Morality of firing someone over a mistake

  • Thread starter Thread starter bbentrup
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bbentrup

Guest
I don’t know all the facts of the Paterno case, and I’m not his God and judge, so I make no comment there, but this question is definitely inspired by the Penn St. debacle.

To what extent do you fire someone over a mistake? how many? how grave? Surely this is not the same thing as forgiving 70x7, but just as assuredly that is at least an element in the equation, right? If we fired someone over the least moral shortcoming, would there be anyone left with a job at all? We’re all sinners, it’s just that some sins have been outed more publicly than others.

Of note, Jesus did not fire Peter after his betrayal, but instead made him CEO of the Church. I’m guessing that wouldn’t go over well with today’s Catholics, especially in America. To what extent should that example shape our thinking? The scandal could have been immense, but Jesus deflated it. Can we just ignore potential scandal too? The Church in general seems to be of the opinion that it is best to note the mistake, make a sincere mea culpa, and move on. How valid is that? (my take - the correct path)

Finally, if you’re part of another business, and someone like JoePa gets swept up in the backlash, but you think he’s a good guy (he might not be - just a hypothetical here), under what circumstances do you hire him at your business (age aside)?

Again, sorry for all the questions - just provide insights to whichever ones you have. Thanks!
 
public institutions and their employees have laws to follow, and procedures internally to make sure those laws are followed. Failure to do so is more than a mistake. No one has greater affection and respect for JoePat than this family, which includes several alumni, but a child rape in progress was witnessed and nothing was done. That goes way beyond mistake.
 
Joe Paterno was fired because his actions were inexcusable. And so were Curley’s, Schultz’s, & McQueary’s. To be aware of a sexual assault on a child, and not to go immediately to the authorities, is inexcusable. Worst of all, (besides Sandusky himself) is McQueary because he actually witnessed a 10 yr. old being victimized and walked away. These people’s failure to act most assuredly enabled the predator Sandusky to prey upon more victims. It isn’t about forgiveness, or “mistakes”. A mistake is calling the wrong play in a football game, or recruiting the wrong players from high school. This goes way beyond that. On the other hand, of course Paterno can be forgiven. So can the rest of them. And as hard as it is for me to grasp, even the predator Sandusky can be forgiven. That is the beauty of our Lord. No matter how reprehensible our actions, if we sincerely confess and repent, we will be forgiven.
 
Bear in mind forgiveness is not the same thing as being treated like nothing happened.

Even God doesn’t work like that when He forgives.

As much as I may be sorry for my sins, they have consequences, and thus I have to make restitution where possible and faithfully perform whatever penance is assigned me in confession. Not to mention possibly spending time in Purgatory as well.
 
LilyM said:
Bear in mind forgiveness is not the same thing as being treated like nothing happened.
.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Even though forgiveness is wonderful and required and all that stuff, to cover up those crimes is heinous. Pure and simple. If that is what truly what happened, no matter what the organization-public/private, religious/secular, those who committed crimes should go to jail. Period.
 
These comments fail to answer the questions though. First of all, even though I admitted the source of my question, I am not really interested in facts or speculation about Paterno or Penn St. Suppose I was a boss, and I had to make a tough decision, none of those facts really help me. Secondly, the comments so far have only said that forgiveness of sin doesn’t prevent accountability. That’s not really the question. The question is to what extent should a mistake cause one to lose one’s job - gravity of mistake, quantity of mistake, etc. To what extent should elements of forgiveness play a role in the above question? Please keep answers generalized. Discussing Penn State is absolutely worthwhile, but that should be its own thread.
 
It’s a case-by-case issue. I could make a mistake at work that would mean a report was a day late, and I could make a mistake that would lose us a client. I wouldn’t be fired for the first. Might not be for the second – it would depend on too many factors.
Also, the business decision about firing someone is a separate issue from personal forgiveness.
bbentrup said:
These comments fail to answer the questions though. First of all, even though I admitted the source of my question, I am not really interested in facts or speculation about Paterno or Penn St. Suppose I was a boss, and I had to make a tough decision, none of those facts really help me. Secondly, the comments so far have only said that forgiveness of sin doesn’t prevent accountability. That’s not really the question. The question is to what extent should a mistake cause one to lose one’s job - gravity of mistake, quantity of mistake, etc. To what extent should elements of forgiveness play a role in the above question? Please keep answers generalized. Discussing Penn State is absolutely worthwhile, but that should be its own thread.
Click to expand...
 
