Fired for Cussin'.

[Jeff Lebowski]

S/M/L/XL, the size and significance of the ethical lapse is beside the point. Also, it may be of little significance to us, but it might be a pretty big deal for Mr. Devine, to have an employer that is ostensibly an extension of his church call him a liar in the public square has got to suck.

Unless of course, Devine was in fact lying about the circumstances leading to his firing. As if that sort of thing never happens.

I am struggling to see the ethical lapse here. Didn't they simply say that there is more to the story and Devine wasn't fired simply for swearing? If someone makes (presumably) a false statement about a university action, does saying "No, that is not correct" now constitute a violation of someone's rights? Yowza.

[UtahDan]

Unless of course, Devine was in fact lying about the circumstances leading to his firing. As if that sort of thing never happens.

I am struggling to see the ethical lapse here. Didn't they simply say that there is more to the story and Devine wasn't fired simply for swearing? If someone makes (presumably) a false statement about a university action, does saying "No, that is not correct" now constitute a violation of someone's rights? Yowza.

Jeff, you bit.

[byu71]

Unless of course, Devine was in fact lying about the circumstances leading to his firing. As if that sort of thing never happens.

I am struggling to see the ethical lapse here. Didn't they simply say that there is more to the story and Devine wasn't fired simply for swearing? If someone makes (presumably) a false statement about a university action, does saying "No, that is not correct" now constitute a violation of someone's rights? Yowza.

There are so many things one could think up in this situation. If I were the boss and needed to come up with something, I would tell people:

1) He wasn't a good employee and that was the last straw.

2) He has cussed before and been warned.

3) He didn't get along with people and that was the last straw.

I could make up many other reasons which could be true or false.

BYU is on both the plus side and negative side with their "can't comment policy". If there really is something, they end up not defending themselves. With the can't comment, the defendent can not answer the accuser.

It gets down to ones attitude about how BYU and people there function. I for one believe we aren't getting the whole story, however, sadly with the culture at BYU, I can't say the possibility it happened the way the kid said it did, didn't happen.

If it were at Ricks, I would believe it.

[RobinFinderson]

Unless of course, Devine was in fact lying about the circumstances leading to his firing. As if that sort of thing never happens.

I am struggling to see the ethical lapse here. Didn't they simply say that there is more to the story and Devine wasn't fired simply for swearing? If someone makes (presumably) a false statement about a university action, does saying "No, that is not correct" now constitute a violation of someone's rights? Yowza.

It is not a violation of Devine's rights. It is a violation of their own policy. It is like I said before -- the institution wants the benefit of calling Devine a liar without having to show that he lied. The institution knows that a majority of folks' loyalty will be to the institution, and that is why this unethical tactic will work. BYU should have simply stated, "It is a privilege to work at BYU. The institution tries to be fair and professional in its employment practices. We do not comment on any person's individual case."

If Devine is telling the truth, or if he is unaware of a secret list of complaints that had been building up against him, or if the other issues are extremely trivial, then this could really be a big personal issue for him. BYU should have just kept silent on this one.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It is not a violation of Devine's rights. It is a violation of their own policy. It is like I said before -- the institution wants the benefit of calling Devine a liar without having to show that he lied. The institution knows that a majority of folks' loyalty will be to the institution, and that is why this unethical tactic will work. BYU should have simply stated, "It is a privilege to work at BYU. The institution tries to be fair and professional in its employment practices. We do not comment on any person's individual case."

Please. BYU does some really stupid things at times, but trotting out weak-assed arguments like this softens your credibility when they actually do something that really does merit criticism.

If Devine is telling the truth, or if he is unaware of a secret list of complaints that had been building up against him, or if the other issues are extremely trivial, then this could really be a big personal issue for him. BYU should have just kept silent on this one.

