Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: A very ugly staff issue

This is topic A very ugly staff issue 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=001817

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 12-30-2006, 05:23 PM:

Greetings again all. I don't really like having all this crap out in the open but I could sure use some creative ideas here.

I've got this employee, left over from the previous manager. Most of his old cohorts quit or were forced out when I took over because the original manager didn't enforce policies like dress code and spoilage. I do, and some of them didn't want to listen to me.

Anyhow, instead of hitting the road this one decided almost immediately to go over my head to my supervisor with complaints. Most of which were not rooted in truth, he for example has no clue about inventory or projection therefor couldn't make a good case against my abilities in those areas but complained a great deal about them.

We sat down and spoke about this and other issues and he mellowed out. Problem now is that he picked up a rumor based on a hypothetical question no one asked him. The old manager wants his job back so now this employee is working double time (now going over my supervisors head) trying to get me fired so his little buddy can come back.

My supervisor is on my side. He tells me what goes on up there, and he probably shouldn't so it's not like I can say "hey, stop screwing with me or else...", that would compromise him and make no progress.

On the flipside, if he knows he's being watched he'll make sure no matter what he doesn't act up knowing I'll dump him in a heartbeat.
I feel as though this guy is a complete detriment to the vision I have for my theater. I don't feel that he plays on the same team or genuinely cares about the theater.
He refuses to act as a part of the team. If I take a day away when the seasons slow down he throws a temper tantrum about it.
His latest ploy is trying to get other staff members to rebel against me. I get reports of it from staff, from my second assistant, and it's evident in the more impressionable, younger employees who see him do something or hear him say something and then start talking back to me about trivial tasks such as taking out trash.

I feel like any time I have to tell him something he turns it into a personal attack against him and throws a fit.
I wonder if he does it just to make it so unpleasant I avoid it...hmm.

This guy has to go!
/end rant

[ 10-23-2007, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Dominic Espinosa ]

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-30-2006, 06:05 PM:

I don't know how California firing works, but it seems to me that if your boss is already thinking he needs to go then you have the support you need to fire him. You cannot be scared of a bad employee. Even in this time of lawsuits galore, situations like you describe fall in favor of the employer.

Posted by David Graves (Member # 4069) on 12-30-2006, 06:10 PM:

I don't understand the problem- the kid is obviously creating a negative work environment. Your boss gave you the ok to get rid of him. What are you waiting for?

If you are a right-to-work state, you don't need a reason to fire him. Either one of you has the right to terminate his employment without reason. And you definitely don't want to give him one. Simply bring him to the office, tell him it's not working out, and that he no longer works for you. If he asks why, just repeat that it's not going to work out. If you don't give him a specific reason for termination, you don't have to give one should he take you to court or file for unemployment.

If you're not a a right-to-work state, write him for insubordination. Find something specific that he has verbally said that you can put on paper. Then suspend him for two weeks and say that on his next infraction, you will terminate him. He shows up four minutes late for a break, he forgets to clean a row in a theater, he's gone.

New managers can be shy about things like this, but the reality is that so long as you're not egregiously violating policy, your bosses could care less about a $5.25 an hour worker as long as the money keeps coming in. What's more detrimental than the issues that will arise from firing a long-time employee is the fact that you are wasting time thinking and worrying about this. He'll be forgotten in a week, and you can get on with managing the theater correctly.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-30-2006, 06:22 PM:

Even though California is a right-to-work state, it is overflowing with low-life sharks... i.e. lawyers.

The best thing to do is document everytime this bozo gets outta line or picks his butt and put it in his personnel file. Call him in for a review of his antics and job performance and give him specific written goals and things he MUST correct within , say, 10 or 30 days.

If he still is fucking up, write him up again and call him in for another "conference" as before. After 3 times, fire his sorry ass.

The important thing is to document it all.

Posted by Timothy Eiler (Member # 383) on 12-30-2006, 06:56 PM:

quote: Phil Hill
Even though California is a right-to-work state, it is overflowing with low-life sharks... i.e. lawyers.

