Electrician fired over leaked photos..

[chadrcr]

All for having rules.
And enforcing them. Consistently.

Some rules are too stringent/ strict and/or have disproprtionate repurcussions... Not that this one is one of those. I have not read the agreement that he signed, it could prove that he was a blithering idiot...
I also did not look into the pics t see whatever 'secrets' that the competition would be able to gleen from them. That could also prove that he was (acted) as an idiot. Without knowing the whole story, I will feel for the former employee (and family of) and I may think that there was too harsh a penalty for the situation as I understand it, from the uninformed outside.
I will hope that GM does something to 'spin' this situation so as to not alienate potential customers. As mentioned in some of the previous posts about GM and there rep; about GMs reputation and 'we thought they were changing their ways'.

[DGthe3]

Jay, you say that if he was given a lesser punishment, word would get around and that would be sufficient. What happens when somone with seniority, say 30 years, takes pictures containing even more sensitive info? Does he get fired or told to 'take a break'? its pretty much the same situation, and if this electrician gets away with what he did, so should this other guy. But now something has happened which really hurt the company, meanwhile he did nothing different than this electrician. See the worms nest that can get opened? What if that electrician had only been working there for 14 years. Does that change the information within those pictures and what it can do to the company? If GM were to allow this electrician to stay, it would set a bad precedent for future situations

[Jay]

Dragon, DG... you guys all make good points.... I don't disagree with what your saying... that is the thing about a healthy debate.... it brings out good points from both sides.

Its a matter of seeing things differently and having a different perspective of what you ought to think is the best move and what will serve your organization best. These perspectives change with every person's experience's in life.... like you said Dragon.... your experience in life leads you too see this situation a little different.

Personally, I think the situation reflects on both the guy and GM as an organization. I'm not saying there wrong for firing him entirely.... I just think that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Also, is it more a reflection of his doing??.... YES, FOR SURE! GM didnt ask for this to happen.... but given the situation happened.... under the pressure its interesting to see how organizaitions react and handle things... I think these decisions do reflect upon a company's image as an EMPLOYER not a SELLER.

To me they could have handled things differently. Also to me it appears that people in this thread feel very strongly about RULES and REGULATIONS and what the BOOK says.... and if you break them... then thats it your gone.... I obviously don't agree from previously mentioned comments.... why? I really don't have an explanation other then that I think the rules are often wrong.... these feelings stem from my own personal life experiences.

I personally believe the best managed companies are the ones that use rules and regulations as a guide and take things on individual basis.... does this create bias and unfairness sometimes.... i wont deny it.... it sure does. But with the right human capital and the 'right people' you will have a organization that works a whole lot better IMO... this av-course is debatable depending on your viewpoint.

I just think the world is getting to a point where were losing the 'human' aspect to things and there are just too many rules everywhere.

Nevertheless, I didn't mean to offend anyone by my comments.... just voice my viewpoint.... which Im still holding too....

As a part of my 5 years in school i had to watch a lot of human right tribunal hearings and other employee labour relations hearings... with many different situations with employees being fired and such things.... I just think from those hundreds of hearings i have seen.... every situation where the managers had high emotional intelligence and were capable of assessing a situation on an individual basis usually were the cases when employers won.... and just when rules were applied... employers always lost.

[wildpaws]

Originally Posted by Jay

You hit it bang on stovt.... this is why this site rocks!!!

In adding to that point though and somewhat in response to Dragon.... we all bring a certain viewpoint to the table.

Some people looked at this situation from a rules and violation point of view, some from a general outlook and I looked at the situation from a human resources point of view.... which is what my degree is in.

Which is the view from which i gave my opinion based on. So its nice to see how different people have different decision making processes. And whoever at GM made the decision obviously had a different process that do I because I think it was wrong to fire the guy.

But that just goes to show you the lens i see through things with wont be the same for someone else.

So why do I think GM fu**ed up as a company in this situation. First, an employee that serves for you 28 years isn't just some random employee... they have been loyal for 28 years and do deserve an exception to the rule book... any high end manager should know this. There are ways to set an example to other employees to not copy such behavior with extremity without firing someone. Suspend the guy for 4 months without pay.... this is pretty harsh. You don't need to announce it to rest of the company... believe me the word will make it around as to what happened.

