Casa Monica Hotel Not As Classy As We Thought
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:01 AM
#62
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was someone suggesting that wearing a flag pin is the same as something like a Muslim woman being allowed to wear head covering in the workplace? Wow. What a stretch. The head gear is required by her religion, the flag pin is not. A better comparison would be a Muslim being allowed to wear a pin with an image of Mohammed or something not required by her religion but indicates her own personal feelings -- just like a flag pin is not required by religion but indicates personal feelings. If a company allowed the former and not the latter, then there would be cause for complaint of unfairness.
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:19 AM
#64
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An employee who makes this a reason to be fired is LOOKING to be fired and wants the attendant publicity. We LOVE Casa Monica and will continue to patronize it. The hotel obviously takes standards very seriously----and I applaud that.
Orlando Vic, if a person commits a crime repeatedly for two years under the lax eye of a lazy policeman, is it wrong for a different policeman to arrest him for the same act? Your reasoning---or I should say, non-reasoning--- is absurd.
Orlando Vic, if a person commits a crime repeatedly for two years under the lax eye of a lazy policeman, is it wrong for a different policeman to arrest him for the same act? Your reasoning---or I should say, non-reasoning--- is absurd.
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:20 AM
#65
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A better comparison would be a Muslim being allowed to wear a pin with an image of Mohammed or something not required by her religion but indicates her own personal feelings"
That would certainly indicate her personal feelings, since any image of Mohammed would be considered, at best, not very appropriate and, at worse, sacrilegious.
I don't understand all the complaining about how horrible it was that this guy lost his job. I don't agree with a lot of the policies at my job. But I realize that the employer sets the rules, my workplace is not a democracy, and I can't flout these rules if I want to stay employed there. I also realize that my employer changes these rules - things that were allowed are no longer allowed and vice versa. (Maybe that's why Mitt Romney keeps changing his positions - that's just the way things go in upper management.) This place changed their enforcement of a policy, the employee didn't fall in line, and he got fired. Welcome to the American workplace.
That would certainly indicate her personal feelings, since any image of Mohammed would be considered, at best, not very appropriate and, at worse, sacrilegious.
I don't understand all the complaining about how horrible it was that this guy lost his job. I don't agree with a lot of the policies at my job. But I realize that the employer sets the rules, my workplace is not a democracy, and I can't flout these rules if I want to stay employed there. I also realize that my employer changes these rules - things that were allowed are no longer allowed and vice versa. (Maybe that's why Mitt Romney keeps changing his positions - that's just the way things go in upper management.) This place changed their enforcement of a policy, the employee didn't fall in line, and he got fired. Welcome to the American workplace.
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:28 AM
#67
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NeoPatrick, in your prolific responses on this thread, you have conveniently ignored the fact that this employee was permitted to disregard the rule for two years. So is it OK to begin enforcing the rule after all that time?
I am an employer and have some experience with employee grievances, and I can tell you if an employer ignores a rule for two years, then suddenly begins to enforce it, he's not going to get far in trying to defend the firing. Wouldn't you agree?
I am an employer and have some experience with employee grievances, and I can tell you if an employer ignores a rule for two years, then suddenly begins to enforce it, he's not going to get far in trying to defend the firing. Wouldn't you agree?
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:49 AM
#70
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
***A better comparison would be a Muslim being allowed to wear a pin with an image of Mohammed or something not required by her religion but indicates her own personal feelings***
Thank you Neo and that's the point. Religion trumps personal in the workplace. Last I knew we weren't a religious based country.
Thank you Neo and that's the point. Religion trumps personal in the workplace. Last I knew we weren't a religious based country.