Many people who I have fired threaten to sue me to get there minumum wage job back But no one ever has. One solution that is done several people I know is to Schedule this person only one shift per two week period and it's on saturday night. Then when you are looking to send someone home early he/she gets sent home. It usually dosent take to much time before they quit showing up for work.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-30-2006, 07:42 PM:

Did this employee maybe sign any paperwork when he was hired agreeing to at-will employment?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-30-2006, 08:59 PM:

Yeah, check your job apps and see if they have a fine-print area stating that the employment is "at will" for both the employee and the employer. If that clause is there, boot the guy. But do document everything just in case.

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 12-30-2006, 09:24 PM:

This is not as delicate of an issue as you might think.

You schedule him down to 2 shifts a week. You issue a disciplinary action for each violation, late for work, out of work station, food in sight of customers, whatever...

Once.. twice... three times and he's out. No questions asked. This punk doesn't deserve to infect the rest of the staff, especially since you are trying to turn this theatre around.

Remember.. YOU are the supervisor.. Discuss this plan with YOUR supervisor and with his blessing, proceed ahead. If he doesn't back you up.. you're in deep shit.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 12-31-2006, 01:34 AM:

Its important to remember 'right to work' and 'employment at will' are two very different things. In a 'right to work' state you can't be forced to join a union to work somewhere. In states that don't have a 'right to work' law you usually have to join the union if the place of business has a contract with on.

'Employment at will' is what refers to termination without cause. There are a couple of important things to remember about this, primarily that you still have to be carefull about firing women, minorities, people over 40 (the official age when 'age discrimination' can be claimed), or any other protected class. Also, if you fire someone without cause they will be able to claim unemployment. Not a problem when dealing with part time mininum wage employees, many of whom wouldn't qualify for unemployment anyway, but something to keep in mind.

Most importantly remember that state and federal laws will apply to whatever situation you have to handle AND THE MORE RESTRICTIVE LAW TAKES PRECEDENT. Do remember that although many state employment laws are similar each state is different. As an example, in some states homosexuals are a protected class (in regards to discrimination) and in others are not.

Good luck.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 12-31-2006, 02:21 AM:

Thanks guys.
The gentleman is question is 60+ and sometimes I think he can't stomach working for someone nearly a 3rd his age.

I've put up with his crap for a while, namely because he's competent at his individual duties and more recently because it always turns into "it's not fair, I've been here for this long and I want my hours and blah blah blah".
Especially lately it feels like I make headway with this clown only to hear from 3rd parties or my supe the things he says about me.

I know what I have to do, I just hate it. Someone mentioned earlier that new managers are shy about these things, I am no exception. I've had to let people go before and it's never something I like. The effect has always been positive such as ditching the thieves from the spring.
Unfortunately it's sometimes difficult to reconcile remorse and reason.

Thanks for the advice.
[beer]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-31-2006, 02:39 AM:

..could a situation draw like this to protect the employer of any legality (outside of still keeping documents of discpline of the said employee) is to place the offending employee on an "indefinite suspension" and never outright firing that individual.

Thus, the offending employee is still legally employed, yet not scheduled for any work.

After two plus weeks of no workie, that employee will realize that there is no monies coming in and will then do the "smart" thing and that is to outright quit to go find other employment -he used his right to terminate himself from that company and not being forced out by outright firing.

Thus with quitting, it releases the employer from any form of liability since the employer only placed that person on the "indifinite suspension" - by keeping that person on payroll and let the offending employee make the final decision on his future with that company.

Kinda of a reverse role in this situation: The employee definitely controls his destiny since he came to the employer for work in the first place - not the employer dragging that individual off the street in to work for them.

