVER be followed

What about the other employee?

Another Government Employee
Does it matter?
Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:21 AM

Post Reply

No mentioned to what happened to the other employee involved in the "altercation." was he too removed from the Job? Removal for self-defense? What was the Agency thinking about? or was the Agency defending the other employee?

Re: What about the other employee?

Diversity Manager
DOL
Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:54 PM
I'm with you what happened to the other knuckle head??

Zero Tolerance

Reformed Conservative
DFAS
Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:21 PM

Post Reply

I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance idiocy.

Total Comments: 15
Page 1 of 2

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.