I would argue it depends on the mistake. We need to respect humanity and the effect of our actions upon our subordinates. At the same time, though, there need to be consequences to our actions. One must ask themselves questions before they make such a decision. Was their action demanding of termination? Do you think the person can grow and become someone capable of being useful to your business.

I have been in situations like this, and I will tell you a story. Disclaimer: my perspective could be a little tainted because I have had some very negative experiences in that company. I will admit I made some naive mistakes at the time I would not do again.

Before I went back to college I was working as a manager in a retail store in 09. I had just accepted promotion to a new store that only had 1 employee besides me. My District Manager was a man I will call Ron. A store that was not far away from me was overstaffed and with the economy turning down, needed to loose someone. They had a girl I will call Tara who was a good and hard worker who may have had to go, and we arranged her to be transferred to my store. She was young, worked very hard, and was improving on sales. (Her sales were not bad, the economy stank and she was a part timer) After about 2 1/2 months, Ron called me and told me that her sales were not high enough and instructed me to divert her to be primarily inventory so that she could be of use. (The idea being that she would be productive even if her sales dropped) She did it and ran with the ball very well. Tara made my job a whole lot easier. About a month later, Ron calls me to tell me that he wants to get rid of her because her sales took a drop (of course they did, her sales could not have went up with doing what he told me to) and he will have someone to take her job soon. He instructed me to hang tight as if everything were normal, and that when he came next, he would suspend her. (They didn’t just let people go, they started with some sort of bogus suspension so that they could take their time writing the final paycheck, and then let them go) Three weeks later, Tara sees Ron coming while she was cleaning the floor, and says to me “I am glad he saw us cleaning, it will give him a good impression of us.” (That just about broke my heart when she said that) After a inspection, Ron took me into the back and told me “I was going to suspend Tara but she is doing great work. Instead, let her work the rest of the day and suspend her when her shift is up. I have a girl (lets call her Jill) who will come in on Friday to do paperwork and you can give her Tara’s hours for next week.” (It turned out that Jill had a previous experience working with Ron, and something was going on) So, when I waited to meet Jill on Friday, she no-showed. Ron called her and told me she would come Saturday and I could still have her start Sunday as long as I got the paperwork in. Saturday she stiffed me again. On Sunday, my day off, I worked all day for her to finally show up that evening right before close. (dressed up very provocatively I might add) She told me how there was a delay in getting her drivers license back after her DUI’s. As the first two months went on Jill was habitually hours late, and often did not show up to work at all without ever calling in. One time when her “mother” called her in sick, three hours later her real mom called my store to talk to her. Every time I tried to get rid of her, Ron would intervene and stop me from doing it. In fact, she was still working there on my last day. Months later both Ron and Jill were fired for dishonesty.

The point to the story was there was a person who was fired and I felt it was immoral to let her go. She had a life, problems, was not perfect but was improving on the job and though the sales could have been improved was productive. On the other hand there was Jill who was a complete disaster (her sales were hardly much better. I guess a little better) who deserved to be let go and wasn’t. (At least under me)

It all boils down to context.
 
The politics of hiring and firing a person from their job are too complex to answer the question “To what extent should someone be fired from their job for making a mistake?”. Most often the firing and hiring is left up to the hiring manager. If the hiring manager believes the person in question is an asset regardless of a “flaw” of character, the person will be hired, even if the manager’s director disagrees. The gravity of the mistake and number of mistakes are of the opinion of the manager. If a grave mistake brings a “negative public response to the organization”, a director or someone in a higher managerial position will fire the person in question regardless of what any supervisor may believe and with or without forgiveness. It could also be that the person doing the firing could have been a victim of a grave crime or has deep reservations of crimes against persons and practices a policy of no tolerance. I hope I have not upset anyone by asserting such knowledge I am in possession of. This is the best generalization I can contribute.
 