I know people in the BYU HR department and I am aware of how they function. They are extremely careful. Standard procedure with an employee with issues is to have an interview and explain the problems. The employee is then given a letter as a record of the interview with a list of things that need to change. If those things are not addressed over a period of a few weeks or months, or if the behavior of concern is not addressed, then the employee is dismissed. BYU (like any large organization) has been sued over firings many, many times and so everything is handled in a systematic manner. Now, there are extreme cases where someone is fired without going through the interview/letter process, but that is quite rare. That is why this whole story doesn't pass the sniff test for me. There is no way someone gets fired for dropping an F-bomb. If that were true, 90% of the football players and most of the athletic coaches would be dismissed every week.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It is not a violation of Devine's rights. It is a violation of their own policy.

By the way, what policy is this? I know they don't comment on HC issues with students, but is there some policy about never commenting, regardless of the circumstances, on employment/staffing issues?

[Goatnapper'96]

I know people in the BYU HR department and I am aware of how they function. They are extremely careful. Standard procedure with an employee with issues is to have an interview and explain the problems. The employee is then given a letter as a record of the interview with a list of things that need to change. If those things are not addressed over a period of a few weeks or months, or if the behavior of concern is not addressed, then the employee is dismissed. BYU (like any large organization) has been sued over firings many, many times and so everything is handled in a systematic manner. Now, there are extreme cases where someone is fired without going through the interview/letter process, but that is quite rare. That is why this whole story doesn't pass the sniff test for me. There is no way someone gets fired for dropping an F-bomb. If that were true, 90% of the football players and most of the athletic coaches would be dismissed every week.

The entire incident just proves the hypocrisy and threat to the Church that the BYU is! Obviosly this kid got fired for only saying the F-word and Frenchie was never fired!

[RobinFinderson]

Please. BYU does some really stupid things at times, but trotting out weak-assed arguments like this softens your credibility when they actually do something that really does merit criticism.

The extent of my 'weak-assed' argument is simply this: BYU did not follow its own policy of not commenting when it revealed (commented) that Devine's representation of the situation is inaccurate.

Do you want to argue otherwise? Do you want to argue that BYU's comment was better than remaining silent? I'm not making a huge point here, but I'm pretty sure it is a watertight point.

[creekster]

The extent of my 'weak-assed' argument is simply this: BYU did not follow its own policy of not commenting when it revealed (commented) that Devine's representation of the situation is inaccurate.

Do you want to argue otherwise? Do you want to argue that BYU's comment was better than remaining silent? I'm not making a huge point here, but I'm pretty sure it is a watertight point.

It is not water tight. More like sieve like. This mysterious policy that you have not defined is most likely grounded in the confidentiality rights of any employee in his or her employment records. Once that employee raises an issue in public or in some other forum, however, the employer is entitled to respond. BYU refused to divulge information about the particular proceeding but when the employee rasised other facts and matters in the press (and possibly elsewhere) BYU was entitled to respond that the facts asserted by the employee were inaccurate or incomplete. This does not violate the law or any policy AFAIK. If you have information about the specific policy on which your 'water tight' point rests, please share it. I doubt that one applicable to this specific set of facts exists, but I have been wrong before.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The extent of my 'weak-assed' argument is simply this: BYU did not follow its own policy of not commenting when it revealed (commented) that Devine's representation of the situation is inaccurate.

Do you want to argue otherwise? Do you want to argue that BYU's comment was better than remaining silent? I'm not making a huge point here, but I'm pretty sure it is a watertight point.

No, you are twisting the definition of that "policy" to fit your own narrative. Saying that Devine's account is incomplete has nothing to do with violating his privacy or exposing personal information. It is correcting a factual error.

BYU is simply saying that they don't fire people on the spot for dropping a cuss word. They are stating that they have a systematic and careful approach for dealing with employee performance, as is the case with virtually any large organization with a legal staff and an HR dept. Note the wording from the BYU statement:

BYU officials say they can't talk about personnel matters, but suggested there were other reasons Devine was let go.

"I can say the account being given is inaccurate and incomplete," said BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins. "In looking at any type of termination, what the university looks at is a pattern of work behavior and different types of behavior."