Thus, the employer places full responsibility on the employee to make the decision on his work ethics: If the employee really wants to work, then the employer will make the possible efforts to keep the employee since the employee is doing his fair share. But, if the employee chooses to make work ethics miserable, then the employer will NOT issue out the final decision, but just to 'suspend' the employee - to get them out of the work atmosphere so the employee can make the decision on either staying or leaving...on his own.

Only times of outright firing is things leads up to such an legal action that has to be followed.

Or, being let go from within the probationary (testing) period, and the "at will" status that the employee has acknowledged in signing the application.

-Monte

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 12-31-2006, 03:06 AM:

since the employee is "competent at his individual duties" i wonder if your priorities are a little out of line here. why is the dress code so important?

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-31-2006, 03:07 AM:

Just make sure that age or race never come up as part of any reasoning.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-31-2006, 03:53 AM:

quote: Dominic Espinosa
"it's not fair, I've been here for this long and I want my hours and blah blah blah".

Yep, sounds like the old gentleman wants his cake and eat it too - from being spoilt from the previous mgr and will not take guff (actually, doesn't like changes...) from the younger generation who knows the rules and believes in them too.

Also, sounds like he was in charge of that old manager. Now, he prob knows that he doesn't have control of you and it really puts the crank in his shorts over this - why he's going over your head...to push you out of his way in any way and form.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 12-31-2006, 05:25 AM:

quote:
One solution that is done several people I know is to Schedule this person only one shift per two week period and it's on Saturday night. Then when you are looking to send someone home early he/she gets sent home. It usually doesn't take to much time before they quit showing up for work.

I find this totally dishonorable, and just downright dirty. I would never condone such an action. If you have an issue with an employee, it needs to be address to the employee directly. It's very underhanded. If an employee is bad enough he need not work there anymore, do the right thing and just fire him. So many places do that crap because they're too cheap to pay the potential increase in their unemployment fund. Places like that are usually run by scumbags who only care about numbers and money.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-31-2006, 06:07 AM:

Agreed with Charles--just be up front about it and fire the guy. It's classless and not fair to the employee to suddenly stop scheduling him for work while continuing to "employ" him.

Do people actually bother suing theatres for unlawful termination? I have a hard time imagining why anyone would bother when most of these floor-staff jobs pay at or near minimum wage.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-31-2006, 09:52 AM:

I agree; sometimes the kindest cut is the swiftest cut. If he is retrainable, council him and keep him; if not, he goes and goes now. You could ask what his decision is at the time of counciling.

One of the theatres I service once had a list of things that would get you fired with no warnings (drugs, booze, theft, etc). Each employee got a copy to sign at hiring and also got to keep a copy. This wwas ridigly enforced through 350 (I kid you not) hirings/firings. The BEST theatre staff of all time. Louis

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-31-2006, 10:09 AM:

quote: Charles Greenlee
So many places do that crap because they're too cheap to pay the potential increase in their unemployment fund.

I'm not sure how common it is, but you can be ordered to pay unemployment for cutting hours (which would cause said increase), so I don't see this as the reason management would use that tactic.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 12-31-2006, 12:10 PM:

I certain places, yes. But either most people don't push it, the labor office is too lazy, or in most places, it's still considered a willing termination, the business are able to skirt around it. I see it all of the time, and it get my fire going. There is no honorable reason to do that. The only reasones are self centered and dirty.

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 12-31-2006, 12:30 PM:

Hi Dominic:

Regarding the dress code......Glad to see you want your employees looking professional. The general public typically has more respect for such individuals. Also, studies show that there is a link between how people dress and how they act.

Mike

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 12-31-2006, 01:30 PM:

I would happen to agree with a few of you on this. Just Fire the guy and be rid of him. Haven't you had enough of the guy? You deserve to have better people working with you and help you in your job of improving your theatre overall. So, just get rid of him.

