12-06-2014, 12:04 PM
(12-06-2014, 10:59 AM)CityFarmer Wrote:(12-06-2014, 10:38 AM)specuvestor Wrote: Which leads to my disagreement to what said below: An entity can have their own view, but if your view is a decision against another entity, ie sacking in this case, it has to be able to stand up to scrutiny. What NPark did is correct protocol. What TTSH did is not... or rather half... if they just shutup up to the point when they said they dismissed Roy due to poor performance... that's valid enough
I disagree with your "disagreement"
If a staff committed a wrongdoing and admitted it unambiguously, not verbally, but in signed black and white. The company is absolutely right to dismiss the staff, even the case is not reported to police, and convicted in court.
I assume the same applies to Roy case.
U have a valid point. He did admit it first. The chronology should be amended to
1) Roy Accusing PM of stealing.
1.1 PM threatened to sue
1.2 Roy admit cannot substantiate what he said
1a Roy took down post
1b Instead posted summary of what he posted before and made a video (?)
1c Offered $5k compensation
2) PM suing of Roy
Before you speak, listen. Before you write, think. Before you spend, earn. Before you invest, investigate. Before you criticize, wait. Before you pray, forgive. Before you quit, try. Before you retire, save. Before you die, give. –William A. Ward
Think Asset-Business-Structure (ABS)
Think Asset-Business-Structure (ABS)