Second, with so much attention on the car and where the pictures came from.... why would you make such a brash move that could be perceived not well by some (which it now has)... with so much riding on the line with sales of this car.... some people in the world really do get turned off to the point they don't care how good the product is.. if they don't like the company they wont buy from them (its like me with walmart)... although this amount maybe small.... the attention it brings is often negative.... so why not steer clear from it.

They could have done something smaller (ex. suspend)... that would have made news and made it clear to other employees not to do such a thing and the guy would come back after suspension and have learned his lesson.

Third, imo... although Im sure the HR department in specific probably didn't make the decision in this case due to the importance of it.... it was most likely as a person higher up in GM..... they made the HR department imo look bad in they eyes of at least a lot of HR working employees themselves.... like me. In addition, it affects company branding..... your image as a company to be a attractive employer. So if the guy who was around for 28 years got the shaft.... what about the one that has been around 5.... this kind of mindset starts to kick in..... although i agree not with one incident it wont.... but its a slippery slope once you get on it....

So, like I said before.....and this is with nothing against GM in general.... i love GM.... but I think in this situation they made a decision error.. and a bad one at that.

ps. please excuse grammar errors in this post. thanks

Jay, as you say, we see it from different perspectives. At one time I worked for a large national corporation, I had to deal with a severely demoralized department because our HR Regional manager would not allow us to take action with one employee over several years, we were told you can do nothing but oral reprimands or written reprimands, no suspensions and absolutely could not fire that employee. So how do you think other employees responded when pulled in to my office for an oral reprimand? It was like the inmates running the asylum. We finally did get a new HR manager that almost passed out when showed that employees six inch thick employee file (most employees had one 1/2 inch thick, we were finally after more issues allowed to offer an early retirement (which was declined by the employee) and ultimately fired that one for repeated offenses, but it was too late, the damage to department morale was already done. Sorry, that GM employee knew the rules, violated them, and now has to suffer the consequence of his poor judgement.
Clyde

[Jiu Jitsu Jon]

Let me ask you guys something: Let's say you have a roll of film or a memory card with pictures that need to be printed. You drop them off at the one hour photo joint of your choice, and later you find out that the photo tech working there made copies of some of your pictures that he found interesting? What would you expect to happen? Because I can tell you in retail, at least in the company I work for, there is ZERO tolerance for violating a customer's trust like that. It is clearly spelled out in the rules. I have SEEN people fired for it.

Now replace "roll of film" with "shot of a car that hasn't even been released yet". Do you think GM will be less strict with leaked trade information than a retailer will be with unauthorized duplication of a customer's media?

[fastball]

Originally Posted by Jiu Jitsu Jon

Let me ask you guys something: Let's say you have a roll of film or a memory card with pictures that need to be printed. You drop them off at the one hour photo joint of your choice, and later you find out that the photo tech working there made copies of some of your pictures that he found interesting? What would you expect to happen? Because I can tell you in retail, at least in the company I work for, there is ZERO tolerance for violating a customer's trust like that. It is clearly spelled out in the rules. I have SEEN people fired for it.

Now replace "roll of film" with "shot of a car that hasn't even been released yet". Do you think GM will be less strict with leaked trade information than a retailer will be with unauthorized duplication of a customer's media?

Very good point, and good analogy. Part of working for a company, especially one that is in an ultra competitive business, is the company must trust your integrity. But almost anywhere you go, integrity is a required virtue. You could work for Stouffers Foods, and you certainly would not want to share their secret recipies with even your wife to make dinner.

[DGthe3]

Jay, thats fine that you have a different opinion, and I don't think anyone here could be offended by it. As you say, its a matter of perspective. Odd thing is, my perspective isn't even based on my life's experience. I've had quite a few times where I was caught on the wrong side of the rules. At first I always think that "well I'm different because of this, that and the other thing" but I eventually come to the conclusion that I'm special just like everyone else. I rationalize everything that way.

Are there cases where things aren't black and white? of course there are. But this isn't one of them. If the shots never went public with only him and his family seeing them it would be a really different case. No harm would have been done by taking them, and yet the guy still violated the rules. THAT would have been a real mess.

