Opinions, please.

Reba

Reba

Retired Terp
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
54,899
Reaction score
1,518
What is your opinion on the following scenario?

A man works for a medium size manufacturing company that does mostly federal government contract work. He is a technical engineer, and one piece of equipment in his office is a CAD printer. Because he operates the only oversize printer in the company, other workers sometimes request he print posters for worker retirement parties, company picnics, group announcements, etc. Those requests aren't official job requirements but he does them as a favor if the event is worker related.

One day, a worker from another department asks him to print a poster announcing an event that the engineer can't support for moral/ethical reasons. It's not a work sponsored event. He politely tells the worker that he doesn't feel comfortable printing it. The worker says, no problem, and leaves.

A few months later, a HR rep comes to his office and tells him that the company no longer needs him. He is to pack up and leave. The engineer asks what happened. He's had no complaints about his work, and he's the only person who fills that position. He is told that it relates to his refusal to print the poster. He is told that he's not even allowed to file a grievance or appeal because that would be considered harassment against the original complainant.

They won't even answer his question about why it took them months to do this. He's not allowed to contact anyone at the workplace.

So, he's fired. He's in the process of applying for a new job. Several job "headhunter" representatives have contacted him with offers. The problem is, those offers are for the job from which he was just fired! That company can't find anyone to fill his position. He's the best qualified person for the job.

Was the firing fair? Was it legal?

Opinions, please.
 
It wasn't fair. It would have been stealing from the company if he had done it regardless of his moral beliefs.

His company probably used it as an excuse to fire him and get someone cheaper.

So it seems a treacherous place to work.
 
He might want to hire an attorney, from what you said it really does sound like unlawful termination. I find it really perplexing that he cannot even file a complaint. Is this a large company or small company (or something in between)? The problem with a small company is "HR" is either the boss/owner or just one person and we all know HR is a tool of management anyway. He might also check to see if the ACLU would take his case. I'm not 100% sure they do this kind of cases, but they might.
 
Cheetah said:
He might want to hire an attorney, from what you said it really does sound like unlawful termination. I find it really perplexing that he cannot even file a complaint. Is this a large company or small company (or something in between)? The problem with a small company is "HR" is either the boss/owner or just one person and we all know HR is a tool of management anyway. He might also check to see if the ACLU would take his case. I'm not 100% sure they do this kind of cases, but they might.
Click to expand...
It's a smaller branch of a large business. The large business is a nationwide heavy manufacturer. The local business makes components for the larger one. It's a modern plant in an industrial park.

He's been trying to find a lawyer but they seem to be hesitant to face this company. He's waiting to hear back from some law offices. It just happened last week.
 
I wonder if Angies List might assist in finding a good employment lawyer. His location might limit his options though. Good luck and let us know what happens (if possible).
 
Reba,

What he should have done not only that he refuse to do it, he should have said, "I have to check with my supervisor/boss to see if that is ok to do it" instead of him to say "No". If he check with his supervisor/boss and say no don't do it, then he's off the hook. He should let supervisor/boss know about this before he take any actions. If supervisor/boss know about this..then he's liable for making this kind of decision.

So, from reading/hearing his story is only one side of the story...have you hear other side? I guess not.... so it's a tough decision.
 
Wirelessly posted (droid)

Fair, no. Legal, yes.
 
If he's not a member of a union, he's out of luck.
 
If he's in a 'right to work' state such as Arkansas, he's SOL sadly. I feel bad for him. The firing wasn't right but it was still technically legal.

Best thing he can do right now is move on. Sounds like the company probably did him a favor by letting him go if things are like that.

Is he willing to move to a new location for a job? Also, he might be able to file for unemployment to tide him over until he can find a new job. In AR if you are terminated, you can draw unemployment after 13 weeks. If you are laid off due to downsizing or closure, you can draw unemployment after two weeks. Check the labor laws in his state.

He might also be able to contact the labor board and get their take on it.
 
Taken at face value, regardless of what the man was asked to print, he has a right to refuse the job and not worry about being fired. Unfortunately for him, as others have pointed out, no such legal right exists.

But before I can sympathize with the man, I'd want to know what exactly it was he was asked to print, and what exactly his words were when he declined the job. Without knowing those important pieces of information, I don't really have much of an opinion.

