An email I got from YEA

[BigBadMadMan]

I think it was the part about burning corps jackets -- that's just bad for the environment

But it's a "green" jacket!

[Jeff Ream]

i'll say this, then i'll go back to my moms hospital room.

i know some stuff about this situation. the girl had family ill in England.

to me, especially in an organization that preaches family, some understanding could have been shown.

because at noon today when i found out my mother had cystemic (spelling?)mass and we were waiting to see what the next step is, my boss told me to go do what I had to do, family always comes first.

[Willie85]

i know some stuff about this situation. the girl had family ill in England.

Jeff, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been in the same situation as you and can sympathize. Hoping the best for you.

However, I for one don't care to churn up any more private details of the bookkeeper situation from either party.

[glory]

so a family member being very ill is not ok?

You don't know that to be true. You don't know if a family member was geniunely ill. You don't know if her presence was needed immediately or at all. You don't know if someone was ill whether she adequately expressed her genuine needs to her boss. You don't know where the balance of responsibility falls.

HH

[JOHNNY_A]

fyi, this is neither libel or slander.

unprofessional? yeah.

poor taste? definitely.

unlawful? nope.

In Canada to publicly address reasons why an individual was either fired or quit is illegal. Privacy and confidentialality act.

[glory]

because at noon today when i found out my mother had cystemic (spelling?)mass and we were waiting to see what the next step is, my boss told me to go do what I had to do, family always comes first.

First, best wishes for a speedy recovery to you, your mother and your family.

Back on topic, your situation may or may not be comparable to the one we're discussing. Repeating myself now, we don't know what information was or wasn't shared in the YEA offices. We don't know what support was or wasn't offered. We don't know the relevant circumstances were. We don't know what responsibilities were met and which were not.

All we know is there is a reflexive blame assigned to YEA in this matter (old habits are hard to break) which seems to me to be based on a great deal of assumption and not much fact.

HH

[Willie85]

Again, suggesting a little respect and restraint here. I don't think it's productive or appropriate to speculate on the details of the work situation. What I think most folks (including myself) are voicing objection to is that those details were alluded to at all, and in a derisive, vindictive, and unprofessional way in a public, external communication.

[HockeyDad]

First, best wishes for a speedy recovery to you, your mother and your family.

Back on topic, your situation may or may not be comparable to the one we're discussing. Repeating myself now, we don't know what information was or wasn't shared in the YEA offices. We don't know what support was or wasn't offered. We don't know the relevant circumstances were. We don't know what responsibilities were met and which were not.

All we know is there is a reflexive blame assigned to YEA in this matter (old habits are hard to break) which seems to me to be based on a great deal of assumption and not much fact.

HH

The "relevant circumstances" to me are: people in position of authority, who should know better, who should be setting an example and acting professionally, failed to do so, in the manner in which they responded to an employee who quit employment. The details of why that employee quit simply do not matter. It's the response that reads like a temper tantrum that's generated the discussion. You are defending immature and irresponsible behavior from adults who should know better.

[glory]

The "relevant circumstances" to me are: people in position of authority, who should know better, who should be setting an example and acting professionally, failed to do so, in the manner in which they responded to an employee who quit employment. The details of why that employee quit simply do not matter. It's the response that reads like a temper tantrum that's generated the discussion. You are defending immature and irresponsible behavior from adults who should know better.

No. I said earlier in this thread that I don't think the note should have included such a discussion. I am not defending that. My previous posts speak for themselves.

Still, we agree that the "details of why that employee quit simply do not matter." I will add that they don't matter in no small part because we don't know them and shouldn't know them. That is why I have been calling out those who made assumptions about those circumstances.

I think that's where our agreement ends. I don't agree with the "immature and irresponsible" characterization. Without equivocating on anything I said previously, it bears notice that YEA didn't exactly call the individual in question a jerk. The most derogatory thing the note says about her is she is relatively young.

Here is the text of the offending email:

Ellen was good and getting better. We had provided a good bit of

training, she understood the activity, and she was a good team member.

BUT, there is no accounting for the logic and action of a 25 year old.

As George Hopkins will say, "it is a part of doing business as a

non-profit. You hire young and hope for the best. But boyfriends,

family, school, and opportunity are all out there in the world and it

is possible that we will lose some of the people we

love.'"

What exactly is the worst they said about the bookeeper? She was "good and getting better." That's not it. She "understood the activity"and was a "good team member." No, not that. Sometimes they lose some "people we love." Nope. Maybe it was "there is no accounting for the logic and action of a 25 year old." Or maybe (from earlier in the note), some might be offended by the account of how: "[They] lost their bookkeeper due to her decision to return to London immediately, without notice. To say the team was displeased is a bit of an understatement."

Paraphrasing now: YEA was pleased with her and her work. She is worthy of mention in the context of the people they love. They aren't pleased and can't understand why she would depart so suddenly and leave them hanging. That behavior is more typical of younger adults than older ones.

Again, I agree that this is a note which shouldn't have been sent. But now that the public threshold is passed, what is so offensive? That YEA is displeased that its bookeeper left peremptorily? Please. We're making a federal case out of an Allentown case. So what's new?

HH

Edited June 12, 2009 by glory

[JimF-LowBari]

But boyfriends,

family, school, and opportunity are all out there in the world and it

is possible that we will lose some of the people we

love.'"

What exactly is the worst they said about the bookeeper?

But now that the public threshold is passed, what is so offensive?

As a last post for the next week I'd like to say what bothered me about this:

It looks like a multiple choice quiz of "Guess why she left". Did she skip out because her boyfriend was more important than her responsibilites (not good), did she leave because she decided to go back to school without warning YEA (not cool), did she find a better job and just walk out without notice (not mature). Or was it a family matter which could be understandable under certain circumstances. Or was it an unbelievible combination of all of the above.... which is how the sentence reads to me. Why even send anything that leads to speculation.

And the whole paragraph <which I snipped> reads like "We love.... BUT.. <grumble, gripe, slam, grumble>"

I'm with HockeyDad, whoever wrote the original should known better. And GH should have known better than to close his response with the questioning of Tristan. To me, his response was saying what happened at YEA was in the past, nothing can be changed so don't dwell on it. Then he did a 180 by hitting Tristan with direct questions.