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:51 AM
#71
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends on the circumstances, Joan. We had a somewhat similar situation but a behavior, not an object, was in contention. This behavior had been allowed under a previous, lax, manager. When a new manager was hired, one charged with actually enforcing the rules, the employee who refused to comply was fired with cause. The behavior was brought to the employee's attention and she was given notice twice but refused to comply because It had "always" been allowed as long as she had been there until the new manager took over. Our attorney said firing her was perfectly legal. It is also legal to CHANGE the workplace rules and require compliance with the new rules as soon as practical and reasonable. The employee was in the wrong and the only reason anyone is even discussing it is because he is a vet and the object is a flag pin.
Veterans are not sacred cows in the workplace.
Veterans are not sacred cows in the workplace.
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:54 AM
#72
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tom42, I googled and found (according to the fired employee) that there's been a change in command at the corporate level, but I still stand by my opinion that this would be hard to defend.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/16...ican-flag-pin/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/16...ican-flag-pin/
Nov 3rd, 2011, 06:56 AM
#73
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fyb, no I wouldn't have a problem if they made it clear from the beginning that this was the policy.
Also, it does not seem this person was given much of a warning, if any. And the "enforcer" was at the corporate level, not a day-to-day supervisor, apparently.
Also, it does not seem this person was given much of a warning, if any. And the "enforcer" was at the corporate level, not a day-to-day supervisor, apparently.
Nov 3rd, 2011, 01:09 PM
#78
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"NeoPatrick, in your prolific responses on this thread, you have conveniently ignored the fact that this employee was permitted to disregard the rule for two years. So is it OK to begin enforcing the rule after all that time?"
I hate to be so obvious (although apparently it doesn't seem obvious to all), but because a rule is suddenly enforced really doesn't mean a thing. That's almost like saying -- "gee, I sped through that neighborhood for years and never got a ticket, so why should they ticket me today for going 50 in a 35?" "Gee, I wore my pin for years, so why should I be "fined" now?" Same idea. Besides, if that thought is too complex, then it has also been stated that there was new management. Surely you understand the idea that new management is always likely to enforce rules differently (or even interpret them differently) than previous management?
But I'm also fascinated by this comment from the employee, "I've actually gotten probably more compliments about it than any of the service I've actually done at the hotel, which is an interesting concept," May told the station.
Maybe the fact that no one seemed to compliment his work is an even better reason he was fired? After all it's easy to say and prove "you didn't follow a rule", but not so easy to say and prove "you just aren't doing a very good job here.
I hate to be so obvious (although apparently it doesn't seem obvious to all), but because a rule is suddenly enforced really doesn't mean a thing. That's almost like saying -- "gee, I sped through that neighborhood for years and never got a ticket, so why should they ticket me today for going 50 in a 35?" "Gee, I wore my pin for years, so why should I be "fined" now?" Same idea. Besides, if that thought is too complex, then it has also been stated that there was new management. Surely you understand the idea that new management is always likely to enforce rules differently (or even interpret them differently) than previous management?
But I'm also fascinated by this comment from the employee, "I've actually gotten probably more compliments about it than any of the service I've actually done at the hotel, which is an interesting concept," May told the station.
Maybe the fact that no one seemed to compliment his work is an even better reason he was fired? After all it's easy to say and prove "you didn't follow a rule", but not so easy to say and prove "you just aren't doing a very good job here.
Nov 3rd, 2011, 01:41 PM
#79
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"fyb, no I wouldn't have a problem if they made it clear from the beginning that this was the policy."
OK, then nice to know you DON'T have a problem with it, since it was clearly a written policy from the start. Or do you mean that you wouldn't have a problem with it if they made clear that rules are rules and shouldn't be ignored. What person can't understand that if you are given rules, that IS the policy??? Some people assume the rules aren't supposed to be followed and deliberately ignore then until they are told that they must be followed? What am I missing here?
OK, then nice to know you DON'T have a problem with it, since it was clearly a written policy from the start. Or do you mean that you wouldn't have a problem with it if they made clear that rules are rules and shouldn't be ignored. What person can't understand that if you are given rules, that IS the policy??? Some people assume the rules aren't supposed to be followed and deliberately ignore then until they are told that they must be followed? What am I missing here?