[RobinFinderson]

It is not water tight. More like sieve like. This mysterious policy that you have not defined is most likely grounded in the confidentiality rights of any employee in his or her employment records. Once that employee raises an issue in public or in some other forum, however, the employer is entitled to respond. BYU refused to divulge information about the particular proceeding but when the employee rasised other facts and matters in the press (and possibly elsewhere) BYU was entitled to respond that the facts asserted by the employee were inaccurate or incomplete. This does not violate the law or any policy AFAIK. If you have information about the specific policy on which your 'water tight' point rests, please share it. I doubt that one applicable to this specific set of facts exists, but I have been wrong before.

I've described it as an 'ethical lapse.' It probably isn't a legal one. I think that it is good policy, whether required by law or not, for institutions to be quiet about reasons for firing people. The policy was presented in the article like this:

BYU officials say they can't talk about personnel matters, but suggested there were other reasons Devine was let go.

Is saying that Devine's representation of the firing was inaccurate [per Carri Jenkins] 'talk about personnel matters'?

Creek, you are arguing that BYU is justified in commenting on personnel matters. In one of my earlier posts in this thread I acknowledge that BYU could be justified in doing this if it weren't for their own policy of not talking about personnel matters.

[creekster]

I've described it as an 'ethical lapse.' It probably isn't a legal one. I think that it is good policy, whether required by law or not, for institutions to be quiet about reasons for firing people. The policy was presented in the article like this:



Is saying that Devine's representation of the firing was inaccurate [per Carri Jenkins] 'talk about personnel matters'?

Creek, you are arguing that BYU is justified in commenting on personnel matters. In one of my earlier posts in this thread I acknowledge that BYU could be justified in doing this if it weren't for their own policy of not talking about personnel matters.

Then perhaps you should isolate and identify the policy you are relying on before condmening them. Can you do that yet, apart from the vague refernce in the article?

I also disagree it was an ethical lapse. This is like a lawsuit where someone sues claiming emotinal distress but then complains about having to reveal his psychological records.

[RobinFinderson]

No, you are twisting the definition of that "policy" to fit your own narrative. Saying that Devine's account is incomplete has nothing to do with violating his privacy or exposing personal information. It is correcting a factual error.

BYU is simply saying that they don't fire people on the spot for dropping a cuss word. They are stating that they have a systematic and careful approach for dealing with employee performance, as is the case with virtually any large organization with a legal staff and an HR dept. Note the wording from the BYU statement:

Correcting the facts IS COMMENTING on personnel issues in a he-said-she-said sort of way. I have no problem with Carri's statement that "In looking at any type of termination, what the university looks at is a pattern of work behavior and different types of behavior." But the statement that, "I can say the account being given is inaccurate and incomplete" was unnecessary, and non-trivial (from Devine's POV) commenting on personnel issues.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Correcting the facts IS COMMENTING on personnel issues in a he-said-she-said sort of way. I have no problem with Carri's statement that "In looking at any type of termination, what the university looks at is a pattern of work behavior and different types of behavior." But the statement that, "I can say the account being given is inaccurate and incomplete" was unnecessary, and non-trivial (from Devine's POV) commenting on personnel issues.

Nonsense. See creekster's post above. Once he makes an inaccurate statement they have every right to correct the record.

[RobinFinderson]

Then perhaps you should isolate and identify the policy you are relying on before condmening them. Can you do that yet, apart from the vague refernce in the article?

I also disagree it was an ethical lapse. This is like a lawsuit where someone sues claiming emotinal distress but then complains about having to reveal his psychological records.

BYU has inferred that they possess a record indicating that Devine has exhibited a pattern of poor/inappropriate work conduct. Moreover they have publicly stated that Devine is misrepresenting the facts in the situation, calling into question his integrity.

This wasn't necessary. It constitutes 'commenting on personnel matters.' And it isn't trivial, when considered from Devine's position.

As Jeff keeps pointing out, there are systems to address these situations. Revealing to the world that the worker is misrepresenting the events sets up an impossible to prove 'he-said-she-said' situation that is not a part of the official system for dealing with these kinds of things. BYU should have simply let the system work its way out without any further comment, except to point to the rules of the system.