The line I wouldn't cross is if the employee were promoted to part of the management team.

Let's face it, sometimes theatres give employees rotton hours and insufficient pay to make ends meet on any consistent basis. I suspect the employee in question has a lot of drive and probably a lot more integrity than you think. I can relate dozens of tales where underpaid (insufficient or irregular hours) workers took from the till rather than trying to find a second job. I'd guess his heart was in the right place, but his judgement hadn't matured enough to be up front with what he wanted to do.

I'm in a senior position at my cinema, but i work days off at the local near my home. It's a direct competitor for my cinema, but i need my pocket money! (and yes, both cinema's know and don't have a problem)

 

Personally I think that is ridiculous and uncalled for. Did the employee do good work for you? If the answer is yes, then the problem is you. Theaters pay shit and many will not allow an employee to work over 40 hours so they do not have to pay overtime. For some employees that means they HAVE to have another job and just because they like working at your theater enough to make their second job at another theater should not matter.

I have never met an employee that worked two jobs that did not do an excellent job. People in that situation generally work their butts off and can not afford to lose either job. If you really want that person to work exclusively for you, how about a raise so perhaps he doesn't have to? Then again, maybe he is only getting 20 hours a week at your theater so he had to pick up another shift or two at another theater to pay the bills. Perhaps the entire reason why he had to take that other job was because you won't schedule him enough so that he can make ends meet.

Obviously the employee KNEW you would overreact and that is why he tried to keep it a secret from you. I've been in that situation during college where I had to keep two jobs to make ends meet, and yes they were both at theaters. Neither theater cared because I did my job very well at both places and there is no difference here. So long as he shows up for his shifts at your theater and does a good job, what that person does on his days off is really none of your damned business. If nothing else, the guy is getting more experience in the exhibition industry without even affecting your payroll!

I can only hope that John's post above was misread and you did not fire that person. If you did, then I hope you treat everyone that you pay to perform work at your theater the same way. Better tell that soda foundain repair guy to take a hike since he probably works on the competing theater's machines. Oh wait, who cleans your screens? Oh no, I'll bet the guy who delivers your ETS prints delivers for your evil competing theater too! What if the same service company does repair work on your projectors and the guys down the road??? This is just assinine and don't even try to separate employees from outside contract labor. You pay both of them to do work at your theater right? Yes you do! This is no different.

Now go have a Coke and a smile and shove that lame argument about ethics where it belongs. Pathetic.

[/rant mode]

Joe.....Amen

Brad....Amen ..............Goodnight!
 

Brad... I have had employees go off in similar fashon about hours, pay, etc.. I always tell them it is the nature of the buisness. All choices we make in life have their consequences. I can choose a lower paying, but fun, theatre job, or a higher paying, but less fun, office job. Its a tradeoff inherent in the buisness.

Think about it this way. On a Saturday I need 21+ ushers to take care of all the necessary tasks in my 20-plex... On Monday, I need 2... Assuming 3 or 4 people will ask off for a Saturday, I need 25 employees in the department to keep it staffed. Are you honestly suggesting that I have a responsibility to give any of those 25 employees 40 hours a week if they ask for it?
 

For the record, I have and have had employees with multiple jobs, one even worked at the local large-format theatre as well. The difference was that it was not hidden.
 

Oh well, sorry that not all of you agree with me on my decision of my employee. But, I hope that it never happens to you. I work 3 jobs, and all of them know of each others, but are in totally different fields. One of my employers said that they would do the same as I did, if it was hidden from them too.
 

Lets try and stop the age discriminating comments please its unfair.

------------------
--Sean McKinnon
Manager
Loews Cineplex Entertainment
Liberty Tree Mall 20
Danvers, Mass
www.enjoytheshow.com
 

I am not a kid, unless 31 constitutes a kid in your eyes. I also have 15 years management under my belt. In addition, Sean's comment above is absolutely correct, for there are many 18 year olds who do a better job than people who are 50 and have been in this business for 30+ years, so let's cut the age crap.

It's your theater and as such you do whatever you like, but the bottom line is that what that employee did off of your timeclock is none of your damn business. You are not God, you do not own him and you have no right to control his life. So big deal if the competition knows you brought in X amount of dollars in concession sales. Exactly how does that hurt or help your sales? It doesn't. It hurts neither of your businesses any more than knowing how much each one of you brought in the box office for a given movie, and that's somewhat public information anyway. Again, he obviously KNEW you would overreact, just like you have, which is why he kept it from you.

Granted all of this is opinions, right down from you terminating this guy to my comments above, but since you've asked this on a public forum, now perhaps you will see the other side of the argument before you go punishing other employees because they did not ask permission of their ruler before partaking in another job on their own personal time. I would be very embarassed and ashamed if we were part of the same management team for your closed-mindedness.

