Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Manager's Powers

This is topic Manager's Powers in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000736

Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 02-18-2003, 11:19 PM:

Here's the alleged situation:

A thirty something Asst. manager is buying alcohol after work hours for an underage employee.

The manager finds out from another employee that this is happening. Confronts both employees involved (denied by both employee's) & notifies the corporate office of situation.
-
Does the manager have a right to discipline employees for non-work hour activities? The manager has no actual proof except here-say from other staff. What options does the manager have to terminate these staff members, if any?

----

I should say that being a co-worker of these employees, that I feel the manager shouldn't be able to do anything about it because it is not happening during work hours. I think the manager just wants to make himself seem more powerful to the other staff, but I wonder what he can actually legally get away with?

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 02-18-2003, 11:27 PM:

I'm not sure how much difference this makes, but does your theatre have a policy against fraternization?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-19-2003, 12:12 AM:

What would a fraternization policy have to do with the above situation? Please explain.

Moving to Ground Level as it seems more appropriate.

Posted by Franklin Armstrong (Member # 1448) on 02-19-2003, 12:32 AM:

The manager should fire all employee's in the matter and the asst. manager

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 02-19-2003, 12:35 AM:

So if I had a grudge against one of the assistant managers and a fellow staffer, I can just make up a story so that they could get fired?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-19-2003, 12:49 AM:

At this point everything appears to be rumor and nothing has been proved.

Posted by Nicholas Roznovsky (Member # 861) on 02-19-2003, 12:51 AM:

A few points:

1. If the manager feels the need to do things in order to "make himself seem more powerful to the other staff", there's a much larger problem. The manager is the captain of the boat, there shouldn't be any need to exercise power for the sake of show.

2. Showing concern about potentially ill-advised (and illegal) conduct on the part of an assistant manager isn't flaunting power, it's watching your own back. If you don't trust the judgement and responsibility of your assistants, it's very hard to leave them in charge while you're gone. Ideally, character and responsibility were taken into consideration when this person was hired. Getting hired and collecting a few paychecks doesn't magically erase the need for those qualities.

3. There's a need for management to act like management. 30-something assistants hanging out after hours at all with underage employees is somewhat questionable. What kind of authority can an assistant really have when the concession kids are his/her drinking buddies?

4. Movie theaters are hotbeds for petty politics. It seems every week there's a new scandal involving employee X doing Y with Z which was witnessed by A, B, and C. Can you trust the accusers? Do they just have an axe to grind? Are the defenders blinded by their devotion to the accused? Will any of it matter next week? If you just went around firing everybody every time someone said they did something, you'd go through your staff pretty darn quickly. Moderation, patience, and even a wee bit of common sense are required to sift through the tribulations of movie theater politics.

Having said that, the manager is in a bit of a hard spot without proof. It's sounds like the manager has done about all he/she can do for the moment and is trying to be fair (or at least careful) about it. After speaking to the employees, informing them of concerns about the issue and its implications, and informing the corporate office, the manager would be best to let the situation work itself out.

I, personally, would not fire the employees (given the lack of proof) at this time, but I would make it very clear that their performance and professional relationship would be under increased scrutiny in the future.

I also think the manager did the right thing in speaking to corporate. If this does turn out to be true and it's discovered that the manager knew about it and didn't let his/her superiors know, it should a serious lack of responsibility on his/her part.

It comes down to trust. If you can trust someone while you're gone, you're good. If you can't, you've got a problem.

Blah, blah, blah. I think I'm done talking now. [Smile]

Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 02-19-2003, 01:12 AM:

Okay, let me re-direct my question than:

Even if there is crushing proof, what authority does the manager have over someone's personal, after hour's, life?

I just have a hard time believing that my manager should be able to fire someone for breaking a law. It becomes a law enforcement issue. The manager has the right to advice the authorities & let the system work it out.

I know that many of my co-workers like to smoke the dope together on there off time, should they be all fired too?

Would this be different if the person purchasing the alcohol for the minor wasn’t an Asst. manager but a projectionist?

…….Or am I just way of in my thinking? (Joe: don’t answer that!)

Posted by Dino Panagiotopoulos (Member # 1579) on 02-19-2003, 01:24 AM:

Joe:

Im not sure how it works with everyone else but at most theaters here in Canada, there are rules in place that prevent management from "hanging out" with other employees because of that position of power and it could also pose a conflict of interest down the road. Not sure what the technical term for it is but Rules of Fraternization would seem appropriate for it.

IMHO, a manager has the most authority in that building because he/she is the next step down representative of that company that you work for. Not the projectionist, not the supervisor and unless those rules for fraternization in place, then the only law this manager would be breaking is purchasing alcohol for a minor.