I’m gonna stay away from addressing the Penn State/paterno case. (I’m too angry right now)
But. As an employer, I have had to look at not only the mistake an employee made, but their way of dealing with it. Did he fess up to it? (no) Did he try to cover it up ( well he failed to mention that he injured a client) was it simply a lapse in judgement or was it a case of consistent poor judgement (the latter). Did I believe he still was a threat to other clients, my other staff and my bussiness? Yep. His continuous justifications and rationalizations gave me that evidence. So for this ONE mistake- I fired him.

It would have been immoral if I had not.

That decision was based on first- the well being of my clients;2nd on the safety and reputation of my other therapists and lastly to protect my name and reputation that I worked my rear end off to establish and maintain.
 
raaucoin said:
I’m gonna stay away from addressing the Penn State/paterno case. (I’m too angry right now)
But. As an employer, I have had to look at not only the mistake an employee made, but their way of dealing with it. Did he fess up to it? (no) Did he try to cover it up ( well he failed to mention that he injured a client) was it simply a lapse in judgement or was it a case of consistent poor judgement (the latter). Did I believe he still was a threat to other clients, my other staff and my bussiness? Yep. His continuous justifications and rationalizations gave me that evidence. So for this ONE mistake- I fired him.

It would have been immoral if I had not.

That decision was based on first- the well being of my clients;2nd on the safety and reputation of my other therapists and lastly to protect my name and reputation that I worked my rear end off to establish and maintain.
Click to expand...
Good analysis for establishing a framework to insert the morality question. Thanks.
 
bbentrup said:
I don’t know all the facts of the Paterno case, and I’m not his God and judge, so I make no comment there, but this question is definitely inspired by the Penn St. debacle.

To what extent do you fire someone over a mistake? how many? how grave? Surely this is not the same thing as forgiving 70x7, but just as assuredly that is at least an element in the equation, right? If we fired someone over the least moral shortcoming, would there be anyone left with a job at all? We’re all sinners, it’s just that some sins have been outed more publicly than others.

Of note, Jesus did not fire Peter after his betrayal, but instead made him CEO of the Church. I’m guessing that wouldn’t go over well with today’s Catholics, especially in America. To what extent should that example shape our thinking? The scandal could have been immense, but Jesus deflated it. Can we just ignore potential scandal too? The Church in general seems to be of the opinion that it is best to note the mistake, make a sincere mea culpa, and move on. How valid is that? (my take - the correct path)

Finally, if you’re part of another business, and someone like JoePa gets swept up in the backlash, but you think he’s a good guy (he might not be - just a hypothetical here), under what circumstances do you hire him at your business (age aside)?

Again, sorry for all the questions - just provide insights to whichever ones you have. Thanks!
Click to expand...
First of all, remember that forgiveness and the remission of the temporal results of a sin are not the same thing. This is something people forget.

Peter betrayed Jesus directly. Even if Peter had primarily offended someone else in the human sense, Jesus, as the Second Person of the Trinity, was actually the most directly offended and yet also directly atoned for the offense. Jesus was also uniquely in a position to read the heart of Peter concerning both his offense and his repentance. Moreover, Peter was not made “CEO” in the sense we’d mean it now. Rather, in accepting the Lord’s commission:
*When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep. **Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. *And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.” John 21:15-19

IOW, in being reconciled, Peter clearly accepted a one-way ticket to crucifixion, himself. That puts that example on a rather singular plane.

As for Joe Paterno, he himself is saying, “This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”

He is not the subject of a criminal investigation because he did what the rules required. Having said that, Mr. Paterno appears to be accepting his firing according to the standards that it reflects. He himself would say he did not do everything that decency required. He has very high standards for himself, and I believe there is no doubt that in the full light that allows no misgivings for the benefit of personal friendship, he makes no excuse for failing to follow up on allegation that are so serious in the life of the children who were victimized.

