Company Troubles

[Garrett Jax]

Garrett Jax, aka Bob, logged off Freelancer, plopped himself down on the couch and turned on the news to catch up on current events. A popular news program was on, and for once they weren't reporting on a certain blonde, loud and annoying, Presidential candidate, which was good.

This time, the news was covering some troubles involving a manufacturing company. The investigative journalist explained that for the next half hour, she would uncover all kinds of problems with this company and how it was effecting literally hundreds of hard working employees. Bob listened as she listed off the problems the company recently endured--bad management decisions, wrongful employee termination, striking manufacturers, the list went on. She would provide interviews with current and former employees as well as reenactments of management meetings where the troubles for the company were thought to have started.

After a brief introduction, the report turned to the start of the company's troubles--wrongful termination. The journalist explained that a new employee manual had been introduced to the workforce, new guidelines and rules that would help upper management be more effective in doing what they do best, managing the company. Along with the new manual, a company wide announcement was made that all employees would be given a clean slate in the eyes of their bosses. From the viewpoint of the workforce, this meant that all prior negative conduct at work was forgiven and everybody started from that point forward with no blemish on their record. It seemed, despite the awkwardness of it all, management was finally trying to bridge the gap with their workers. That is, until, weeks later, six employees were summarily dismissed.

Along with the announcement to the workforce that six of their workmates were fired, was a set of what employees describe as an unclear, vague list of reasons for their termination. Interviews with many of the terminated workers revealed that no evidence was provided indicating as to why they were terminated. There were no warnings prior to their termination. In fact, most of them felt that they were performing their jobs admirably. A few never had been in trouble with management before and none of them had been in trouble since the announcement was made concerning the clean slate.

As you would expect, the journalist commented, this evoked a tremendous outpouring of rage and discontent with upper management. Demands were made for a clearer explanation as to why six of their number would be terminated out of hand. There were a handful of employees that rejoiced over the news, due to some hard feelings experienced with one of the six, but even some of those who disliked the six had reservations. Would they be next? Would they be axed without warning? Morale in the company dropped. Screams of outrage and threats were hurled at those in management. A couple managers even took leave due to the threats. However, for many days, complaints toward upper management was met with only silence. This led to the next dramatic turn of events.

A strike by many of the manufacturers. Moved by a strong sense of justice, many of the manufacturers announced to upper management they were no longer providing their product to the company until a list of their demands was met. At the heart of those demands, was a clear expectation from upper management for justification of what appeared to be a sudden arbitrary abuse of authority by them. The battle lines had been drawn. Many employees joined in with the manufacturers and their cause. While others seemed put off at what appeared to be an outrageous set of demands.

A small handful of employees even used this crises as a way to ingratiate themselves with upper management. The journalist singled out one employee in particular. This person had been terminated by the company before due to extreme insubordination and consistent abuse of fellow employees. However, having a strong desire to get promoted to upper management, this once disrespectful individual discovered the opportunity to brown nose his way into a management position for himself. With many in the workforce expressing their dissent, management would certainly reward those who supported them. One manager even expressed to the workforce that that person was management material in his mind. However, that comment was viewed by many in the workforce as so outrageously bad, that it must have been a sick joke.

Day after day went by, with little to no communication between management and the workforce. Finally, a manager came forward with a few details as to what led up to the decision. The journalist reported that more than six individuals were up for termination, in fact, it was twice that many. It was announced that each manager was asked to bring forward to the vote, employees that they personally felt were problematic. Once brought forward, the entire management team voted as to whether they would remain with the company.

At this point, the investigative journalist announced that paid actors would reenact a compilation of the meetings held by the manufacturing company's management team.

Managers: The employee workforce is toxic. We need to do something about it. Too many people are skirting the rules. Too many are voicing discontent with how we manage this company.

Manager 1: Maybe we should do a better job as managers and the employees will like us more.

Managers: *laugh scornfully* Shut up.

Manager 2: We just need to get rid of some of the more toxic employees and then the company will be better.

Managers: Yeah, that's a good idea.

Manager 2: I got a plan. Lets get all the names of the most problematic employees and we'll vote on which ones we terminate.

Manager 1: What about giving these people a warning first?

Managers: *laugh more scornfully* Shut up.

Manager 1: Alright, what are the names?

Manager 3: I found one employee who always asks for raises. Damned annoying. Lets get rid of him.

Manager 4: I found one who always seems to find loopholes in our employee handbook. Lets get rid of him too.

Manager 5: I found one who always likes to argue with management with many of our decisions. I don't think he should be employed here.

Managers: Alright, we got 12 problematic employees to vote on. Lets vote.

***Vote***

Managers: Looks like we are going to fire six of the 12 employees. Who wants to give them their termination notice?

Manager 2: Why don't we just make a company announcement?

Managers: Great idea!

Manager 1: Did anyone compile some evidence explaining why these employees are going to get fired?

Managers: *silence*

Manager 1: Are you seriously going to fire these individuals without warning and without evidence of wrongful conduct?

Managers: *laugh scornfully* YES! Now shut up!

***Announcement***

***Employee Outrage***

***Manufacturer Strike***

Managers: Um, we screwed up. What are we going to do now?

Manager 2: Maybe we should compile some evidence and give it to the employees we terminated.

Manager 1: *sighs*

Manager 3: But there isn't hardly any evidence. What do you want to do about it?

Managers: Dig deep in their employee history and search for whatever dirt you can find on these individuals. There has to be something.

Manager 4: I found something from 2010. He called a fellow employee a bad name.

Managers: USE IT! Find whatever you got and mail it to them. The workforce is getting restless. We got manufacturers screaming at us.

Manager 1: You know, maybe we made a bad decision and we should rethink this?

Managers: Why are you still here? We thought you would have quit the management team by now. We have to save face. Our credibility is at stake. We can't back down.

Manager 1: *sighs*

***End of Reenactment***

The journalist concludes her news report by saying that this story is still ongoing.

Stay tuned for Part two, in which the company attempts to sue the investigative reporter for defamation of character.

---