Comments on: Employee browsed gun-related sites — should company fire him?

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:11:00 +0000

Having assumed HR duties in sites that had hired bad employees and been asked to “clean it up” has opened my eyes to this concern. Some of the harder employees will resist change and work against you. While I treat employees with respect and make them progressively aware of the necessary changes they need to make sometimes the employee has to be let go because their behaviors do not change. Once the employee is gone the problems at work will get better but often the termed employee will now look for their revenge. I have had them arrange 3rd parties to call my house with threatening messages that can’t be traced. They have called my wife’s cell reporting false affairs, I have had my vehichles damaged and home privacy violated. I have no evidence to provide the police other than the name of an upset ex-employee. I live in fear because the last guy I released was violent and an avid deer hunter. A lot of the responses here make light of the threat of a gun but not knowing how far this person will go until it is too late is my concern. If the company has a policy against web browsing certain sites and they have enforced it consistently then I would say they did the right thing. The harsh reality is the ex-employee is still out there and even if you are not listed in the phone book they can search you out with the internet and make your life hell. I have bought a guard dog, added security to the house and applied for a handgun carry permit. And we have all heard cases of how after a night of drinking or drugs an angered employee can get the courage to do unspeakable acts. Until you have had to be the one to release an angry or violent employee please do not judge those of us that have to deal with the unknown fear of what could happen to our property, family or our lives. The police can only help if the person leaves evidence or they are calling in the medical examiner.

By: C L Greer

C L Greer — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:30:05 +0000

The problem with most of these articles is that there is never enough information. As a result, most of the comments are speculative and we get all riled up at each other. Have a nice holiday HR people!!

By: Trent

Trent — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:23:14 +0000

Please, no more laws. It is virtually impossible not to break some state or federal law just by participating in society. What we actually need is a return to individual responsibility. I almost wish we could make a “No-Fault” society like some states have no fault auto insurance (you pay for yours, I pay for mine). Something to get the nanny-state out of our lives.

By: J.L.

J.L. — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:47:53 +0000

oh..no……….for goodness sakes not another law……..please just common sense, what ever happened to common sense……………you know we might as well make a law about breathing………
but I think that’s in the books……………….right now ………..carbon monoxide………….I think……..
I may be wrong…………

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:17:26 +0000

What we really need are some laws that protect employees from the overzealous enforcement by employers of the laws intended to protect employees.

By: Brett

Brett — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:05:39 +0000

I think that everybody here has valid points. We all seem to agree that there is not enough information in the article.

Good conversation people

By: J.L.

J.L. — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:44:42 +0000

every one here has a legit response – but the article again does not say anything about this individual having any mental problems – it does say a problem employee, I have plenty of those and most of it
has to do with inapropriate sites not porn but very close, I have considered them problem employees because of the pc that is in our society, and let’s face it – just like religion and politics it seems that there are people that hate guns and those that love them, I know of cases because my husband is in law enforcement – of individuals doing more damage with a screw driver and a bat than a gun. So because he was viewing this freaked out some one that hates guns – would make me think well does the supervisor have some issues of their own that needs to be addressed also, I have employees that wear pink hair one day and then green the next and then I have some that like to wear an office suit (me and a couple of others) and we have to just go with the flow. So my point is there are some just going a little on the way side of what this article is all about.

By: T.C.

T.C. — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:31:33 +0000

Has any one ever heard of the 2nd amendment?
Obviously if the sites were listed as inappropriate by the company (which they should be able to do if you are using their resources) and he had notice and understanding of the rules, he should be fired.

Why get into all the bull about wheather guns should be available and whether or not you would be scared.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:07:15 +0000

I think it is reasonable for the supervisor to be concerned, and this is a case that should have been investigated. If the investigation showed that his visits to “Gun Sights” predated this whole episode, He should not have been fired. If, however, this was new behavior that started after his poor review then he should be fired and legal action taken against him for trying to intimidate the supervisor.

By: Joyce

Joyce — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:47:58 +0000

Trent, you didn’t read my entire post. I am not prejudiced against guns, I own one. I do, however, feel it is too easy for mentally unstable people or criminals with bad intent to obtain them. The guy may be perfectly normal, but we won’t know because there is not enough background in the article. I believe in the right to bear arms, as long as they aren’t used in the commision of a crime. As a supervisor it is our responsibility to provide a safe working environment for everyone.