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 12-31-2006, 02:27 PM:

Dominic,

Does your company have a policy and proceedure for handling employee complaints? Regarding the method of dealing with those who go above you to your superior, this is a termination offense in most companies. The person who does not communicate with his immediate superior before taking it to the next higher level is a known troublemaker and therefore most companies will terminate that employee. "Since your practice of undermining management is distructive to our corporate structure and inhibits the team efforts of all employees, your services are no longer required." PERIOD

KEN

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 12-31-2006, 02:31 PM:

Does it bother anyone that he is attempting to be as sneaky and underhanded as the guy he is trying to dump? This is not consistent with good management OR a good person. You have to be upfront and honest with this guy. Tell him your concerns and give him the chance to make amends. Perhaps you might even gain his respect. If not, document his issues and mistakes, and fire him for cause. No one likes to fire people, but some people simply can not work with certain people. For the good of the other employees and the good of the theater, he needs to change or go.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 12-31-2006, 05:33 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Do people actually bother suing theatres for unlawful termination? I have a hard time imagining why anyone would bother when most of these floor-staff jobs pay at or near minimum wage.

In 16 years I've only seen this happen once, and it was a general manager suing the owner over termination. Three employee were called to testify at a labor relations hearing. When the ex-manager's lawyer found out all of them were still employed by the theater, he busted his ass to get them out of the room before the owner and his attorney showed up.

The issue was hence settled out of court. This was in 1993.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 12-31-2006, 08:51 PM:

You guys are absolutely right. Being up front and honest with your employees is a good thing in most cases.
In every situation with every employee I've dealt with I've always pulled them into the office and laid it out to them.
.This is what's wrong
.This is what needs to change
.Lets make a plan to resolve this so we can move forward
That usually does the trick. However after doing this twice with this guy I've gotten feedback about my "unfairness" and "incompetence".

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Yep, sounds like the old gentleman wants his cake and eat it too - from being spoilt from the previous mgr and will not take guff (actually, doesn't like changes...) from the younger generation who knows the rules and believes in them too.

That sounds about right. Anything that's different is a bad idea to him.

The biggest outburst thus far was directed at me because he wished to cover a floor drain with cardboard instead of just sucking it up and cleaning it like everybody else has to do.
I removed it because it's against health code.
I looked into covering it with something that would meet the requirements but it's really more trouble than it's worth.

quote: Carl Martin
since the employee is "competent at his individual duties" i wonder if your priorities are a little out of line here. why is the dress code so important?

My priorities are to serve the guests in a clean, professional theater. To let everyone work as a team so they can enjoy what they get paid to do. And for the most part the rest of the crew does. No one enjoys cleaning toilets or sweeping popcorn but somehow they all consider it a good, fun job.

Why is dress code so important? Appearance makes a very big difference in how you and the theater are perceived.
It's a matter of taking pride in what you do.

I personally wouldn't take a place seriously if the staff was dressed sloppily or had poor customer service (unless of course that's the standard for that industry).

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 12-31-2006, 10:38 PM:

Just be sure that you do not give any appearance that you are singling out this guy above others. Just be sure that you enforce the rules equally with all the members of your staff. That way there can be no claim of harassment when you finally let him go. He is attempting to undermine your authority by sowing discord among the other staff members and is giving clear indication that he is not a team player. Statements like "... I've gotten feedback about my "unfairness" and "incompetence" will only justify your decision to release him. Document everything.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-31-2006, 10:42 PM:

Have you already considered murder?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-31-2006, 10:59 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Have you already considered murder?

...LOL - I'm sure that every theatre manager on the face of this earth have thought of this at least once in their lifetime - with the clowns that are hired and the clowns that they've inherited from previous managers...

I've been there and done that .. like for right now: I service a theatre that the clowns take pliers to loosen up the lens lock on their PR-1014's because some other clowns there crank down on that knob so tight. Now, I've heard that one knob shaft has actually snapped in half due to using pliers. I've told them this many times in not using the pliers. NOW, it's time to take action on this to where I will go to the head of the company and demand punishment on these clowns that misuse machinery.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 01-01-2007, 01:27 AM:

quote: Rick Raskin
Just be sure that you do not give any appearance that you are singling out this guy above others. Just be sure that you enforce the rules equally with all the members of your staff.