He’d hate to do it, but if Joe Paterno were on the board of trustees, I think he would have fired himself, too. It just had to be done. In a way, he is doing what Peter had to do: Finally accept the suffering that doing the right thing requires.
 
bbentrup said:
Of note, Jesus did not fire Peter after his betrayal, but instead made him CEO of the Church. I’m guessing that wouldn’t go over well with today’s Catholics, especially in America. To what extent should that example shape our thinking? The scandal could have been immense, but Jesus deflated it. Can we just ignore potential scandal too? The Church in general seems to be of the opinion that it is best to note the mistake, make a sincere mea culpa, and move on.
Click to expand...
Without commenting on the general question, let me just comment on this one application of the principle of forgiveness. The comparison between Jesus forgiving Peter and Penn State forgiving Paterno has at least one major difference. In the case of Jesus forgiving Peter, (as someone has already noted) Jesus was the one who was offended. The offense was against Jesus and no one else. So Jesus was in a position to forgive Peter. But in the Paterno case, if the allegations are true (big if), Paterno offended several young boys. Now these boys may find it in their heart to forgive Paterno, but Penn State is not in a position to speak for these boys and say he is forgiven.
 
It depends on the seriousness of the mistake.

If a nurse makes a mistake and endangers a patient’s life, should s/he be allowed to continue to nurse? What is the mistake caused unnecessary suffering or even death?

If a police officer makes a mistake and gives a ticket for speeding when the motorist was not, the motorist can always go to court and fight it. If the officer shoots first and asks questions later, should the officer be allowed to continue to patrol?

If the administrative assistant forgets to mail out letters on the day s/he is supposed to, who is harmed? What are the consequences?

If a salesman wrote up a sales offer and charged too much or too litte, what were the consequences? What was done to rectify the situation?

All of these and more must be addressed.
 
These are all very good and thought provoking comments above,
especially about the Penn State troubles. Until this thread,
I didn’t really have any understanding of what had taken place.

But whether it’s on the job,
or doing business with others, or whatever,
whether we are boss or whether we are employee,
whether we are magistrate or whether we are Joe Citizen,
Jesus’s words hold true with absolutely no exceptions
for ANYONE, regardless of rank (high or low) or authority or power,
and those are:
He who has shown no mercy WILL BE SHOWN NO MERCY.
No ifs, ands, buts, or exceptions.
So I think we have to be careful how we treat others,
even those who have made very serious errors, especially if unintentional.
Saying nothing after being an eyewitness of the rape of a 10 year
old, however, can hardly be really “unintentional.”
And yes, there are temporal consequences that follow upon all of our sins.
Until recently, I didn’t realize this. The CATECHISM may teach it, and it does,
but you RARELY hear that in your parish church, even from the most orthodox of
priests. Commit a serious sin, and you usually get a “penance” of
Five Hail Marys. I’m sorry, but that just isn’t enough.
No wonder so many Catholics don’t understand indulgences and what they are for.
And some even doubt the existence of purgation/purgatory.
If we pray prayers for the conversion and salvation of other sinners,
using INDULGENCED prayers to do so, for example, we can greatly reduce
the temporal punishments due us both IN THIS LIFE, as well as later on in purgatory.
We would all do well to try and be as sincerely repentant as possible,
make whatever reparations possible for us to make,
and receive as many partial indulgences as we possibly can to remit,
in this life and the next, the temporal punishments due us for our sins.
As the authors above note above, there are consequences.
Love to all,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
For those who say the morality of firing someone or not depends on the seriousness of the mistake, I hope you mean the essence of the mistake, not the result. A results-based analysis always makes for bad moral discussion. Let’s take a nursing example. Two nurses make the exact same mistake of negligence. In one case, the patient compensates somehow and has an upset stomach and later recovers. With the second nurse, the exact same negligence causes the patient to die. Who here thinks the last nurse should be fired? How about the first? What if the chance of someone dying given that negligence was over a million-to-one, should she still be fired? Of course, the correct decision may be to fire a nurse for a minor slip that caused no damage if it could kill a patient in the future under a million-in-one standard. From what I understand under this analysis, if Paterno’s failure to do more in this situation had absolutely not caused any further harm to any children (say it was a false rumor), most people think under this results-based moral analysis that he should still have resigned when he first realized he should have reported it further. This is because in such a hypothetical, it could have caused harm but didn’t, but that if it did, people would want him fired. To me, this is not how morality should work.

It seems to me the only purposes of analyzing past mistakes as far as further job evaluation goes is to discern whether it tells you something about the moral integrity of the person (if that was an element of the mistake) and whether or not they have learned from the mistake. The nurse’s negligence may cost me a large settlement, but if I think she is just as qualified as the next nurse and won’t do it again, on what moral grounds should I fire her?

