Can you briefly summarize the sequence of events, I have already selected a Target and chosen a minority or woman Replacement?
Get a disgruntled employee (The Helper) to make up allegations against your Target
now wait a week or less, then
Give Target a performance appraisal that is up to six months late
now wait two weeks or less, then
Get The Helper to sign and date their allegations after the appraisal
wait about a week, then
Write up what you want your Replacement to learn when assigned to Target's area
wait a couple of days, then
Give Target a memorandum of Warning and assign Replacement as watchdog
wait a few months then
Give Target a final appraisal and fire him
wait a few hours, then
Appoint Replacement into Target's now vacant position, bingo
Are you saying we should give the person a Warning based on possibly unsubstantiated and solicited allegations of a disgruntled employee that he works for, then use the Warning AND fabricated performance issues to then fire him?
In a nutshell, that's a pretty good summary. Don't forget you should also give the Target an almost good appraisal, even if up to six months late, just before you collect the allegations.
We have a policy that recommends informal discussions first between an employee and his boss when there are disagreements. Does this apply here for Helper and Target?
Of course not, these are serious fabrications. Also, ditch that policy, it's a dumb one.
It seems that in the sequence of events you are recommending, the Target will be convicted and punished before he even knows of allegations against him. Is that fair?
Life is not fair. Business is life. Think of the bigger picture here. Also, there is no law that says an employee is entitled to anything remotely resembling anything written in the Constitution.
When is a good time to show The Helper's allegations you solicited to the Boss?
We recommend you mention the allegations shortly before the penultimate performance appraisal is completed as described in Step 6. It helps her participate in the process. You can do it afterwards, doesn't matter.
What if The Target quits on the spot when you give him his "warning?"
Not gonna happen. Could you walk away from your job today? The Professional Guide lets you move a less qualified protected class member into a higher spot and trains them for the job.
Under Section 7, the Target is given a set of instructions (Sample 7 iv) to follow and a memo of Warning (Sample 7 v) that reads "if you wish to remain, you should do this...." Now, if the Target does all these things, should we still go ahead and fire him?
Sure, what's the problem with that. You could tell him during the Warning that he's history if you want to or just claim you did later on. Doesn't matter, but add the performance stuff at the termination.
Our policy manual says appraisals will be done "fairly, consistently and objectively." How do you comply with that and go from a seemingly good appraisal (sample # 4) to a final abominable appraisal (sample # 9) in only a few months?
Most words that end in 'ly' are by definition, subjective. Therefore, whoever is doing the appraisals is doing them with subjective fairness and so on. Besides, you forget that as Captain, you ultimately get to decree the appraisal was done fairly and objectively. Who's to question it.
Are you sure it is okay to make up stories about Target's performance?
Positive. Besides, Target will be spending enormous energy trying to disprove a negative, The Helper's allegations. Try proving you never did something you never did. See how hard it is.
Your sample allegations (sample # 3) that The Helper should write are stupid and could be written about practically any boss, who would believe them?
We took that example directly from an employer that successfully followed The Guide. The only concept is that maybe one of the allegations might be remotely possible. No one will pay any attention anyway, even if all the remaining ones are patently and knowingly false.
In looking at The Helper's allegations, it does not appear there is any reason for him to have written it when he did, like right after a six month late appraisal. Is that good?
Sure. Call it a mere coincidence. Timing, your timing of events, is much more important than procedures like doing appraisals on time. It is also why The Helper should not use specifics, who knows, someone may claim he started his memo months before.
What if The Helper's allegations are lies?
So? The point to remember here is, we only have to pretend the Boss might possibly believe them, like possibly believing in Santa Claus. You'll recall we said you (the Captain) or your designated flunky should help The Helper to write a memo. We wouldn't trust having the Target's boss do that. And remember, you get to show the Boss the allegations which should then make her feel that much more inferior to you and more determined to dump The Target.
What if Target has told the Boss that The Helper is a problem before any accusation?
No problem. Actually, it is a bonus because The Helper will be that much easier to work with if he knows he can get to the Target before The Target possibly gets to him.
So it appears the Boss is doing the dumping while in reality, the senior administration is.
Beautiful isn't it. The Boss gets all the negative comments and you get the praise for promoting protected class members.
What if The Helper spills out and tells someone else you are investigating the Target just before you give the penultimate appraisal and before his memo? Isn't that a setup?
What's the big deal, you are just investigating matters. And there is nothing illegal about a setup. Maybe the FBI is not allowed that sort of thing, but this is business, you can do anything. If necessary, just tell that someone that knows that information, to not appear at any hearing.
These actions you are suggesting are despicable and foul.
And your point?
Will our Affirmative Action policy have any effect in following The Guide?
No, you are simply replacing someone you don't like with someone that you currently like better. It is coincidental one is an older white male and the other is a less qualified minority. We do recommend you have an AA policy (sample AA) that says something like "in accordance with our organization's commitment to hire, retain and promote minority group members and women, we reserve the right to appoint these members directly into open positions." This can eliminate the time and expense of having to go through the motions of advertising, searches and interviewing.
I have an African American woman that I'd like to promote using the Guide, but we already lost a discrimination case (a more qualified white woman) with the EEOC when we originally hired her. Can I still promote her by following your steps?
Sure. The Guide cuts through that crap. Just make sure you follow the steps we have outlined. That's also a completely different case, before was a white woman, this time a white man.
What if some female staffer said the same sort of things that we now claim the Target said, like calling her boss some racist or SOB or the N word and nothing was done to her?
So? Besides, we really doubt they said exactly identical things so who knows or cares.
Unfortunately, our organization has a record of investigating things, no matter how inconsequential, to the smallest detail, especially if a minority is involved. Won't we be required to investigate the allegations against the Target?
No. That is not unfortunate, that is responsible action on your part. That is why there is a word called minorities. And you are investigating so you do not dismiss the protected class member while you are not investigating so you can dismiss the white guy. Seems fair to us.
Couldn't the Guide seemingly could be interpreted as violating Target's Title 7 rights?
First, there is no reverse discrimination against white males in America. Never has been, never will. It would be like a shark attack in Montana. Second, what "rights?"
We have an internal grievance policy? What if the Target files a grievance?
It is an excellent thing that you have a grievance policy. We highly recommend all companies implement one for several reasons. First, employees think you are being nice to them and never realize the policy is for you and not them. That makes it a great thing by itself. Such a policy also lets you see what an employee has in the way of evidence and allows you to adjust your story line accordingly. And from a legal standpoint, it throws out any chance the Target may have to claim some 1983 violation. All great reasons for a grievance policy. A word of caution. Make certain no lawyers are allowed to participate and that the grievance policy ends with you, the Captain. This should be something like, any hearing boards will only make a recommendation to you.
Now any reasonable Target is not going to file a grievance right away, like when you tell him his Replacement is going to be reviewing his area. Remember, you gave him a Warning, you did not fire him right away. Also, he has no idea what is happening or who did what to him when you first let him know. And we covered our tracks when we said the "any retaliation" thing. So what and how is going to grieve anything. Reread Step 8.
After you fire the Target, he may file a grievance. At that point, have the Boss repeat something like what she said when she fired him (see Sample G), saying he was let him go because of his obscene comments and his current performance. Thereafter, if he continues the grievance process, change it to your side by saying you did follow procedure in dismissing him as mentioned in the last sentence of Step 9 in the Guide AND then add previous performance using the last minute appraisal.
| home | faq 2 | TPG | email | other | links |