seems like the biggest problems regarding employment comes from employees not knowing their rights
read the employment act.
9 Likes
or it existing in general
#yeettheactIsigned
4 Likes
All, I have to say is change and review. If someone get’s removed later on this week for “freedom of speech” expect a longer text from me.
4 Likes
Governor did not support that which was ash at the time.
2 Likes
I would like to state this towards you that Ash and Atlantic are best friends which made him say, “no” possibly. One more thing. I bet you with no hesitation Ash wouldn’t promote Atlantic to Lieutenant which other people deserve that position.
If someone can prove me wrong that Ash and Atlantic do not speak to each other a lot then ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Evidence 1:
3 Likes
I never said that they weren’t friends, but then again that situation was outside of FSP. Which I agreed on Atlantic’s argument about that.
But dont say stuff without knowing the full story. If I was “basis” toward Atlantic I would’ve never even made that announcement
2 Likes
Punishments shouldn’t vary from one person to another. That IS a problem in Firestone, and for a few departments. Command members are bias, there’s no doubt about it, and if you’re going to say their not, then you’re apart of the problem.
Friends of department command members or heads do not receive the same treatment and or punishment of people in-which are not friends with them. I’m not going to reference any specific circumstance, however it’s clear.
Department heads need to create a policy and or protocol that should be followed when certain situations arise, so that when said action occurs, there is a punishment already statured for them to receive, rather than waiting to think of one.
I also feel as though some department heads now, compared to a few years back, have become less strict, and more lenient. This is something that should be addressed to them from the Governor administration, in hopes that they’ll buckle up, and change for the better. Again, I’m not listing any specific incident, it’s just something that has slowly come along over time, and will continue to get worse.
9 Likes
I really agree with you. Department members should have set standards per say, a riot happens, and it moves into Firestone State Patrol chat. Bronze command+ should know what do you if something like that were to happen, not just putting slowmode.
3 Likes
Superiors not being so harsh right away. chill it’s roblox
3 Likes
BSP (Basic Supervisor Sec 3; Punishments issued should not be biased or unfair. If a supervisor abuses his/her
powers, consequences will arise and the perpetrator will be punished with care by
higher command.
2 Likes
Something also apart of that:
Punishments can vary depending on the individual, as there is no clear structure as to what punishment meets what criteria when a supervisor is handing out punishment. Supervisors can basically get away with this, as there’s no real evidence to provide false accusations of there being bias, as punishments are being come up with on their own.
If a supervisor breaks this policy, punishments will arise. Said punishments are also not laid out on foundation, and will be able to be changed depending on the person, again. Bias can still be present with this system, as it’s not effective, and anyone can easily get passed it.
4 Likes
I RETRACT ALL COMMENTS MADE.
strike was stupid, reduce the targeting of specific individuals.
3 Likes
Firstly bronze and silver command don’t have access to put slow mode on general only gold and high command can so don’t accuse all of bronze command+ when you don’t know
2 Likes
what will reporting corruption to DPS do, when DPS is the department with the corruption?
2 Likes
In the Situation of Trooper GreenCrawler dancing, I find it taken out of context. He dances, then if you listen you can hear he goes “Oh” and stops following that. I’m not going to say it was unintentional, but I feel as if striking someone for not even 3 seconds of dancing is crossing the line. It’s ROBLOX someone dancing for 1-2 seconds doesn’t hurt you, he stopped and realized what he did and as many of you know actions are louder than words, he not only realized what he did wrong but corrected it. I believe the correct punishment for such event should be a verbal or even written warning maximum, maybe even a letter.
3 Likes
Honestly, dancing for 2 seconds shouldn’t be punishable in my opinion. However, I think Congress should stay out of stuff like this and let the Executive handle it, unless there is a CLEAR abuse of power. I recommend potentially clarifying the rules (having set punishments for different offenses) or cracking down on potential bias.
Everyone has bias. I have bias. The FSP Colonel has bias. The Governor has bias. It should be required that people either set aside their bias or recuse from the situation if they have a clear conflict of interest (such as the investigation of a friend or someone you’ve dislike). I already think most departments require this.
