Introduction To Human Resource Management

1. Do you believe Oiler’s employee rights were violated? Explain your position. a) After reading this case yes I believe that Mr. Oiler’s employee rights were violated for a number of reasons. For starters the case did not provide any evidence that proved that his personal life behavior affected his performance at work. The case study did not mention anything about Mr. Olier cross-dressing at work or doing so while spending time with fellow employees. What Mr. Olier chose to do during his personal time did not affect his job in any way according to this study. In fact it was shown that he was a good employee with a great reputation and work ethic. On another note I also believe that Mr. Olier’s right to have a personal life was violated by his former employer. I say this because employees all over the world may engage in certain activities that may not be appropriate for the workplace, however they keep them very separate. In doing this is how we have a work-life balance, what happens in the office should remain professional and benefit the company. Just as what happens at home or after work hours etc. should remain personal.

2. What do you see as the consequences of organizations that punish employees for certain off-the-job behaviors? Explain a) Unfortunately in this case Mr. Olier was fired and the lawsuit was a victory for the Winn-Dixie company. However I think that an employer who chooses to punish their employees because they do not agree with or take offense to their “off-the-job behaviors” should be mindful that employees may not respond to this kind of situation quietly. I believe that employers should be aware that consequences such as lawsuits, bad press and a change in reputation can occur due to such actions. In a case like this the press alone would have a field day with exposing Winn-Dixie as possibly a biased or unfair company that does not believe in their employees having a personal life. Once this kind of situation is exposed the attention could be on a large scale and could possible affect the reputation of Winn-Dixie in a negative light to their consumers, future employees and possibly other companies affiliated with them. Another consequence could be the one included in the study and that is employee protest which affects productivity and company profit. Any of these consequences are possible which is why employers need to create alternatives for how to handle situations such as Mr. Oiler’s.

3. Would you consider Winn-Dixie an organization that exhibits characteristics of progressive discipline or the hot stove approach? Defend your position. a) In my opinion I disagree with how Winn-Dixie handled this situation based on what was included in the case study. To be quite honest I do not believe that they’ve exhibited either progressive discipline or the hot stove approach entirely. I think that Winn-Dixie took bits and pieces from each of these to create a wrongful decision. For example if looking at the progressive discipline Winn-Dixie did not give Mr. Olier any kind of warning, however they did punish him by firing him. Although the punishment wasn’t gradually severe, it was certainly severe. If we’re discussing the hot stove rule Winn-Dixie acted immediately however they did not provide ample warning, being consistent in this case isn’t applicable, and lastly I believe that it was personal rather than impersonal because Mr. Olier’s off-the-job behavior had no effect on his work performance.