Would you fire him?

[Ethel mermania]

It was the "choose your words wisely" bit that threw the whole thing into bizarre world fantasy land.

Why? I mean, I personally would not use those words exactly but I would most certainly ask something along the lines of: "You are stepping over the line of what is acceptable. Calm down right now and explain your self or else." And that's just a really fancy manager talk for the same thing.

Remember the employer said it before the outburst. Thats baiting, and goading the employee to rise up. And no, no off8ce manager or line superviosr would say "or else" either.

But again I am walking that new employee out the door for his michaEl Jackson video response of. "Beat it"

[Purpelia]

Remember the employer said it before the outburst.

I do.

However, one morning the employee seems unbelievably pissed off. When you ask him what the matter is... he says its "none of your god damn business" and that you better "beat it."

That is a reasonable and calm inquiry to try and diffuse the situation. And it was rebuffed by a rude and aggressive outburst. One such outburst, even this tiny is exactly the line I am willing to tolerate.

Anything that happens after that which does not involve him profusely apologizing is a dismissible offense.

[Herrebrugh]

i'd probably agree with him, to be honest

[Ethel mermania]

Remember the employer said it before the outburst.

I do.

However, one morning the employee seems unbelievably pissed off. When you ask him what the matter is... he says its "none of your god damn business" and that you better "beat it."

That is a reasonable and calm inquiry to try and diffuse the situation. And it was rebuffed by a rude and aggressive outburst. One such outburst, even this tiny is exactly the line I am willing to tolerate.

From someone I knew as a good employee of a course of years, maybe
And they would still have to apologize and the incident gets written up . A new probationary employee? Out the door.

[Purpelia]

From someone I knew as a good employee of a course of years, maybe
And they would still have to apologize and the incident gets written up . A new probationary employee? Out the door.

Exactly.

[North Seattle Commune]

I'd understand his anger at me, as I am the one person with power of his pay. The complaints of the proletariat are many, and I would keep him as a worker.

[Dakini]

You are an employer.

You've recently hired a new employee. The employee performs exceptionally well and far above the level of your other employees. He's very friendly and behaves very professionally.

However, one morning the employee seems unbelievably pissed off. When you ask him what the matter is... he says its "none of your god damn business" and that you better "beat it."

You then tell him: "Choose your next words wisely, choose them true, and choose them right."

Who talks like that?

I would probably ask if they needed to take a break or to take the day off to deal with whatever their problem is (and also tell them not to speak to me that way because it's just fucking rude).

Then maybe the confrontation wouldn't have escalated into...

He then says to your face and in full view of the entire office:

"Okay then.

F*** the company.

**** this job.

**** you.

You can go **** yourself."

He then storms off and goes home, skipping more than half a day of work.

And this is why you don't ask questions that have an implicit threat.

The next day he comes back to work, happy and productive as a clam. You have not yet talked to him about his behaviour that day but a few days later... he's back to his super productive and over-performing mode.

Oh, he'd definitely be getting a nice sit down chat about how it's inappropriate to act like a petulant child in the workplace and probably being referred to HR so he can learn to express his emotions in an appropriate way (assuming this is a company large enough to have an HR department).

That's at the very least anyway, someone throwing an actual tantrum in the office maybe should be fired, but if there are extenuating circumstances or if this is really out of character for them and they accept that this isn't appropriate behaviour in the workplace, then another chance may be reasonable.

I'd summon him into the firm's main hall,

*snicker*

You mean "conference room"?

explain that he's insulted the honour of the company,

lol

and then fire him.

Which means you have to go deal with recruiting and training a replacement.

Not that you can't ever fire people when they decide to act like cunts in the workplace, but if this guy is really as great at his job as you say and this is really a one-time problem, then helping him deal with his problems is probably the better option (if possible).

When he chose to say those words, he didn't just make a mistake, he made a choice. He's insulted the honour of the company and if someone does so (regardless of their performance), they have to be let go. Otherwise you will not be respected and feared and you will be unable to run the organisation.