This is why I think raaucoin has by far the best answer so far, though of course it needs to be expanded upon. I also think Saphire put his/her finger on the pulse of the non-moral aspect of the question that a lot of people are answering, which is that most firing decisions are political.

I would absolutely want JoePa to be my university’s football coach if I were convinced that he would not make the same mistake in the future and that mistake was not indicative of his character, generally. Would you say that this is immoral?
 
On my old job, in the advertising department,
we had a nice lady who was a media buying offfice manager.
Though she “should have known better,” nonetheless,
through a series of utterly unintentional mistakes, this lady cost
our company over $3 Million Dollars in loss.
After meeting with her supervisor, and subsequent discussions between her supervisor and our VP, this lady was spared her job. She was not fired. She was moved to another area of advertising, but kept her job and was not “shamed” by management to the other employees. THIS is an example of genuine MERCY. Though her error was very grave,
and she “should” have known better, she sincerely and MAJORLY goofed UNINTENTIONALLY.

On the other hand, in the accounts receivable/payable office, a manager there
embezzled over $500,000 dollars deliberately from our company, setting up dummy accounts and mailing checks to those fake accounts (really to herself).
She stole, deliberately, $500,000. She would no doubt have stolen many many millions of dollars, but the company got wise to it after $500,000 had been embezzled.
This was entirely deliberate. She was prosecuted, and she served 3 years in one of those cushy Federal Prison camps for ladies (not a hardcore prison, like a poor black welfare queen would serve in). Let’s see, she stole $500,000 deliberately, and the U.S. Mail was used to carry out her deeds. She got 3 years, in a camp close to some of her relatives. She got prosecuted because she stole on purpose and only stopped because she was caught red-handed.
Yes, she deserved her firing.

On a side note, as to fairness and equity in our falsely so-called “justice system,”
she got 3 years in a relatively nice facility, close to family, for over 500 grand in theft and use of the US MAIL to carry it out. Yet a few months ago, a teenager (17) who forged his mom’s signature on 3 checks totalling less than $300, was facing a 60 year hardcore
prison sentence. This KID is facing the ruin of his entire life, plus a demonically violent environment full of racism, gang activities, brutal beatings, stabbings, gang-rapings, etc., over less than $300 bucks, while this lady got a mere 3 years in a cushy Fed facility for designedly and willfully stealing HALF A MILLION and would have stolen tons more than that had she not been caught red-handed. Something just isn’t right about this.
I am all for mercy (like in the case of the first lady discussed above), even mercy for the embezzler (and I pray she has made peace with God, she is out, home, and enjoying family life again now), but why should this poor KID be facing such a sentence?
Those who impose it on him better beware: He who has shown no mercy WILL BE SHOWN NO MERCY, and there are no exceptions for magistrates or anyone else.

Joe Paterno was right to resign, but if this is applied across the board,
you could make a case for forcing most bishops to resign. After all, they didn’t demand publicly the removal of molestor-enabler bishops, either.
 
Jaypeeto4, I’m guessing most Americans, and possibly even most American Catholics would probably prefer the bishops responsible for some of the cover-ups be “fired”. I myself defer to the Pope on that one.

Also, good illustrative story about the two workers and the potential for working mercy as appropriate.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
On .

Joe Paterno was right to resign, but if this is applied across the board,
you could make a case for forcing most bishops to resign. After all, they didn’t demand publicly the removal of molestor-enabler bishops, either.
Click to expand...
the Penn State case involves a witness to an assault in progress. There is a difference in degree from reporting an allegation of past suspected abuse, which is the case in those Catholic bishops who have been accused of not doing enough, and failure to report a crime in progress to law enforcement. A huge difference.

there was a media outcry a few weeks ago about a case in China where bystanders failed to report that they witnessed cars repeatedly hitting a child in the street and let her die. How much greater is the failure of a series of university officials failing to report an assault as it actually took place, reported by a credible eye witness.

what I find puzzling, and I searched everywhere on the net last night, is any report on action taken against the officals and administrators of the charity where Sandusky worked after his firing from Penn State.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top