Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 15
Page 2 of 2

« Previous | Next »

A Hole in the Zero Tolerance Policy

Zero Tolerance Hogwash

Gen Engr
Dept of Army
Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:23 PM

Post Reply

The article states at the end "What will remain unclear is why the government did not contend that a proper zero tolerance policy for violence in the work place had been established by the agency."

If Zero Tolerance is truly enforced, then we are loath to expect lots more violence in every organization where it is enforced. Zero Tolerance is like saying there will be no push-back and theerefore no concern to simply "go postal" on someone. Since the USPS is where the term "Going Postal" was originated, then perhaps the USPS is where the zero tolerance policy should be demonstrated... it would only be a matter of time before we would all begin to understand why there were gun fights in the old west and why red necks still go out behind the barn to "settle things".
Yes, we would all like to live in a society where this is no violence and no hatred, but these ultra conservative and ultra liberal policies are all fraut with the falacies of their own extremism.

zero tolerance

Environmental Protection Specialist
USEPA
Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:31 PM

Post Reply

i guess the next time i should read the comments that have been posted before me. But my question still is in does zero tolerance mean you cant defend your self if attacked or even provoked into a fight.

A Hole in Zero Tolerence Policy

Employee
Dept of Navy
Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:46 PM

Post Reply

You state "What will remain unclear is why the government did not contend that a proper zero tolerance policy for violence in the work place had been established by the agency".
Are you suggesting the agency make this claim without the agency having established the policy. Sounds very much like you are.

Re: A Hole in Zero Tolerence Policy

Civ
Govt
Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:54 PM
Unfortunately, MSPB and the courts have made it clear in case precedents that unless the Agency can show they have an established policy, it has been CLEARLY communicated, everyone knows it under no uncertain terms, blah, blah, blah; that just by saying, "We have a zero tolerance policy" just doesn't cut. Make sense? No. What happened to Mr. Allmond? Don't know. He may have been removed, but didn't fight the action. You need to read the entire case to get a true picture of the altercation. This story doesn't begin to come close to painting the real picture.

Re: A Hole in Zero Tolerence Policy

IT Specialist
DOD
Tue Apr 28, 2009 6:58 AM
Reading between the lines.... If the agency is going to have a zero tolerance policy, they must communicate to the workforce what the zero tolerance policy means. You have to tell the work force that you will be fired regardless of who instigated the altercation. That wasn't done. Therefore, Douglas Factors must be applied. I would imagine the Unions would be all over a zero tolerance policy that didn't allow for mitigating factors to be considered. I know I wouldn't want to be a under such a policy.

Zero Tolorence & MSPB

Program Evaluation & Risk Analyst
IRS
Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:16 PM

Post Reply

Once again the Management Systems Protect Board (MSPB) tries to defend & save an Agency's wrongful management decision by "trumping" one of their AJs.

These Agency managers are supposed to go to management classes (ha!) and learn this stuff. It appears that the firing was a "knee jerk" reaction without any thorough investigation (just the facts, Madam). I applaud the AJ who made the correct and informed decision. I wonder what his feelings were about his full board overruling him, but after remand, I am sure he was smiling ear-to-ear knowing that he had made the right decision.

When will some President, any President appoint people to the MSPB who are more concerned with protecting the Merit System than Agency management (they are not perfect). Instead we get people who are defenders of Agency management, no matter how egregious the decision. I am not implying that the employee (defendant) is always not guilty of the offense. I just look for fairness, but not the bias for Agency management that exists there
.

Total Comments: 15
Page 2 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.