I don’t necessarily think we have to become stricter. In fact, I very much support leniency and think that dumb punishments that are clear accidents or just small humorous events do not require disciplinary action. However, you shouldn’t be lenient to certain people and strict to others. You should either be lenient or strict to EVERYONE.
3 Likes
Every remedy has its downsides. Ignoring employment rights is easier, quicker, but may be difficult in the long run as a result of a court case.
If you think a court case will take too long then that’s your decision, you can negotiate with the department, mediate, and sort out a deal. Would be interesting for a change for lawyers to do.
2 Likes
If there’s a legitimate concern and you have any substantial evidence you’re welcome to reach out in dms
2 Likes
If you want this, you’re gonna have to make the employment rights way more lenient. In most cases, we simply can’t punish an employee because of the employment rights and the fact that a court case would be lost. For example, if we know who an employee is in a certain video in which they commit misconduct, but we can’t definitively prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (name showing, or a combination of factors like appearance, plates with callsigns, radio messages without their name in the ERU menu) we can’t give them any sort of punishment or the courts would just overturn it.
Recent example from DoC (did this so you can easily skip it if you don’t wanna read it)
In DoC we recently had a case in which an employee stood at the checkpoint and was approached by someone who then pulled a knife and easily killed them because they only briefly attempted to defend themselves with a taser and then basically just stood there. The only thing they did was press the distress signal right before they died. Unfortunately, this employee was also breaking DoC’s name showing policy, which meant we couldn’t directly identify them. If you then question them to attempt to find out what happened, of course they’re not gonna talk to you and tell you that it was them. So, we had to do detective work and found screenshots of 2 employees who luckily went on-duty right before and after the incident and had this employee’s name showing on their ERU menus. Ultimately, we hope this was enough and the issue is now in court, but the courts could just say it’s not good enough and overturn it, while we know for sure who it is.
Example from SCSO (again did this so you can skip)
This example is from a little further back, but still very much relevant. A Lieutenant in SCSO punished an employee based on a picture that showed them sitting in front of their car that has ELS on in the middle of the RW Gas intersection, for no apparent reason. The picture didn’t show any definitive evidence of who was in it and there was no supporting evidence as far as I’m aware, except for the fact that the punished employee posted this picture in a Discord server. When I heard the details of this case, I was prepared to immediately remove the punishment, as I didn’t think there was any substantial basis to it. It should be noted that this specific employee was known as a trouble causer (as I point out in the next paragraph, departments aren’t interested in punishing people for no reason). However, the employee took this issue up to the courts immediately and didn’t even drop the case when the punishment was removed as we believed it was falsely issued. So basically, I wasted my time on continuing this court case, as the court wasn’t prepared to drop it due to them filing the case before the punishment was removed (they filed a case almost immediately). Obviously, the court issued that we were in the wrong, which we already realised and had already corrected. Employees usually take their departments to court almost immediately over every punishment, even if they know they did it, unless the proof is amazing (which it usually isn’t because employees usually know and exploit the employment rights so they can break policies without punishment). In my opinion, they should at least go to a superior first, because it’s just costing departments a lot of time. Obviously, if it is really false and nobody wants to do anything about it, they should be allowed to take it up with the courts and have it overturned because it’s not cool to issue false punishment, but this usually just isn’t the case.
In 2017 and 2018 we didn’t have employee rights acts that were so strict, but we also barely had any issues. Departments were able to punish those who needed punishment without issue. There were also barely any issues, though, because departments simply aren’t interested in unfairly punishing people. Why would you just hand out punishments to everyone? It’s not like it’s fun to do so and it would also just ruin your department’s reputation. Nobody’s gonna join if they know they’re falsely going to get punished within no time because that’s how the department works. Almost all departments have some sort of superior/oversight entity that can easily be appealed to if necessary. People can almost always go to DPS or the Governor or the CE. Right now employers have to consider the laws for every little thing they do and check and then double check if they’d win a potential court case. It’s very demanding an to be honest just a huge waste of time for a game. It’s not very fun when your job is basically reduced to considering whether you’re going to win a virtual court case because someone did something they shouldn’t be doing and then having to spend time on conducting said court case while you could be doing all sorts of other useful stuff and might be very busy in real life.
9 Likes