Two guys are put on a crew working together in a construction related industry. Both are very good at their trade but when these 2 get together they get rather stupid and end up breaking something that will have to be reordered therefore holding up the job and making the general contractor mad. So one of the two guys gets fired because the boss feels they can't work together. I would like to know what everyone thinks, should both have been fired? Was is fair to fire just the one guy just to seperate the two?
Hard to say. Which one worked there longer? I kinda go for seniority. Why couldn't they just have been put on differnt jobs IF they were otherwise good employees?
I feel that at least one should be fired. One has to be more of an asset than the other. Who broke the most stuff? Who misbehaved just a little more than the other? Which one was late more than the other? In school you may be both punished but the work force is a whole different ball game. So, it was probably fair. JMO. Based on little knowledge of the WHOLE situation. I am sure there is more to the story. Respectfully, Pattie
Who was the bigger instigator in each situation? The problem should've been able to be nipped by writing them up, 3 strikes and your out, if both know it, they both would have to abide by it. Always keep a paper trail on that kind of stuff, or else it will come back to bite you in the butt if there winds up being any unemployment hearings.
both fired. both were goofing off and both were partly responsible for damage and hold-up of the project. Can 'em both.
One had been there longer but I think that one should have had enough maturity not to be led around by the other, it's like I was asked as a teenager numerous times "If so and so jumped off a cliff, would you jump behind her?" Both were good employees when not working together.
That is the smart thing to do. It was hard to tell who was the worst, these two were just super imature when together, they tended to forget they were at work.
It would depend on a lot of factors. Years of employment, work history, etc. The one with the best overall employment history and years of service should stay, assuming there have been no other instances. Then again, it's an at will state and they can legally do whatever they want to.
there is no way to justify who was more guilty or more immature. They both get the boot, guilty by association and all.
Well the company is fairly new so neither has had much time to develop much, it was a matter of about 7 months difference in the time they had been here. Maybe they should have both received a suspension without pay to give them a little time to grow up.
That would have been a great idea...show them that the company is going to take serious steps if they can't act like responsible adults on the job. My company does 2 write-ups, third time your out. Depending on the infraction, the second write-up can be accompanied by a 2-3 day suspension without pay (and they are not allowed to use vacation/personal days to cover it).
I would have gone this route, if they were both good employees. Replacement & Training costs are just to high. I might have staggered their suspensions if they were a real small firm.
That sounds like a very good idea, by staggering their suspensions they are kept apart longer!!! This not my company, I run a construction company but they are in the same office w/me. They fired just one of the guys and I disagree with that.
Thanks everyone, I just wanted some other opinions to show to my friend who runs the company in question!