Posted by Nicholas Roznovsky (Member # 861) on 02-19-2003, 01:31 AM:

Simply put, the manager has no authority over the personal life of his/her employees. If my employees want to go shoot out the windows of hearses while smoking ground-up cadavers and having intimate relations with groundhogs, I don't really care. (Well, I'm somewhat concerned as a member of humanity, but not so much as an employer.) Your manager can't tell you to do something or not do something after hours.

But when your personal life affects your job performance, the manager certainly has the right to consider whether your diminished performance warrants a review of your employment status.

If I were a raging drunk (theoretically, of course [Wink]

) and I came into work thirty minutes late everyday, I wouldn't expect to keep my job that long. I wouldn't get fired for being a drunk - I'd be fired for not showing up to work on time.

Likewise, if my ability to effectively supervise and manage the job performance of others were comprimised by extra-curricular activities, I wouldn't expect my boss to look the other way either. It's a whole "circle of life" kind of thing.

The fact that the employee is in a management position does make a difference. If the ushers want to get together and napalm the nursing home, that's their problem. But my assistants know that they're supposed to lead by example. How can someone tell a kid not to swipe a box of Milk-Duds from the stand when they're committing a crime with them after hours?

I think we all know that the projectionists are engaged in a multitude of illegal activities both in and out of the booth anyway. We don't want to get into that... [beer]

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 02-19-2003, 03:36 AM:

Joe, I'm not sure why I brought up fraternization or what it really has to do with this situation.
Maybe I was thinking that if they couldn't prove the buying of the alcohol thing, they could do something about the fraternization if that was going on as well.
Oh well.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-19-2003, 04:19 AM:

James, I have seen lots of people at my theater "hook up" and I know of no such policy. I also have never seen it affect the job performance of anyone. We even have a huge manual that is given to us when we are hired, and there is nothing in it about dating. Believe me, I checked. There is tons of stuff about sexual harrassment, coming to work intoxicated, theft and other miscellaneous junk, though. To be quite honest the staff at my theater is quite good and bright, with only a few exceptions (which there always are). That doesn't mean something can't go horribly wrong.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-19-2003, 05:29 AM:

My experience of working in theatres was that the real problems happened when staff members started 'seeing' each other, especially if one was a lot more senior than the other. If you were working closely with the junior member of the partnership you had to watch your back over what found its way to the boss. If the junior member was underperforming there was nothing you could do about it, because the senior one would protect her (and it usually was a her).

I remember one manager who was notorious for his penchant for assistant managers and front-of-house staff. After he was caught on the security video having, err, 'intimate relations' with one of his many other halves in the front row of an auditorium, no-one took him seriously ever again. This seriously undermined his ability to take disciplinary decisions, and as a result about half of the staff did no work.

There is a way you can get round this, which is to make it a provision of a contract of employment that someone does not start having relationships with other people in their own workplaces. For example, most universities put a clause in lecturers' contracts which states that they mustn't start shagging their students (in more legally precise language, obviously). If they do, then that's gross misconduct; goodbye and good night. How one would ever prove this were it to come to an argument I don't know, but the principle is clearly understood.

From my cinema days I'd say that a similar ban on workplace relationships would solve a lot of problems, if it could be enforced effectively. But therein would lie the problem.

Posted by Barry Martin (Member # 1376) on 02-19-2003, 12:39 PM:

I would think if the asst. manager was not allowed to "fraternize" with the staff then they would not be able to purchase alcohol for them after hours, since they are not supposed to be around them. I do think hanging out with co-workers is a good practice because it helps relieve alot of friction. It was pretty common practice for the staff I worked with to go out to Denny's (only thing open after 1am when the last show would get out and we would get cleaned up) and hang out for a couple hours (because that's how long it took to get our cold food served) just "chewing the fat".

I have encountered the "no-fraternization" rule a few times. I did date a "staff member" when I was a supervisor at my theater, but that went without a hitch really. The relationship ended (thank goodness) but she had already found a better job and left the theater before we broke it off so there was no work-related friction. I did get a talking-to by the General Manager when he found out, but mostly just a "be careful" sort of talk. He knew he needed us both at the time and didn't dare suspend/fire us.

When I moved up to Corporate Trainer, we were given express instruction not to fraternize with the staff we were training at new theaters getting ready to open (like we had time, I worked 9am-2am 7 days a week!) Unfortunately, a very cute girl who happened to be the same age as I got a huge crush on me. Easy to avoid because I was in the projection booth 99% of the time, but we still ran into eachother a bit. I was actually very proud of myself, because I had been single for a LONG time at this point and was a bit lonely. [Roll Eyes]

One day I just had to tell her nothing was allowed to happen. But that ended up turning out good because I met my wife a couple years later, what if I wasn't single when I met her?

