Originally posted by: Rufio
nice...
that manager seems like a good person to work for!
this would be the manager who purposefully lied to and spied on his employees? I would be surprised if the three women involved don't (or haven't already) sued.
Originally posted by: Rufio
nice...
that manager seems like a good person to work for!
Originally posted by: Azraele
Cool. 🙂
Originally posted by: Hector13
Originally posted by: Rufio
nice...
that manager seems like a good person to work for!
this would be the manager who purposefully lied to and spied on his employees? I would be surprised if the three women involved don't (or haven't already) sued.
HAHAHA. You think I'm that stupid? Of course not. How real do you think those name are? I haven't been a manager as many years as I have to make a stupid mistake like that. Yes, I substituted the names, and yes, I paraphrased and summerized it because releasing the actual report with the real names is illegal. Releasing an altered brief is not. 😛Originally posted by: tcsenter
I sincerely hope you are not publicly disclosing actual names from private employment records.I love reading manager reports. Some of them that come in are just jewels. This one, about the recent firing of 3 female employees in our customer service department is definately one of them. I'll give you the short summery of what their manager wrote.
Employees who hire in sign off on a paper that says that all of their communications within the company can be monitored at manager request for security reasons. In other words, we think you're selling secrets to the competition, you bet your bottom dollar we can spy on you. And why not? If you're stealing from us, we're gonna catch you. If you're not doing anything illegal or unethical, then you have nothing to fear. 🙂Originally posted by: oLLie
Originally posted by: Hector13
Originally posted by: Rufio
nice...
that manager seems like a good person to work for!
this would be the manager who purposefully lied to and spied on his employees? I would be surprised if the three women involved don't (or haven't already) sued.
On what grounds? I'm pretty sure invasion of privacy doesn't apply in this situation or may have been waived when they took the job there. Also, I'm not sure it's illegal to lie. On what grounds?
Well, if no evidence was found against them and they came up clean, I'm sure they would have looked back at our Mr. Smith and concluded that the girls were right and then of course Mr. Smith would be the one being dealt with. The aproach he used is not one I would have used, but it was very smart. Apparently he knew these 3 girls enough that he decided to take a chance that they would talk about it or brag about it shortly after the fake firing. If they went about their jobs and nothing more was said that incriminated them, then the focus would be turned on Mr. Smith. In this case, they fully incriminated themselves. So his little test would have rendered a success one way or another.Originally posted by: Moralpanic
What would have happened if the girls didn't use their computers to talk, and no evidence was found against them? Then how would they explain that guy having a 2 week vacation?
Originally posted by: cainsdive
Good managers are HARD to find.