I find that difficult to do for one reason...most of my other employees DO their job, do it well, and don't complain. How can I enforce anything on them? On the other hand, we have employees that apparently come to work to talk to their friends and do as little as possible. With these people, I HAVE to enforce policy. They wonder why no one else gets told to do things...I explain that the other people are already doing their job, and I don't have to tell them anything. To the person getting told what to do, its seems that I am constantly after them, which is true, but its because they don't do their job in the first place, not because I want to be unfair or have favorites.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 01-01-2007, 02:12 AM:

Oh believe me. It's documentation city.
He's actually the only one I haven't kept official documentation on up until this point.
Up until this point he's apologized to the other employees he's been rude to and then he's fine.
What I think has been going on though is that he gets his quick gratification because he's going over me when he gets in a mood about something then feels like he accomplished something.

In the mean time I've accumulated written statements from my second in charge.

I may not be wise, but I'm certainly not dumb [evil]

You know, Joe. There's quite a bit of room under the stadium risers in one of the newer auditoriums and if we don't clean the theater out for a while I'm sure the odor of popcorn would...no! No, Joe. Murder is not an option!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-01-2007, 03:05 AM:

Along with his infractions, another thing you need to impress upon him is that making negative and degrading comments to other employees about you, his superior, behind your back, firments discontent and a bad work environment and it unacceptable behavior. Tell him that if he is unhappy about your decisions he should discuss it with your directly and you will resolve it, one way or another. Anything short of that will be considered insubordination. Also be sure that you evaluate other employees as often and in the same fashion as you do him; if you keep a file on his performance and infractions -- you should -- you need to do the same for the others you are responsible for. Not doing so can be construed as singling him out, which can work against you should he contest his firing (which is going to happen sooner or later, hopefully sooner).

But Dominic....

quote:
A very ugly staff issue

....therein is your underlying problem; these types are always a pain in the ass. We never hire ugly staff....all our people are beautiful and sexy -- everyone is happy. [thumbsup]

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-01-2007, 10:15 AM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
I find that difficult to do ...

Granted that is true, but who said that employee contact has to only be negative. For those who are playing by the rules an occasional positive memo reinforces your position of equality in the workplace.

Another thing is to keep discussion impersonal. Leave personalities out of it and only focus on the job, how its being done or the lack thereof.

When the offending employee brings up his perceived issue of the manager's incompetence he is attempting to divert the discussion from his actions to that of the supervisor. That is a trap to avoid. Keep the discussion focused on the issue of the employee and do not respond to other allegations.

FWIW --

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-03-2007, 06:05 AM:

Why is this guy allowed to go over your head? If you've got the support from your supervisor, then said person should make it clear to the trouble-maker he's to report to you alone.

Draw the line in the sand.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 01-03-2007, 03:02 PM:

Initially my supervisor left the situation alone. He put me in the loop and my worker and I discussed it.
We both (my employee and I) agreed that things like that weren't going to get us anywhere and that if he had a problem he needed to come to me about it.
Then when something came up that he didn't like (loosing a shift due to the slowing of the season) he immediately went to the owner.

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 01-03-2007, 05:35 PM:

Are you guys still using any of the employee manuals or manager's manuals that I wrote back in the day? *Tries to remember fine print of that thing... it's been so long*

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 01-03-2007, 07:51 PM:

Scott,
I believe so. I have no idea honestly. I've only been with them for 3 years.

Posted by Timothy Eiler (Member # 383) on 01-16-2007, 10:22 AM:

quote: Dominic Espinosa
Initially my supervisor left the situation alone. He put me in the loop and my worker and I discussed it.
We both (my employee and I) agreed that things like that weren't going to get us anywhere and that if he had a problem he needed to come to me about it.
Then when something came up that he didn't like (loosing a shift due to the slowing of the season) he immediately went to the owner.