Oh man, bosses who "have" to be feared are the worst. They make morale low and turnover high. No wonder this guy flipped his shit in your scenario, the entire office is probably about to walk out when you're running the company based on "my employees must fear me" as a managerial philosophy.

You can respect an employer who you don't actually fear. Actually, I'm way more likely to respect an employer who treats me like a person than I am to respect an employer who is into the sort of power trip you're on in this little hypothetical.

Also, it is evident that he can no longer be trusted and that his loyalty is in question. And in this day and age, loyalty is currency. Its not a question of performance, its a question of loyalty and honour.

lol, do you ever even go outside to observe the world? What is this?

[Nimzonia]

The way I see it the employer-employee relationship is one of trade.

The employee sells his labor, defined as his skill multiplied by hard work applied over a predetermined period of time. The employer in turn provides him with money and additional benefits as defined by their contract and national law.

That's fine all you're doing is keeping the slaves in line at McDonalds. If you're trying to foster loyalty and initiative in a real workplace, it's a crappy approach to management.

The absolute worst managers are the ones who treat employees like meat robots, regard their relationship as purely transactional, and display excessive pride in their elevated position in the company hierarchy.

[Methodological Individualism]

The employee sells his labor, defined as his skill multiplied by hard work applied over a predetermined period of time.

Wages are based on objective and rational standards, rather than by the employers simple ability to exploit its relative advantage in ownership and access to wealth?

That's...cute.

[Summertimequestionswine]

Choose your next words wisely, choose them true, and choose them right.

So, like, am I some sort of dandy is this hypothetical scenario?

Because that is some awfully awkward, flowery language you go right there.

[Methodological Individualism]

The absolute worst managers are the ones who treat employees like meat robots, regard their relationship as purely transactional, and display excessive pride in their elevated position in the company hierarchy.

How else will those dumb animals know how to show up on time?

If you want the beatings to stop, just show better morale! Simple!

[Methodological Individualism]

Choose your next words wisely, choose them true, and choose them right.

So, like, am I some sort of dandy is this hypothetical scenario?

Because that is some awfully awkward, flowery language you go right there.

I dunno. This Knights of the Round Table approach might defuse the situation through its complete Pythonesque absurdity.

Or make it exponentially worse. Its the anticipation that makes it exciting!

[Ethel mermania]

Choose your next words wisely, choose them true, and choose them right.

So, like, am I some sort of dandy is this hypothetical scenario?

Because that is some awfully awkward, flowery language you go right there.

You need the hat and eppee

[Hurdergaryp]

The absolute worst managers are the ones who treat employees like meat robots, regard their relationship as purely transactional, and display excessive pride in their elevated position in the company hierarchy.

How else will those dumb animals know how to show up on time?

If you want the beatings to stop, just show better morale! Simple!

Otherwise the hits will just keep on coming.

[Ifreann]

Choose your next words wisely, choose them true, and choose them right.

So, like, am I some sort of dandy is this hypothetical scenario?

Because that is some awfully awkward, flowery language you go right there.

It's the butchered corpse of a line from Game Of Thrones, I think.

[Nimzonia]

So, like, am I some sort of dandy is this hypothetical scenario?

Because that is some awfully awkward, flowery language you go right there.

It's the butchered corpse of a line from Game Of Thrones, I think.

It has a kind of Last Crusade vibe to it, if you ask me.

[Torrocca]

You then tell him: "Choose your next words wisely, choose them true, and choose them right."

Honestly if I talked like that to someone clearly in distress, I'd stop myself, contemplate life for a moment, and check myself in to a mental asylum because clearly my brain wiring's gone to shit.

That or commit ritualistic sword-falling-onto midway through skydiving out of a C-130 to the sound of the Star Spangled Banner and explosions, as is the American way.

[Methodological Individualism]

That or commit ritualistic sword-falling-onto midway through skydiving out of a C-130 to the sound of the Star Spangled Banner and explosions, as is the American way.

