Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
Wow this thread has had a lot more legs than I would have imagined. To me this is pretty simple. Sleep Country has a rule, he chose to broke it and got suspended. I got no problem with that. But I also have no problem with him running to the paper. Freedom is freedom after all. Sleep Country dicked this up because they must have known an employee who has shown beligerence before could, and probably will, go cry to the local daily. They should have done a better job realizing where this would go and try to find a compromise to avoid this. I mean some credit for holding the line and staying true, but as a business person this was not a wise move.
The argument that giving in to him would set a bad precedent is true, but have all the negative headlines and potential lost sales from people pissed off over this worth it? I mean we aren't talking about this is they let it slide, and now they can't get this to go away fast enough, I'd argue this at best for Sleep Country is a neutral thing and at worst could cost them business. I agree the guy is being a bit of a moron after the fact, but again he's free to do so.
|
We're basically going in circles here now, but I think it's a sad state of things when an employer needs to step back from every minor dispute with an employee and ask "how might this play out in the media?" before acting.
What's next? A college student misses 3 shifts in a row because they were out partying, but they run to the media when they are reprimanded because the friend they were partying with has cancer?
Honestly I do get where your coming from, I just don't agree with it.