6 ms·

> “My employees de-escalated the situation to get the plaintiff out of the building as quickly as possible while removing his access to the building, alerting m

> “My employees de-escalated the situation to get the plaintiff out of the building as quickly as possible while removing his access to the building, alerting me and sending out security reminders to ensure he could not access the building, which is exactly what they were supposed to do,” So they have been able to confirm they have a working layer of security theater, on top of forcing employees to receive office birthday parties? That's weird. And then they dive behind seemingly irrelevant procedural cover like that when an employee is forced to walk out in embarrassment, due to a health condition? That's creepy.

Johnny555 5y ago
Is that really security theater if they removed his access to the building, alerted management, and sent out security reminders that he should have have access to the building? What's the "Theater" part? That sounds like better security than most companies where they have a hard time just removing an employee's access, and even if they do, they have no established process to tell employees that he shouldn't be allowed in. I left my badge at home once, I was wearing my company logo jacket and tailgated in behind a couple employees I didn't know, one even held the door open for me. If I'd been terminated and banned from the office, I'd have had no trouble getting back into the office. We've instituted a "no-tailgating" policy since then, but there's no enforcement and is widely ignored.
- GauntletWizard 5y ago
  The point is not that it was not effective - It was plenty effective. The part that makes it theatrical is that the employee was of no threat to anyone. His panic attack was caused by the (perceived) threat of being forced into a public gathering, and injury was added to insult by the actual threat of having security "escort" him from the building.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  What it sounds like is a company that screwed up, offended someone who was easily upset, made that person panic, confronted him, made it worse, and then used company policies that are only necessary in the USA to stop him returning in case he returned to do harm. It's not theatre but it sure sounds theatrical, when they could have apologised, given him some time to regroup his emotions and then left it at that. When I was much younger I had a nervous breakdown at work during a period of extreme personal stress -- I really absolutely and totally lost the plot. Quite probably upset a lot of people, many of whom did not see me the same afterwards. Though more fallout for me personally; it was difficult to be there and my reaction undermined me. I was treated with enormous -- and I must say on reflection completely unearned -- respect and at no point did the company feel they had to do this. Because I'm not in the USA. It's worth considering that many places in the USA seem to think the problem in their culture with violent crime is not guns but the fact that mentally ill people can get guns and weaponry of all sorts. What follows from that is company policy that seriously upset people must necessarily be treated as a threat. And this sort of "bar him from the building because he panicked" outcome is the logical conclusion of this attitude.
- Freak_NL 5y ago
  'No-tailgating' is really, really hard to enforce. I work in a shared office building with a keycard door, and people are genuinely surprised and angry if you don't hold the door even if you don't personally know them and can't vouch for them (which is most of the time). It is a really strong bit of social conditioning not to shut a door in someone's face! So during security audits you can now tick the box that access to the premises is secure, while in reality anyone can just follow random people in. Now carry a box that requires two hands, wear a lanyard with a card hinting at being some kind of courier, and not a soul will stop you unless the building has actual security.
  - jimmygrapes 5y ago
    It's pretty easy to fix actually but it's an expense and a visual negative: full body turnstiles triggers by valid ID.
    - jrootabega 5y ago
      Yep. Any company that tells employees to prevent tailgating and check ids is just giving them guard duties without training, pay, or weapons. My fantasy response is "I'm not a security guard."
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> dive behind seemingly irrelevant procedural cover like that when an employee is forced to walk out in embarrassment To be fair, an employee having a panic attack because one your managers did something they were informed in advance would cause a panic attack is textbook disgruntled.
- colpabar 5y ago
  This is a really inconsiderate comment. You do not know this guy at all, yet you assume that he's not a good employee because of a mental issue he has. Do you think he chooses to have panic attacks? Can you see how him asking to not have a party makes a lot of sense because he knew he may have a panic attack? If anything, him knowing about the party that he requested not happen makes it worse, because instead of just a party, it's a party full of people who don't respect him enough to listen to his wishes. On his own birthday! Imagine if a company forced a recovering alcoholic to go to a bar and then firing him when he got drunk. edit: the comment above is not the one I originally replied to; it has been edited. It did not originally say "textbook disgruntled," it said "not someone you'd want to have keys to your kingdom," which I assumed to mean they were right to fire him.
  - HelixEndeavor 5y ago
    > Imagine if a company forced a recovering alcoholic to go to a bar and then firing him when he got drunk. More accurately, if the employee got upset they dragged him to a bar and left, and then they fired him over that. Even more absurd, and yet closer to what happened here...
  - rblatz 5y ago
    I think he was saying that the management showed bad decision making in the original situation, so it's no shocker that they continue to exhibit poor decision making while defending their original poor choices. Edit: after OPs ninja edit, I'm not so sure anymore
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > did not originally say "textbook disgruntled," it said "not someone you'd want to have keys to your kingdom," which I assumed to mean they were right to fire him Edited to clarify. "Not someone you want to have keys to your kingdom" as in temporarily removing access credentials. Not firing. > Imagine if a company forced a recovering alcoholic to go to a bar and then firing him when he got drunk This would be ludicrous. Temporarily revoking his access to prod would not be.
tiahura 5y ago
Imagine the lawsuits if they didn’t lock him out, he went home, got his guns, and came back and killed everyone. It’s a sad situation, and he probably deserves his award, but I think if an employee has some sort of anti-social mental episode on the job, you have a responsibility to your employees to keep them out until they are cleared by a doctor.
- colpabar 5y ago
  >Imagine the lawsuits if they didn’t lock him out, he went home, got his guns, and came back and killed everyone. Are you implying that anyone with anxiety disorders is a potential mass shooter?
  - tiahura 5y ago
    I think everyone is a potential mass shooter. I think the people who would have a breakdown due to a birthday party have much more potential than people who who see it as an opportunity for free food.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  What you're saying is absolutely crazy, and it shows a wanton lack of empathy, a clear sign of stone kind of anti-social mental episode. As such, your employer should obviously revoke you access to their facilities until you are cleared by a doctor.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Johnny555 5y ago

