 |
 |
B.Bruce Anderson wrote: > > Regarding Jack Faus's remarks about his concern that he's being set up > to > get booted out of his company, there is a LOT of truth in John Morey's > response. The ADA is going to do very little for someone who has > direct > access to the CEO. I don't think it was even written for situations > like > Jack's. As I recall it the law was written to require wheelchair > ramps in > apartment buildings, wide toilet stalls, etc. The job protection > provisions are must less specific - and like John says, eliminating > Jack's > position eliminates the ability of the CEO to discriminate. Jack's > fired to > reduce costs. End of problem for CEO. And I don't think you can just > go > down to the police station and file a complaint - you have to sue, > don't > you? In any case, Jack should really look at this as a great > opportunity > to get the hell out of a situation that can only get worse, with his > financial security greatly enhanced. As soon as he starts making any > kind > of veiled or unveiled threats re ADA, lawyers, etc. he'll face > workplace > retaliation. I think the CEO is likely to react as John predicts, > though, > if a deal were proposed. > > John, would it be feasible for Jack to hire a consultant to help him > negotiate a package? > > Bruce A. 51, 2 1/2 I think Jack has to look within himself to decide what to do- whether discretion is the better part of valor or whether he chooses to fight. In any case Jack- You need to know what your rights are under the law as well as the practical issues of what his employer can in reality get away with. Do you want to continue or are you reaching the point that you think you are not doing the job and want to get out gracefully as others have suggested? Getting the advice of a good attorney does not necessarily mean that your are going to court or even that your employer needs to know. John- I am appalled but not surprised by your candid assessment of the (lack of) morality in the business community. I don't think that mistreating employees is necessary to turn a profit. In fact I think it can easily backfire. The perception of management out to get employees is what has fueled the union movement with all of it excesses. The discussion about what to do about an employees deteriorating performance and productivity (if that is even the case for Jack) should be initiated by a good employer- not just documenting his problems to cover his ass if it goes to court. A frank and compassionate discussion of the issues is in order. Possible solutions include such possibilities as early retirement, pay scale commensurate with decreased productivity or working together to come up with a creative compromise which is in the interests of all parties. If employers would use just half of the creativity they use to get rid of employees without getting sued to develop creative solutions to difficult personnel situations we wouldn't need the protection of the ADA. Of course the CEO is obligated to his/her stockholders to be efficient but mistreatment of employees in not good business. It creates a paranoid and adversarial climate which I suspect in the long run decreases productivity and certainly company loyalty. Jack- I wish you best of luck in what appears to be a difficult situation. John- I am interested in your response to my ideas and realize that you are stating the CEO position and possible solution in much the same way that I attempt to provide insight into the "care and feeding" of physicians and what is most likely to get the desired response from them in many of my posts. Bruce- I think that there is a fairly strong employment provision in the ADA. You are right though that it limits a manager's ability to discriminate in both the good and the bad sense of the word. Charlie -- ********************************************************** CHARLES T. MEYER, M.D. MADISON, WISCONSIN **********************************************************