So Has this employee finally settled down and become part of the team, been fired or still going over everyones head?

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 01-18-2007, 02:01 PM:

We keep having to go around and around about the dress code and his attitude.
More and more he's rude to his coworkers. Since I give out hours based on performance he's the one that's making the sacrifice so the assistant managers have theirs.

My grave mistake with this employee was shying away from the issues from the beginning. At first I was afraid to loose people because I was new to building a staff. After that I avoided confronting him because he would yell and swear and make what should be a civilized discussion a tiring event.
Which was most unfair to the rest of the kids.

So now I'm treating him the same as any other member of the staff. At least I can't be considered inconsistent now [Wink]

Presently this gentleman is down to 2 shifts per weekend, that's really the only time I have hours for him anymore (he's not available any other time anyway and doesn't close).
Since we closed for a day due to flooding (long story) the next day he should have been in uniform since that was his only actual day working. He showed up in a baggy button-up shirt and wranglers.
Tsk tsk...

His latest ruse seems to be trying to entice some of the other kids to pressure the old manager into returning. Methinks they're in cahoots...I hear tidbits of things here and there that make me wonder.
At any rate, due process shall prevail.

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 01-21-2007, 04:44 PM:

It's time for you to get rid of this fellow. He is infecting your staff and doing a disserrvice to the operations of your theatre.

His age should not be an issue, given teh fact that you *should* have been documenting the issues you've mentioned here..

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 01-21-2007, 05:11 PM:

This guy is 60? Seems kind of creepy if he's not management or in the booth... how old is the rest of your staff?

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 01-22-2007, 12:05 AM:

Second oldest besides me is 20, youngest is 16.
More than one person has pointed out the oddity that he's this old and basically does a 16 year olds job.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-22-2007, 05:04 AM:

Is he retired and just doing the job to have something to do?

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 01-22-2007, 08:37 AM:

Ditto what Rick said. I personally have no problem with an older person working with much younger people, often times they can be an asset-current situation being an exception of course.

[ 01-22-2007, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Dustin Mitchell ]

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 01-22-2007, 11:50 AM:

Dustin, I completely agree.
He tries to spin it like he does it to keep busy however I don't think it's that simple.
In either case he's taking his own money out of his pocket by screwing with me. I've got more time tied up in this company than he so it would make no sense for me to allow his sentimentality for the old manager who let him pretend he was a manager without the responsibilities to throw my job into discourse.
He believes because he's been there for xyz time he should have more hours than everybody else when he's only available for matinee box, opening. Not closing, not during the week, etc.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-22-2007, 01:51 PM:

What about starting a weekly staff evaluation program?

The less demerits, the more hours you get. That way he can choose to work as many hours as he has positive points. In other words, the guy with the most demerits gets no hours this week. (Be fair; and apply the same "test" to all concerned. Louis

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 01-22-2007, 04:29 PM:

quote:
You know, Joe. There's quite a bit of room under the stadium risers in one of the newer auditoriums and if we don't clean the theater out for a while I'm sure the odor of popcorn would...no! No, Joe. Murder is not an option!

Dom, be careful what you write in public domains about any staff or customers, even if only jokingly. Any documentation, including web forums and logbooks could be subpoenaed should this go to court or an investigation ensue.

I once worked for a hotel where we used to put joking remarks about our guests in the front office logbook - that was until one of the guests sued the hotel and the logbook was given to their legal staff. Needless to say, it wasn't pretty and resulted in a settlement in the hundreds of thousands (and the front office manager losing her job).

