R.I.P. Scout26
Having been through a certain amount of HR training and reading examples of things done right and wrong by HR depts. I came to realize, that HR depts. are going to operate inexorably towards the goal of defending the entity they work for by enforcing as strictly as possible company policy regardless of other consequences. It wasn't until recently that the phrase "stay in your lane" became current and that, it dawned on me, is a perfect way to say what and how HR enforces policy. This manager, while brave and committed, did not stay in his lane and thus had to go. There are plenty of ways to leave your lane and HR will sanction you for any one of them. And shouldn't this be the default position for HR? For the HR types there was nothing to think about. Policy comes before PR considerations, and that's even if they considered the PR implications which they probably didn't. And really, do they need to consider PR issues? I don't blame the HR folks for this, in their view they were protecting the entity, which is their first duty. They are not the PR people, they are not in the C-suite, they're not the legal team, they're worker bees that do not have a lot of discretion in how they operate. Imagine what could have happened if the manager hadn't been fired and the company lawyers demanded to know why this insurance liability was still working for the company and exposing them to potential legal problems. Some HR person(s) might have lost their job(s). For failing to do their job. It would have been a totally justified termination. And this would have happened totally out of the public eye and there would have been no outrage to get them rehired. It's not fair to the HR folks to expect them to consider every potential issue that might come up in making personnel decisions. There are way too many variables. As long as the process conformed to both employment law and company policy, the HR people are blameless. I say that this turned out right. The manager did what he thought was right, HR did their job, and the C-suite folks did theirs by overruling HR.The process could have been faster and thus less damaging to company PR, but live and learn.
I suppose you could look at it as if he were preventing the customer from committing a federal crime..."Sir, sir! Come back! You have to fill out a Form 4473 for this transfer! Sir!"
A representative for Academy Sports did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment. But company spokeswoman Elise Hasbrook told [The Tallahassee] Democrat that Academy’s treatment of the former employee’s conduct, as well as his eventual firing, complied with company policy.“While the incident ended without injury, actions inconsistent with corporate policies were taken,” she told the outlet. “We addressed the matter with the local store and individuals involved.”http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/11/academy-sports-manager-fired-weeks-after-intercepting-gun-thief-suspect-in-florida-store-lawyer-says.html
Wrote adherence to policy for policy's sake isn't a position I'm prepared to accept. Using that logic the Germans who herded millions of Jews into gas chambers are okay because they were "following corporate policy". It's an extreme example but applicable nonetheless.Brad
All the backlash would imply that they didn't protect the entity.
This is some internet backlash, which while loud tends to not actually cost all that much money.