[Sierra]

I feel for this guy. I wonder if we some how can get him on here to tell his sie of the story fully. Its a shame you think you are doing something nice for your family and get burned. yes he broke the rules. But I am sure he is not the first to have taken pictures of something secret for any car company. This one just got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I dont think the bru haha is over the camaro parts but over the manufacturing processes itself.

[Badger]

OK..I have been sitting in the shadows reading with great interest about this new awesome camaro...Tag and Brantley...I , too ,am on the job in upstate NY..I just want to say that I do feel for this guy..but come on..we need to look at this guys "Culpable Mental state" at the time he took these photo's.
1...Did he "knowingly" take these pictures?..and did he know the outcome if he was caught?
2...I am sure that when he was hired he must have signed a piece of paper that explained what would happen if he did.."Violate the rules".
Think about it guys..if this guy were in the military..he would be on trial for Treason...just like a Spy!...He betrayed the General and he is now paying the price...I don't go for the ..Oh it was only for my kid's Bu@llSh%t...this guy knew what he was doing and maybe he was compensated by the auto mags...who knows..ya ever seen Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?? same situation..(I think..lol) that being said...I know he must be a union Member and I hope the union can save his job..but this was over the line..It would be like sneaking into FBodfathers home and taking pics of him stepping out of the shower...(can't wait for that response) anyway...god I can't wait for October...I want my new Camaro!

[ralniv]

You will not see any tears being shed here. You shouldn't compromise your personal integrity no matter the reason... desire to feed the fan sites, anger with your management, bribes, etc. He/she knew that GM's manufacturing processes are proprietary and trade secrets.

I realize that we're all hungry for details, but GM has to protect their product from the prying eyes of their competition.

[2KZ28_For_Now]

good points, all. thanks for a very civil and thoughtful discussion.

While I may not like that the person was fired, I have to consider the counter-point.

What if I were a shareholder or CEO of the company involved?

The reaction to the "crime" is left to each individual, as it should be.

Either way, I know we all agree this person should not have allowed the pictures to get into the open.

I'm kinda sorry I ever saw them, now.

Let the debate continue.

PS - GM should honor the man's retirement benefits, and should have offered a "mutually agreeable retirement." GM saves face, the man is canned. However, the "man" can still earn the benefits he has payed for for longer than some of our forum members have been alive.

Just my .2c -- if I were a "gazillion-aire" I'd take up where GM left off. This is a very hard concept for some to understand. "Reward bad behavior!?!?" Well, not necessarily. It depends on the shoes you wear every day, and your capacity for "reasonable judgement."

TAG, thanks for alluding to what I meant -- there is "mostly" always room for interpretation -- it's the only "human" thing to do. However, for some violators, there can be no gray area. This is a very difficult question to address. I'm glad we can still do so.

[TAG UR IT]

Yep. I like the black and white areas. But, grey....grey can be verrrrry good too.

[chadrcr]

Originally Posted by ralniv

You will not see any tears being shed here. You shouldn't compromise your personal integrity no matter the reason... desire to feed the fan sites, anger with your management, bribes, etc. He/she knew that GM's manufacturing processes are proprietary and trade secrets.

I realize that we're all hungry for details, but GM has to protect their product from the prying eyes of their competition.

Several people have stated that he knew the rules, and that 'we all know' that he knew what would happen if he took pics etc. Has anyone seen anything like a GM info disclosure or contract that stated you WILL be fired?
As an electrician, was he working for a contractor who had different paperwork? Anyone ever buy a new car/finance it or a house? Did you READ every single word? ..... He should have. We do not know what he knew(most of us). we know that he should have known better.
knowing the repercussions, I bet he would not do it again.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by chadrcr

Several people have stated that he knew the rules, and that 'we all know' that he knew what would happen if he took pics etc. Has anyone seen anything like a GM info disclosure or contract that stated you WILL be fired?
As an electrician, was he working for a contractor who had different paperwork? Anyone ever buy a new car/finance it or a house? Did you READ every single word? ..... He should have. We do not know what he knew(most of us). we know that he should have known better.

80Zedder will pop in sometime, I'm sure...(He works there)

There are signs everywhere at the plant, I guess. There is a known plant-policy that doesn't allow Camera phones into the plant at all! I think he knew. I think he knew very well what the reprocussions would be, too.

Originally Posted by chadrcr

knowing the repercussions, I bet he would not do it again.