Best. Resignation. Ever.

[Methodological Individualism]

It would only be his business if it was affecting his workplace performance to a significant degree, then a workplace intervention would be appropriate, otherwise, yes, has to keep his nose out.

I suppose it might vary by jurisdiction and such, but there are a lot of potential caveats and minefields in here.

At least in my jurisdiction, I enjoy a very high degree of privacy over matters even if they actually or potentially impact my workplace performance. The simplest example is that while I am obligated to request sick leave with as much lead time as possible, and I am obligated to provide documentation in the event that my use of sick time exceeds a certain amount, the actual nature of my medical condition is absolutely none of my employer's business. My documentation need only be a note: "This guy needs X time off for an outstanding medical condition," signed Dr. Doc.

My employer pays for my medical care, but the physical media containing my medical record belongs exclusively to my doctor, and the information contained in that record belongs exclusively to me. Generally, I need not disclose anything 1) unless I choose to and give explicit consent, and 2) only to the extent necessary to arrange for reasonable accommodations.

Try to "intervene" beyond that and I've probably got a really good case to take to HR. And/or a labor board, and/or an Attorney General.

[Tigeria]

Well since it seems he's calmed down a bit since the day before I would ask what pissed him off, and after hearing the explanation no matter what it is warn him to never do it again. Did this actually happen?

[Purpelia]

The employee sells his labor, defined as his skill multiplied by hard work applied over a predetermined period of time.

Wages are based on objective and rational standards, rather than by the employers simple ability to exploit its relative advantage in ownership and access to wealth?

That's...cute.

Don't be dumb. The text you quoted contains not a definition of wages but of labor. Wages are further defined from that as labor multiplied by what ever the hell the market is willing to pay for it.

The way I see it the employer-employee relationship is one of trade.

The employee sells his labor, defined as his skill multiplied by hard work applied over a predetermined period of time. The employer in turn provides him with money and additional benefits as defined by their contract and national law.

That's fine all you're doing is keeping the slaves in line at McDonalds. If you're trying to foster loyalty and initiative in a real workplace, it's a crappy approach to management.

The absolute worst managers are the ones who treat employees like meat robots, regard their relationship as purely transactional, and display excessive pride in their elevated position in the company hierarchy.

As far as I am concerned loyalty is gained through respect. And respect requires first and foremost that you make no demands of your employers that you are not willing to demand of your self and in turn allow no misbehavior that you would not permit to your self.

[Methodological Individualism]

Every state except Montana has "at will employment" meaning an employer can sack an employee at any point for any reason without just cause and without warning. So unless the OP's incident happened in Montana, you could 100% be sacked for it.

Barring a collective bargaining agreement or other contract saying otherwise, and even then you're going to want HR to carefully document a series of incidents and attempts to remedy them through a progressive step-wise process ending in termination where all else fails, lest you expose yourself unnecessarily to discrimination or similar lawsuits.

A single incident justifying fired-on-the-spot is going to have to be exceptionally egregious, and preferably within view of as many witnesses and/or law enforcement (to give you an idea of "exceptionally egregious") as possible.

Intentionally egging the employee into a verbal (and/or physical) fight as in OP is probably not going to cut it.

[Nimzonia]

As far as I am concerned loyalty is gained through respect. And respect requires first and foremost that you make no demands of your employers that you are not willing to demand of your self and in turn allow no misbehavior that you would not permit to your self.

What you think deserves loyalty is irrelevant. Your approach to management would result in nobody working for you except those who lack the skills to gain employment anywhere else. Nobody wants to work for a self-righteous martinet.

[Methodological Individualism]

Don't be dumb. The text you quoted contains not a definition of wages but of labor. ...

"Sells" implies an equitable exchange, as you note via the "market," etc.

Again, ...cute.

[Kotelia]

Come to think of it, I'd probably give him the boot. His tanturm is unprofessional.