Posted by Jose Nunez (Member # 4086) on 01-25-2007, 01:43 AM:

Your best bet is simply progressive discipline. Next time he becomes involved in anything other than professional conduct, do the following:
1. Next Offense: Discuss your expectations for his behavior. I'm still not clear whether this person reports directly to you. If he does, explain that his SPECIFIC behavior is creating a negative working environment. It is absolutely critical that you identify specific behavior. A "Bad Attitude" is not a good enough reason.
2. Document it: Do you use "write ups" if so, progressively discipline specific behavior. Explain that his behavior, if it continues, can lead to "further disciplinary action, up to an including termination"
3. CA. is an "At Will" State, however I strongly discourage using that as an excuse for not progressively disciplining an employee... Remember, as management a big part of our responsibilities is to train an develop. Be careful what you post on websites...it can bite you in the ass. referencing his age (especially of he's over 40) can lead to a "Age Discrimination lawsuit.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 01-25-2007, 12:44 PM:

I see your points. I do keep documentation. It won't be an issue in a couple more weeks anyhow as I'm being relocated to a new location.
At any rate I have no problem with his age. Anyone within the situation would know that.
I employ a woman at this same theater that's over 50 as well.
I'd rather hire older than younger because (for the most part) they have a built-in work ethic and higher standards than the kids.

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 01-25-2007, 05:42 PM:

Great -- one more film-techer near me!

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 01-26-2007, 12:32 AM:

Who said I was going to be near you, Scott?
But I suppose that's true...I'll actually be pretty close to Mr. Sisemore. [evil]

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 01-28-2007, 11:37 PM:

quote: Dominic Espinosa
It won't be an issue in a couple more weeks anyhow as I'm being relocated to a new location

Oh yes.. it will continue to be an issue... perhaps not for you.. but it will be an issue, none the less. I'd cure the problem BEFORE the new manager gets there...

Then again... that's just my opinion.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 01-28-2007, 11:57 PM:

Funny thing, Jason. The manager coming in is the manager that left 10 months ago when I was sent here.

It's not like he's a better manager than I...The theater has gained attendance, the per-cap is higher consistently, the place is cleaner, the film is built CORRECTLY among a plethora of other things I take into consideration when I say that he wasn't a very good manager.
Some of the old schoolers argued simply because they were used to not having to clean, not having to actually work and meet a standard.
Some of the ones that hadn't been there long enough to have it ingrained into them warmed right up.
I retained other employees that had been there for 2 years already; they didn't all bail out or get fired, some went on to get promoted.

The old guy won't be a problem for me however I think he'll encourage the manager to put pressure on some of my hires.
I dropped the bomb today that I'm leaving.
It's unclear right now how many are going to leave because of this but one manager has tendered a resignation and the projectionist is looking for other work.
They were there for the clean-up and don't want to be a part of the eminent back-slide.
Smoothing over his reputation for a dirty building hasn't been very easy since my hires from back in the spring did a lot of the physical labor cleaning up the theater.
I can only hope the standard my ops manager held me to will be enforced upon this jackass.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-29-2007, 04:26 PM:

Was your pending relocation of your choice? If not, perhaps were you making just a bit too much noise? Just a thought...

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 01-30-2007, 01:48 PM:

Rick,
If there is any noise filtering up to the office it's not coming from me. Though it wouldn't surprise me if the nucleus of this little thread would be the one making the noise.
I think there are more office politics taking place here than I should discuss.
I didn't like this market from the get-go anyway and I'm always looking to go up. I'm not going to stop growing yet. My ops manager knows it and supports my enthusiasm but I think more than anything I get jerked around by the company as a whole because of my age.
I'll stick it out but these things make me wonder if I should.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 02-01-2007, 08:07 PM:

It can be difficult dealing with employees that don't want to work. Especially if you are new to the theater, or to managment in general. They (the general employees) are not used to actually DOING work, and when someone with experience comes in and and sees the mess, naturally, you are going to tell the employees what needs to be done. Immediately you are seen as a "trouble maker" or "not cool" like the other managment is. I went through this same thing. Someone has to crack, either you, or the 16 year old employees. I plan on being in this business for a long time, and the kids probably wont make it through the summer, so I stuck to my guns and made them do it my way. Eventually, when they leave, the new employees will only know it one way...the RIGHT way. Your job only gets easier from there.