Currently, the story is framed as a rhetorical question rather than as a sincere appeal for opinions. Nobody will read this and be able to feel anything other than an abstract emotional outrage at the injustice that has occurred. But, we really don't know enough to arrive at solid conclusions. Seems to me that there is more to this story . . .
 
Thank you all for replying. :ty:

I'm sorry that I didn't get back to my thread sooner. I've been playing catch up the last couple days. I was out of town Friday, and Saturday, and off-line except for my Blackberry. I didn't realize I could fall so far behind so quickly! :lol:
 
South Carolina is a right to work state, and I don't believe the guy I mentioned is a union member.

I don't think his firing had to do with the company's finances. They are trying to fill his vacancy, so that means they still need someone to do the job. It's a rather specific technical trade. He said there were no complaints about his job performance.

I hope to get an update from him tomorrow night.

I doubt that I will be able to hear the other side of the story since I don't know anyone else who works at that place.

Thanks for some of the suggestions. :ty:
 
He might have been better off if he had framed his refusal more along the lines of "I'm sorry, I can only print work-related material" rather than the "I'm not comfortable with it" position. It's not his personal CAD machine; his moral opinions don't really have anything to do with it. But he would have every right to not use such a machine for a non-work-related print job.
 
Bottesini said:
It wasn't fair. It would have been stealing from the company if he had done it regardless of his moral beliefs.

His company probably used it as an excuse to fire him and get someone cheaper.

So it seems a treacherous place to work.
Click to expand...

He was already stealing from the company by printing posters for workers outside the department that were not an authorized part of his duties. Had he refused those workers as well, unless they had official company sanction for their request, he could have refused the one he had moral objections to as well. It was the picking and choosing that put him in the position of being charged with discrimination.
 
jillio said:
He was already stealing from the company by printing posters for workers outside the department that were not an authorized part of his duties. Had he refused those workers as well, unless they had official company sanction for their request, he could have refused the one he had moral objections to as well. It was the picking and choosing that put him in the position of being charged with discrimination.
Click to expand...

That's a really good point.
 
jillio said:
He was already stealing from the company by printing posters for workers outside the department that were not an authorized part of his duties. Had he refused those workers as well, unless they had official company sanction for their request, he could have refused the one he had moral objections to as well. It was the picking and choosing that put him in the position of being charged with discrimination.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. I'll have to ask him if the other posters were authorized or not. They were for worker related activities. That is, activities that happened at the work site, for employees. It's the kind of stuff that they would normally print on regular size printers such as for fliers to be posted but they wanted larger sizes.

I need to check on that.
 
Legal? I'm not a lawyer, so no answer.
Fair? Wl there is not enough information to decide. What happen to the person(s) who originally requested the poster be made? It is stated that this poster is NOT worker related, so it should have never been requested. The outer world's that were worker related are probably legal because being worker(company) related management would have approved them; although, I'll admit the proper channels were avoided. IMO it is legal for a company to fire an employee for failure to follow company policy but if done ALL employees who actually participated in this action are treated equally. ALL fired or NONE fired.
 
From reading this, my guess is that the guy who's print request got denied lawyered up and is suing the company or threatening to do so. For instance, if the requested print job was religious in nature, he could claim religious discrimination. Then, the company would fire your friend so they could claim they don't tolerate discrimination. It would be an act of legal posturing.

That, to me, is the best explanation for what appears to be an over the top move that's both unfair to your friend and economically irrational on their part, given how valuable and rare your friend's skills are. It would also explain why it happened without warning months after the incident and why they were so unwilling to talk about it. But then, it is just a guess and I could be totally off the mark. Consider it something to chew on.
 
darkdog said:
From reading this, my guess is that the guy who's print request got denied lawyered up and is suing the company or threatening to do so. For instance, if the requested print job was religious in nature, he could claim religious discrimination. Then, the company would fire your friend so they could claim they don't tolerate discrimination. It would be an act of legal posturing.

That, to me, is the best explanation for what appears to be an over the top move that's both unfair to your friend and economically irrational on their part, given how valuable and rare your friend's skills are. It would also explain why it happened without warning months after the incident and why they were so unwilling to talk about it. But then, it is just a guess and I could be totally off the mark. Consider it something to chew on.
Click to expand...
That's possible. :hmm:
 
Back
Top