National Clothesline

As the presidential election approaches, it is probably a good time to talk about the subject of “truth.”

Truth is a lot different than “spin,” which is a way of taking facts and characterizing them in a way that suits your purposes. Spin is hardly a form of the truth, but it is usually based on verifiable facts.

Under no circumstances is “spin” a good goal for employers dealing with employee discipline. If facts have to be spun to justify a decision to fire an employee, they can just as easily be spun by a plaintiff’s attorney to prove unlawful termination.

Moreover, a good plaintiff’s attorney — like a political candidate attacking his opponent to avoid having the voters look at his own record — can merely point out to a jury that the employer had to “spin” the facts to justify its action. If spin was necessary, the argument goes, there must have been a bad reason for the decision.

Truth, presented with confidence and clarity, is difficult to challenge. As Harry Truman was running for president in 1948, someone in the crowd yelled out “Give ’em hell, Harry!” Truman responded: “I don’t give them hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it’s hell.” The same is true about disciplining employees.

So often, employers are presented with an airtight, solid reason to discipline an employee, and then destroy their case by poor implementation. Let’s start with an example.

John walks into his supervisor’s office to discuss his lateness issue and John drops his pants, bends over, and tells the supervisor to kiss his butt (only he uses a more colorful term). On the way out of the office, he picks up a paperweight and throws it through the office window. John then goes back to work in the plant.

John’s supervisor, knowing that discipline should never be imposed in anger, decides to report the incident to the Human Resources Department, and requests permission to terminate John’s employment.

HR approves, and the task of telling John falls to the HR director and the president of the company.

At that point, John should be told that he is being fired for dropping his pants, telling his supervisor to kiss his derriere (although the actual word should be used in all discussions and written documents), and throwing a paperweight through his supervisor’s office window.

The state unemployment agency should be told that is why he was fired, and that should be the reason given in all future circumstances where the reason for the termination has to be disclosed.

Unfortunately, employers will take action against John and describe the reason as: “Engaging in an inappropriate display of anger and endangering others.” Further, the president or the HR director may tell John during the discharge interview that they “feel bad,” and “wish they didn’t have to do it,” or “have no choice but to support the supervisor.”

Oh, did I mention that John is 65 years old, recently returned from FMLA leave, Asian, and complained to OSHA last year about “fumes in the workplace”?

By spinning the reasons for termination to be more general and by trying to make themselves feel better about firing an employee who deserves to be fired, the president and HR director have made a good case less compelling.

Why did they “feel bad?” Why did they pass the buck to the supervisor instead of supporting the decision 100 percent? Why did they water down the reasons by using lawyer words like “inappropriate” instead of just telling what happened?

Discipline and discharge require direct, truthful language. Moreover, discipline must be delivered without apologies or any attempt to “soften the blow.” It is the employee who caused you to do this, so you should not feel guilty. If anything, you should be irritated that the employee put you in this uncomfortable position.

When I give seminars, I tell the participants to commit fully to being in management. When I was first out of law school practicing for a large firm, my mentality was that of an employee. I constantly blamed “them” for management policies that I thought were too strong.

Today, I am one of the people responsible for the firm’s policies, and I realize that being a manager is harder than being an employee who just works and gets paid. I now am proud to be one of “them.”

Therefore, if you are in management, take pride in what you do, and do not be uncomfortable or ashamed to discipline employees who deserve it.

Occasionally, you will come across a really nice person who cannot do the job. It is OK to feel bad about disciplining that person and ultimately firing him. But that does not mean that you should water down your reasons or try too hard to spare his feelings.

You do not have to be cruel, but you have to be direct. “John, the minimum number of shirts you have to finish per hour is 24, and you have never gotten above 3. I am discharging you for not meeting our minimal standard of production.”

Even nice guys, however, hire lawyers and sue their former employers. Give them as little evidence as possible to sue you. Tell the truth, stick to the facts, and save your compassion and understanding for dealing with your children. Employees are a lot like children, but they cause a different kind of pain.

When it comes time to discipline an employee, don’t “give him hell.” Tell him the truth and let his lawyer think it is hell.