4 ms·
Many large companies use PIPs as a default for poor performance prior to firing. The frustrating thing about it is that a poor performing worker, who shows up
by illumin8 10y ago
Many large companies use PIPs as a default for poor performance prior to firing. The frustrating thing about it is that a poor performing worker, who shows up at the office, but does zero work, is likely to bounce around in the PIP system for 12-18 months, collecting a paycheck, before you can terminate them. If they're smart enough to do the bare minimum to satisfy the PIP, they can go back to doing nothing once the PIP is over and repeat this cycle for a few years before they eventually get terminated.
The reason large companies do this for everyone is that over 50% of the population is a protected class (female, minority, veteran, etc), and large companies want to reduce all risk as much as possible, so therefore, you get mandatory PIPs.
Something egregious like this (sexual harassment) definitely warrants an immediate termination. Unfortunately, I've worked on teams with members that did zero work and had an 18 month PIP. It kills morale in unique and incredible ways for the rest of the team.
- balls187 10y ago> Something egregious like this (sexual harassment) definitely warrants an immediate termination. Why should one incident that occurred outside of work, warrant termination? Are our private lives subject to the scrutiny of our employer? Is it sexual harassment if the victim doesn't actually feel harassed?
- tptacek 10y agoYes, if your private life involves making unwelcome and rude sexual advances to other employees, it warrants immediate termination. Employees who do this present a grave risk to the company in terms of legal expense, PR, and recruiting.
- balls187 10y agoGenerally, I agree with what your statement. If you sexually harass others in your personal life, and your employer finds out about it, it's prudent to manage them out. In this case, the employee handled the unwanted advances herself, and later told the OP about it. It's not clear if the female employee felt that it was "rude sexual advance" since to her it was "no big deal." From the EEOC: > Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
- tptacek 10y agoIt's not about how this employee feels about the advance. It's about how the next one will.
- balls187 10y agoThat's a pretty broad assumption your making. If there is a next employee who is harassed, he/she can file the complaint, and the company can deal with it then. As it stands, no company policy was violated, and the female employee doesn't think this is an issue. This is a single incident, that again occurred during the weekend, and over Whatsapp (both parties consenting to share numbers).