Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Putting Action into Affirmative Action

Center for Increasing Representation

FAQ's for The Professional Guide  (faq 2)
 
But aren't we tossing this guy because of The Helper's allegations?
Not actually and that is why we put in the performance stuff, a little mark in the next to last appraisal and a lot in the final one. We're using the allegations to get us going AND then finishing with performance issues. We don't want to be locked into whatever The Helper claimed. Come on, would you trust someone we made write up stuff for us. By combining the two matters, we keep a necessary cloud around everything. Clouds are good, lawyers hate clouds. See Sample C which is an actual and verbatim transcript section on how to dodge this issue.

How can you change the Target's grievance?
Let's say the Target grieves he was treated unfairly and we can even assume your policy manual states employees will be treated fairly. Well, he was not treated unfairly when we fired him, we followed procedure there. And if he's claiming we treated him unfairly when we reprimanded him, that's a long time ago and certainly past any reasonable time to file a grievance. So you tell the grievance board, the grievance is only going to be about how you finally terminated him, not about any crap that might have occurred before. Also make sure the hearing chair works for you or in a department under you.

Should I have the Boss talk with any of the Target's colleagues?
Clearly, it is not advisable to talk with any of his colleagues except maybe The Helper before you fire the guy. We want the Boss to believe in Santa Claus, we do not want any challenges to that belief. Now after the guy is tossed, it may be necessary to talk with the Target's colleagues particularly if a grievance is filed. If so, tell the Boss to go around to all of Target's key employees and friends. We don't mean two or three, we mean at least 10 or more. The Boss should tell these people they will be her witnesses and they should not talk with the Target before any possible grievance hearing. This is quite permissible. This is also a good time to ask for any more dirt, negative comments and so forth relative to the Target as well as remind these people who they work for. You can add any new stuff the Boss finds later in your grievance hearing.

Are you really suggesting we investigate only after we fire the Target?
Yes, and then only if Target files a grievance. Why would anyone do otherwise.

What if Target gets witnesses to appear at a grievance hearing that contradict The Helper's allegations and make The Helper out as a liar?
Then the Boss has not done her job of intimidating witnesses into not appearing. However, it really doesn't matter, that's all after the fact, Target is already fired and you control the grievance.

I thought we were to change the grievance so witnesses would not even be necessary?
That's right. We only said go around to all possible witnesses and reserve them. When the time comes for the actual grievance, just tell them not to show up, but you can't control everyone. The Target may get one or two to appear that have no sense of power. Ignore them.

Does that mean the Target never gets to even confront The Helper accuser?
Yes, never does and it is just one point that makes the Guide such a brilliant strategy. The US judicial system and employers are two totally different concerns. Why would you want the Helper to show up, you fired the target because of performance. Besides, no one will care in a week.

We have stated for the record that on appraisals, one or two below expectations are not a big deal, just areas to be improved. So why bother with one or two below expectations?
Because, if the target is dumb enough to file a grievance, have the Boss tell the Hearing Board there is a "consistent pattern" in below expectations to justify your decision. The one below mark on the late appraisal you gave the Target and on the final one that had all below expectations is a "consistent pattern." Hearing Board members will only look at check marks; like, at, above or below, not written explanations. And even if they did bother to read them, they should not be specific enough to make any sense anyway. You really should trust The Guide.

We have five steps in our grievance policy. One requires a limited hearing before the Executive VP and he is concerned about possibly tarnishing his image. What can we do?
Skip it. Executive VP's should not be bothered with nonsense like this. Eliminate his hearing.

But our policy states the EVP will have a level 3 hearing. Shouldn't we have it?
Read our lips, skip it. But change your policy afterwards, never should have been there.

Should we really lie about performance issues?
We do not condone blatant lying, but if it is all you have, go for it. What is the Target going to do, get a transcript of the grievance hearing and compare it to emails the Boss has written. Even then, no one cares. See examples T& T1 which only shows confusion not lying by the Boss.

What if Target tries to contact some group like the Center for Individual Rights?
They have bigger fish to fry. What do they care about some little administrative white male schmuck that first trains and is then replaced by a lesser qualified protected class member.

Wouldn't this procedure be emotionally damaging to the Target?
Life is tough, business is life.

Our State has adopted a Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing within the Doctrine of At Will. Does that have any effect on using The Guide?
Not to our knowledge. Good Faith only permits an action for deceitful acts in manufacturing materially false grounds to cause an employee's dismissal. You haven't manufactured anything, you've only used information available to you. No big deal. 

| home | faq 1 | TPG | email | other | links |