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.
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.
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.
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.
I strongly support this. There should be a case law of sorts for punishment, normally the incident in question isn’t different than other incidents, but gets treated much more harshly or less harshly based on the employee’s relationship with HICOMM.
So you’re telling me he got punished for dancing for 2 seconds.
He isn’t even misrepresenting the department or anything, he clearly also said “oh” and stopped immediately as he knew it was wrong, fixing his mistake.
how is this congress’s job. As someone who has served both as a supervisor and currently as an Agent within DHS I see no issue with our current punishment system. If you fuck up you get punished depending on the severity and context. If anything the governor should be dealing with this
I think in my years here and many others can agree, there have been many instances of punishments varying based on someones popularity. Unfortunately there is no system in which bias doesn’t appear, but honest if the departments have gotten to the point where you cant dance for 2 seconds and for that you get the same punishment as someone who’s posted explicit photos as per the punishment levied for the other gentleman in the DPW, I don’t see any standards we shouldn’t pretend. I recognize every situation is different even if an “offense is the same” the actions leading up to it matter, the intent, and so fourth may not be so that does matter. I don’t know how anyone can say a system that punishes someone for dancing for 2 seconds the same as it punishes someone for posting explicit links is fine.
yeah they got a whole act lined up which basically tells department command to make their own employment rights, and not even universal ones at that. SCFD’s rights could vary from FSP’s which vary from DHS’
The current employment rights need to be fixed. The legislation even with the edits is sub par at best and that’s me being nice. That legislation mixes private business, and departments and so fourth that already is problematic for many reasons as departments standards and private business standards aren’t on the same level. With current legislation lets say i or someone else wanted to make a conservative news business, that is illegal under current law as it’s illegal to ask about peoples personal political opinions as a blanket law. It’d be better to get rid of what’s there and propose two entirely new bills that for one separate private, and public employment.
WRONG! when it came to administrative promotions like these i’d set aside any biases, firestone has fallen victim to favouritism to many times! atlantic is no doubt great friend of mine, but i treated him as i would anyone else when it came to promotions like these.
