Analyzing case of firing problems in Beach Electrical System Company
Abstract
Employees are having restricted rules to follow in any kind of the company. And what will happen if they will disobey them? And do employees have rights to be protected against unrighteous managers? This paper is giving answer and explaining my personal opinion on what is going on in the case with Mary Schwartz, who had many problems with managers in her own company.
What role, if any, should Mary's past work record play in this case? Explain.
The working experience of Mary on this position in this company is actually high. Without counting that Mary Schwartz was working for the company for 9 years, we should notice that here working performance were high. 6 years she was outstanding worker with good working results. From the text, we cannot say that she had failed with her work (due to the lack of information), but it seems that there was nothing like that. So we can say that she is also highly experienced in doing here job. Moreover, as it was mentioned before - for 6 years, Maria was described as a loyal employee, and “Loyalty: having a sense of belonging and wishing to stay in the organization” (Managing HRM Senyucel 33) that means that she was working hardly and she was a brick in the company. And 9 years of work counts something not only for Mary, but also for other employees. As we do know when someone is being fired, they should be provided with the clear explanation of reasons why they are fired. In addition, if some experienced old working employee is being fired, this will surely cause many different questions about “how safe people are on their places, if such person who was working for such a long time was fired without any warning”. Past work records must be used due to the respect to the human who was working for such long time for the company, whose results for 6 years were higher than in other employees, and who had never missed her work because of unacceptable reasons.
Does management have a right to know why employees refuse to work overtime?
Rights – this is one of the things, which are trying to be protected as much as possible. Words about humans privacy “it is important that HR professionals work to achieve maximum security and privacy for employee” (Beginning of HRM Dias 499). In this case, the human rights of protecting personal information is working for 100%. In this case, there are multiple variants of answering in this question. We do know that sometimes there are something what people do not want to bring outside their house. As an example let us imagine that Mary (who had refused to work over timely) had a meeting with some of the doctors on Saturday, and she had no need for someone to know this. Overtime working is working not in the time that is officially restricted for work, so no one can make you to work this time, and this is absolutely your decision. In addition, as you are always trying to protect your privacy, you might inform managers why you are not willing to work over timely, or you can save this information to protect your personal information or your personal life. Therefore, as a conclusion we might figure out that “Overtime (time spent working) after the usual time needed or expected in a job” (Cambridge dictionary) and that mean that this is wok in the time of your personal time. Your personal time after work is your private information, so to give a right to know why you had rejected (or confirmed) the offer about overtime work - lays only on you.
Evaluate the arguments of Mary Schwartz and management in this case.
We are looking on two different points. From one side we can see unsatisfied employer who is trying to fire employee who had “missed too much”. Mary is protecting herself with the statements “that in their company rules there are official procedure that should be followed if someone is in forced to be fired. So we can see that actually this thing was not done due to this or that reasons (unfortunately we do not know why). And from other hand we can see that managers of this company were trying to figure everything out by friendly speech about here absents (surely that had not worked out well). So they decided also to violate the rules and they had skipped few steps of formal procedure for the reasons that only they know. “There must be rules and standards, which are communicated clearly and administered fairly” (Complete Guide to Human Resource Management 48), without fair administration, rules are wont work properly in any ways. If they are braking their own rules, than how they can blame workers for not following them? So surely, they had done not correct decision. Moreover, as for me this decision was done as revenge to Mary because she had rejected offer to work over timely. Yes this is understandable that if employee is not responding positively for a request of help from the company, and not explaining the reason why, than it seems that she is not interested in companies interest. But from other hand she had no reasons to say “yes”, so again I do believe that in this case Maries arguments about official annotation is absolutely right and correct. Rules are equal for everyone.
If you were a member of the company's peer-review complaint committee, how would you vote in this case? What facts would cause you to vote this way?
Well if I would be in the peer-review complaint committee, than I would reject the request about firing Marry Schwartz, even more I would surely sign the request to check quality of HR managers who were asking for this request. Loyal employees are valued high, and employees who had results on the level more than high are valued even more high. As we all know there are always some problems might occur with any of us, and if you would be qualified HR, perhaps you would find a reason of problems. Moreover, even in the respect to the experience of this worker, you would try to protect here on this place, for the reason of her previous results. 9 years is actually long time, and firing without any official annotation - is not only example of poor qualification, this is also showing the disrespect for all the work that employee had done to the company. Surely if Mary would done something unacceptable (drinking on the working place etc), than there would be no questions for HR decision, but currently with the explanation of illness of the Marry, and without any other reasons to miss the job – firing her is not smart decision, and surely it is not ethical. Mary had given 9 years of her life for this job, and when she lost her health, it was decided to fire her. Not the smartest decision in terms of everything.
Bibliography
Complete Guide to Human Resource Management By BizMove Management Training Institute (n.d)
Dias, L. P. (n.d.). Human relations version 1.0.
Overtime Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved February 07, 2016, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/overtime
Senyucel, Z. (2009). Managing Human resource in 21st century. Ventu.