Is that really security theater if they removed his access to the building, alerted management, and sent out security reminders that he should have have access to the building? What's the "Theater" part? That sounds like better security than most companies where they have a hard time just removing an employee's access, and even if they do, they have no established process to tell employees that he shouldn't be allowed in. I left my badge at home once, I was wearing my company logo jacket and tailgated in behind a couple employees I didn't know, one even held the door open for me. If I'd been terminated and banned from the office, I'd have had no trouble getting back into the office. We've instituted a "no-tailgating" policy since then, but there's no enforcement and is widely ignored.

GauntletWizard 5y ago
The point is not that it was not effective - It was plenty effective. The part that makes it theatrical is that the employee was of no threat to anyone. His panic attack was caused by the (perceived) threat of being forced into a public gathering, and injury was added to insult by the actual threat of having security "escort" him from the building.
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
What it sounds like is a company that screwed up, offended someone who was easily upset, made that person panic, confronted him, made it worse, and then used company policies that are only necessary in the USA to stop him returning in case he returned to do harm. It's not theatre but it sure sounds theatrical, when they could have apologised, given him some time to regroup his emotions and then left it at that. When I was much younger I had a nervous breakdown at work during a period of extreme personal stress -- I really absolutely and totally lost the plot. Quite probably upset a lot of people, many of whom did not see me the same afterwards. Though more fallout for me personally; it was difficult to be there and my reaction undermined me. I was treated with enormous -- and I must say on reflection completely unearned -- respect and at no point did the company feel they had to do this. Because I'm not in the USA. It's worth considering that many places in the USA seem to think the problem in their culture with violent crime is not guns but the fact that mentally ill people can get guns and weaponry of all sorts. What follows from that is company policy that seriously upset people must necessarily be treated as a threat. And this sort of "bar him from the building because he panicked" outcome is the logical conclusion of this attitude.
Freak_NL 5y ago
'No-tailgating' is really, really hard to enforce. I work in a shared office building with a keycard door, and people are genuinely surprised and angry if you don't hold the door even if you don't personally know them and can't vouch for them (which is most of the time). It is a really strong bit of social conditioning not to shut a door in someone's face! So during security audits you can now tick the box that access to the premises is secure, while in reality anyone can just follow random people in. Now carry a box that requires two hands, wear a lanyard with a card hinting at being some kind of courier, and not a soul will stop you unless the building has actual security.
- jimmygrapes 5y ago
  It's pretty easy to fix actually but it's an expense and a visual negative: full body turnstiles triggers by valid ID.
  - jrootabega 5y ago
    Yep. Any company that tells employees to prevent tailgating and check ids is just giving them guard duties without training, pay, or weapons. My fantasy response is "I'm not a security guard."

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> dive behind seemingly irrelevant procedural cover like that when an employee is forced to walk out in embarrassment To be fair, an employee having a panic attack because one your managers did something they were informed in advance would cause a panic attack is textbook disgruntled.

colpabar 5y ago
This is a really inconsiderate comment. You do not know this guy at all, yet you assume that he's not a good employee because of a mental issue he has. Do you think he chooses to have panic attacks? Can you see how him asking to not have a party makes a lot of sense because he knew he may have a panic attack? If anything, him knowing about the party that he requested not happen makes it worse, because instead of just a party, it's a party full of people who don't respect him enough to listen to his wishes. On his own birthday! Imagine if a company forced a recovering alcoholic to go to a bar and then firing him when he got drunk. edit: the comment above is not the one I originally replied to; it has been edited. It did not originally say "textbook disgruntled," it said "not someone you'd want to have keys to your kingdom," which I assumed to mean they were right to fire him.
- HelixEndeavor 5y ago
  > Imagine if a company forced a recovering alcoholic to go to a bar and then firing him when he got drunk. More accurately, if the employee got upset they dragged him to a bar and left, and then they fired him over that. Even more absurd, and yet closer to what happened here...
- rblatz 5y ago
  I think he was saying that the management showed bad decision making in the original situation, so it's no shocker that they continue to exhibit poor decision making while defending their original poor choices. Edit: after OPs ninja edit, I'm not so sure anymore
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > did not originally say "textbook disgruntled," it said "not someone you'd want to have keys to your kingdom," which I assumed to mean they were right to fire him Edited to clarify. "Not someone you want to have keys to your kingdom" as in temporarily removing access credentials. Not firing. > Imagine if a company forced a recovering alcoholic to go to a bar and then firing him when he got drunk This would be ludicrous. Temporarily revoking his access to prod would not be.

tiahura 5y ago

Imagine the lawsuits if they didn’t lock him out, he went home, got his guns, and came back and killed everyone. It’s a sad situation, and he probably deserves his award, but I think if an employee has some sort of anti-social mental episode on the job, you have a responsibility to your employees to keep them out until they are cleared by a doctor.

colpabar 5y ago
>Imagine the lawsuits if they didn’t lock him out, he went home, got his guns, and came back and killed everyone. Are you implying that anyone with anxiety disorders is a potential mass shooter?
- tiahura 5y ago
  I think everyone is a potential mass shooter. I think the people who would have a breakdown due to a birthday party have much more potential than people who who see it as an opportunity for free food.
tsimionescu 5y ago
What you're saying is absolutely crazy, and it shows a wanton lack of empathy, a clear sign of stone kind of anti-social mental episode. As such, your employer should obviously revoke you access to their facilities until you are cleared by a doctor.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]