[rant mode back off...for now]

I have to agree with brad on the fact that it is no ones business what I do outside the theater.....as long as I make it in to work and I am able to give 100% to the job, no one should be complaining.

It's no different than someone who has two jobs and they happen to be at a mcdonalds and wendys.....as long as you do the job it shouldn't matter.
 

What your employees do, on the clock and off, can have signifigant legal ramifications on the organization. IT IS THE EMPLOYERS BUISNESS IF THE EMPLOYEE IS DOING SOMETHING WHICH CAN EFFECT THE EMPLOYER.... Remember those background checks we all have to go through before becomming managers?

What can a floor staffer do? Reveal expansion plans perhaps? Perhaps he decides he likes one theatre over another and decides to sabotage operatons, etc...
 

Unfortunately, this might be the moral high ground, but it often is not true. Any employee that agrees to random drug testing as a prequirement of employment is allowing the owner of the company to have an unreasonable say in their "outside" life. I would have no particular problem with random or periodic drug testing, IF it were applied equally from top to bottom, with the owners and stockholders having to submit and suffer consequences equal to those imposed on hourly employees. I've seen too many people in high positions with drug habits to perceive the intentions of these invasions of privacy as anything but mercinary -- "I won't allow my employees to use drugs because they might steal to support their habits. I need that money for my own habit."

Besides, my pee is mine. If you want me to save it for you, or you think you have a pressing need to have it examined, I gotta think you are sick in the head.

Other outside activities can often be seen as affecting an employer.
Some companies require a commitment to social service as an unstated requirement for continued employment and advancement. On the other end of the spectrum, a pedophile might not be the best choice to usher a matinee show. A klansman might not be the best hire in an inner city theatre. I state these examples because they are forms of socially acceptable employment discrimination based on outside activities that are largely unchallenged in the courts. The cold hard facts are that many businesses, especially small family owned businesses discriminate outrageously based on religion, social standing, race, and many other factors, but hide it from outsiders. In the real world, it does matter to many employers what a person does outside their job.

To me, in the situation described, it seems like the underlying problem was not one of working two jobs but of deception. Obviously this person needs to be out of theatres and into politics where he can govern us.

 

I will add here that I don't use drugs, have never used drugs, and don't intend to use drugs in the future. This doesn't change the fact that whether an employee uses drugs on his own time is none of the employer's business unless (as mentioned above) there is a safety issue involved. As long as it doesn't affect job performance, it should be a nonissue. If it begins to adversely affect job performance, then the performance issues should be dealt with as such and use or non-use of drugs should be a nonissue in any decision to fire an employee. (And, yes, I would consider showing up to work drunk or an an "altered" state to be poor job performance and deserving of firing.)
 

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 

------------------
--"That's my story and i'm sticking to it!"--

My initial response is that anyone worried about things like this needs to start treating their employees with a bit more respect. Oh no, the competition is going to add 4 more screens? Oh no, the competition is going to build another theater in the next town? It sounds to me like the world may well explode from such knowledge and such talk MUST be stopped! Oh please. Half the time I know about other theater's expansions and closings before the managers do at that theater anyway.

The only valid argument I've seen against invading an employee's right to privacy on his time off is the one above about possibly sabotaging the competition's operations. But then again, if the theater with the tyrant ruler in charge would just treat their employees like human beings, that wouldn't happen now would it? No it would not. Perhaps it is time for some management teams to re-evaluate whether they are treating their staff like shit or not.

I thought the cold war was over, comrade.

 

C'mon everybody! We won't bite! And if someone does, their ass will be kicked by Dwayne Caldwell. We keep him locked up most of the time, and release him only when absolutely necessary.
 

You are way the hell out of line. We'll discuss this on Thursday..

Another problem is that we have different ways of doing things that work best for us, and employees have a difficult time changing their work habits between 2 different theatres. I get really tired of hearing, "at the other other theatre we're allowed to do this", or having to continually correct things that are being done the way the other theatre does them.

Also, as an independent theatre, one of our biggest challenges is breaking the association between ourselves and the major chains. It is difficult if we are "sharing" employees. We have enough problems with people trying to use coupons and passes from the other theatres here, and don't need people getting upset telling a cashier that "you accepted it at the other theatre!"

I don't have a problem if my employees have more than one job. Most people cannot survive on one part-time job and I can't always offer more hours or regular raises. My policy is that if I hire someone knowing they have another job that will require me working my schedule around them, it is my problem to deal with the schedule. If working for me is their first job and they go out and get a second job, they have to work their second job around us. If they can't, then they have to choose between them and us.
 

I apologize for what I wrote earlier. That was harsh ridicule, even for me. Just laugh it up (because it is kind of funny), or consider it payback for the "wife-beater" comment.
And don't take my antagonism seriously! I just mean it in jest.

(and it's not like the post was entirely untrue...)