Now, my wife and I both work in the same store and the only draw-back is that we cannot work in the same department or directly supervise her.

I believe in such seperations between staff and management and also think it a bad idea for co-workers to date just because of the lawsuit-happy culture we have going these days. Sexual harrassment would be an easy thing to claim against someone you were dating or having "relations" with if you were spited by that person.

I know one instance of this from personal experience. My sister and this guy were working at my theater, became involved and then they both went to work for another theater, he as a manager and her as staff. They had some troubles, she broke off with him and he started harassing her. I don't know all the details because my sister and I never talked too much until recently, but the end result was the company they worked for settling with my sister with a substantial dollar amount. Relationships can make you do crazy things and when they end you can do even crazier things which have drastic consequences.

As to how this applies to the subject at hand, this asst. manager's hanging out with this staff member has resulted in him engaging in illegal activities which could threaten both jobs. They probably would have been better off staying asst. manager-worker rather than drinking buddies. I don't think there is anything the other manager can or should do that hasn't already been done. Like others said, if their partying affects their work then they definitely have to be delt with. Otherwise, it's a matter for the police.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 02-19-2003, 01:22 PM:

As a manager, what I hear about employees and Assistant Managers on their off hours does reflect on any decisions I might make regarding their advancement in my company. Deciding to buy underage people alcohol doesn't reflect well as to the question of their responsibility. [Roll Eyes]

However, that said, this old pot-head did some pretty stupid stuff in his youth. So if their off premisis activities don't affect their work, then I don't really care. [beer]

But, we are an "at will" employer and I can fire your ass for anything I like, so don't mess with me. [evil]

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 02-20-2003, 12:12 AM:

Ian has a very good point.

If you're in an "at will" state, what you do in your off-hours can have an effect on your career... especially if you choose to stick it in the face of your co-workers and management.

An "at will" situation gives your employer the ability (if not the right) to assess whether your actions have an effect on his business, whether perceived or not. If you understand this and are mentally incapacitated enough not to see how this can effect your future employability, then you probably deserve what you get.

It may be right... it may be wrong... but all opinions aside, in some states, that's the way it is...

Washington is such a state. You can choose not to show up for work tomorrow, and I can do nothing about it, other than fire you. Concurrently, I can choose not to employ you tomorrow, and you can do nothing about it. In both cases, no explanation from the other side is necessary, and no prior notice is legally required.

Pretty wierd system... just something you have to learn to work with.

The point? In some states, thankfully, the employer actually does get to set the baseline for the type of people he might choose to hire. In those states, the employee does not get to redefine the employer's parameters. The employee's options, should he decide he doesn't like the way things are, are to quit... or to go open his own business and do things his way.

So... if you're going to be (in your employer's opinion) judgmentally deficient, best to keep it to yourself and not stick it in his face... that is, if you really want to continue working there!

... the free market at its best!

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-20-2003, 09:13 PM:

At will employment may mean that no grounds are needed to end the employment relationship but it's always better when there are grounds.

If some corroboration can be established (like a couple of eyewitnesses) then management would have ample cause to terminate both employees on two grounds: (1) Criminal activity (it is a crime to serve alcohol to an underage person; it is a crime for an underage person to drink). (2) Lying. Since #1 is taking place in off hours it is #2 that is the more serious concern since trust is at stake.

However #1 may be an additional concern if the underage employee is not just under 21 but is also under 18 because if something happens as a result of drinking the theatre could conceivably be dragged into a lawsuit (not necessarily rightfully but you know lawyers), especially if it becomes known that the management knew what was going on and took no steps to stop it.

Posted by Kathy Roberts (Member # 1410) on 02-28-2003, 12:48 AM:

If there was the knowledge that underage employees were being provided alcohol by someone 21 or older (regardless of if they are management) it should be reported to HR and they would deal with it. Say that the underage kid gets sick, goes to the hospital, parents find out where the alcohol comes from and somehow finds out that another manager knew about it, a lawsuit can come about. At least if you report it you at least have put yourself out of it and can't get into trouble for it, where if you kept quiet and something happened, you can get in trouble.
I agree with someone's statement about how a 30 year old hanging out or being buddy buddy with the underagers is a little fishy in the first place. A manager can't be friends with their employees, it just brings up a heck of a lot of potential issues that you don't want to deal with.

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 02-28-2003, 09:11 AM:

Every theatre (4 total) I have worked has a fraternization policy. Where employees are not allowed to date managers. I'm not sure if they are allowed hang out after hours. I have always thought other theatre chains would have the same type of policy. I disagree with with the policy, you can't help for who you fall for.

About the manager hanging out with employee after hours, I see no problems, but if it effects the work environment then matters will need to be addressed. I have been friends with former managers and I it never effected the work place. I will never let my job dictate my friends.