Timeline for When dealing with mass misconduct, how do you prevent disruption while still punishing the act?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2021 at 10:36 | comment | added | MSalters | @KRyan: There is virtually nothing that you can do that will bar an employee from suing the company. The only reasonable option to achieve that (mandatory arbitration) would require a contract clause, and it's too late for that. As for getting a lawyer involved here, a companies internal certification process is ordinary HR. That does not require a lawyer at all. Employers have great latitude in telling their staff how and when to get certified. | |
| May 28, 2021 at 19:48 | history | edited | Pete W | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 12 characters in body
|
| May 28, 2021 at 19:44 | comment | added | Pete W | @KRyan - Agree 100%. An HR manager or director level would surely know that, but I added a disclaimer. | |
| May 28, 2021 at 19:41 | history | edited | Pete W | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 154 characters in body
|
| May 28, 2021 at 19:35 | comment | added | KRyan | This answer needs a big disclaimer about how this isn’t legal advice by a lawyer retained by the company who has had an opportunity to review all the facts of the case as well as relevant case law, which is to say, no one can guarantee that this advice won’t get you sued into oblivion. | |
| May 28, 2021 at 17:50 | comment | added | Owen Reynolds | This seems like a standard approach to most "some did it" issues: you can't or don't want to target just a few people, so do it for everyone. The principle is tested and employees seem to mostly understand it ("why do I have to retake it? Oh, right"). | |
| May 28, 2021 at 17:26 | comment | added | Bobson | Slight variant of this: Rather than say anything about cheating, just use a phrase like "abnormalities with the certification results". Those who cheated will know it's referring to them, and maybe it'll make them wonder what was "abnormal" about the results (and scared to do it again). Those who don't know about the cheating may guess, or may ascribe it to some kind of computer error, but either way will probably not talk about it. | |
| May 28, 2021 at 13:35 | comment | added | Pete W | @o0' - The rationale is that, if OP's company sends the exact 100 people they suspect to get recertified, they couldn't plausibly claim not to know the extent of the problem. It would then raise the question of why they're letting it go unpunished. // Joe W - This answer is based on not firing a subset of the cheaters. | |
| May 28, 2021 at 13:03 | comment | added | o0'. | -1 So you would be unfairly punishing everyone who didn't cheat. Is this answer aimed at avoiding trouble? | |
| May 28, 2021 at 12:08 | comment | added | Joe W | This is a very very bad idea. If your sacrificial lamb knows much about the cheating it could easily backfire. Depending on their personality they could easily take the company to court with the claim that they were targeted and the only one fired for the same actions. They could also report it with claims that it is being covered up based on firing of a single or a few people to be sacrificial lambs. With something like this you either need to do nothing or go all in on the punishment and after an investigation punish everyone involved. | |
| May 28, 2021 at 8:25 | comment | added | Levente | I just can't see how this can be discussed in public like this, and to hope that "security in obscurity" will somehow prevent this information from finding its way back into the context of this company. This is a website with a lot of visitors... Also, it does not need to happen immediately. It could happen at an indefinite point in the future... (I feel this concern only with answers that suggest to hold back on any of the information. This, even though it seems not to try anything "extra" to "still win somehow", seems sooo much cleaner!) | |
| May 28, 2021 at 2:02 | history | edited | Pete W | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 78 characters in body
|
| May 28, 2021 at 1:51 | history | edited | Pete W | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| May 28, 2021 at 1:45 | history | edited | Pete W | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| May 28, 2021 at 1:40 | history | answered | Pete W | CC BY-SA 4.0 |