Or Maybe Not—After Giving Someone a Job, an Employer Can Be Forced to Keep Them
What does it take to fire someone these days? You might be surprised. Nobody looks forward to this, neither employer nor employee, but it’s a necessary part of the work-a-day world, something every boss has to do from time to time (as he must hire) to run a reasonably tight ship and stay afloat economically. Trouble is, firing somebody in Montana can be complicated, even in a business you started from scratch and through which you provide jobs to your community.
Let’s start though with public employees, where firing someone who is performing poorly or acting badly can take a virtual Act of Congress. We have seen this in Livingston lately with the Tubaugh case, in which a police officer had run afoul of the city and so they tried to fire him—they devised a strategy because that’s what you have to do these days. You can’t just say You’re fired, like Donald Trump, and be done with it, you have to build a case, add incidents to a file, and bring in legal advice, because lawsuits are likely relating to wrongful discharge or discrimination, while powerful special interests (public employee unions) hold most of the cards. It’s a bureaucratic mess, because in the public sector, the public is not the boss, we are just forced to pay for all this nonsense. Your official boss isn’t your boss either, not really. Unions and the courts are your boss, and they’re also your ace in hole.
So employees bring in lawyers to sue their employer for big bucks, or they keep their jobs because of that threat, even if they’re Jeffrey Dommer eating people for lunch, or the public, who they are supposed to work for, but eat instead.
Without getting into specifics of the Tubaugh case, we can say that his tenure has been problematic (complaints come our way) and that being able to fire him should have been an easy option (if only the Donald were in charge), but a judge ruled otherwise, so we taxpayers can continue to pay him not to work, even after he and his union turned their nose up at the make-work desk job he was gifted by the city, so they could prevent him from doing police work, which is the last thing they want him doing.
A similar example of this sad state of affairs is in the sad state of New York where bad teachers can’t be fired, and so they are paid to do nothing as they sit in “rubber rooms” reading magazines and playing checkers all day (they can’t quite grasp chess). Thank public employee unions, and please, vote accordingly.
Are there two sides to every story. Yes. But should a boss be able to fire someone when he needs to. Yes. Can that be unfair. Yes. But so is life, and we should not be forced to employ everyone we hire for life regardless of their shoddy performance, especially in the real world.
In the real world (the private economy), it is also difficult to fire someone in Montana. More than one employer has confided to us that when considering firing someone due to poor performance (not showing for work, high on so-called medical marijuana, poorly representing the business, etc.), they too have to be concerned about wrongful discharge lawsuits and build a file on the employee to be used in any subsequent lawsuit. We say fooey on that (expletive edited), hire who you need to hire, fire who you need to fire. It’s nobody’s business. An employee who fills the bill will do well, and an employer will keep him on the job and pay to keep him, while one who frequently screws up, well, as Clint Eastwood said, When a fella’s not getting the job done, you gotta let him go. Call it a life lesson.