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
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
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.
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
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
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
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??
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.
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
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
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
.
Hole in zero tolerance policy
DAF
Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:59 AM
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
CBP
Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:48 AM
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?
Fed Govt
Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:10 AM
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?
FAA
Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:14 PM
What Was He To Do
Dod
Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:17 AM
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?
VA
Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:20 AM
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?
Does it matter?
Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:21 AM
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?
DOL
Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:54 PM
Zero Tolerance
DFAS
Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:21 PM
I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance idiocy.
Zero Tolerance Hogwash
Dept of Army
Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:23 PM
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
USEPA
Mon Apr 27, 2009 3:31 PM
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
Dept of Navy
Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:46 PM
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
Govt
Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:54 PM
Re: A Hole in Zero Tolerence Policy
DOD
Tue Apr 28, 2009 6:58 AM
Zero Tolorence & MSPB
IRS
Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:16 PM
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
.