Plant Services - February 2008 - (Page 61)

IN THE TRENCHES The scenario presented here is based on a true story; only the names have been changed to protect the innocent. The Good Samaritan fallacy Acme demonstrates its animosity for someone who was only trying to help I n the early 1960s, Acme began manufacturing hightech gizmos for the U.S. military. Anne Goragote found employment at the plant 14 years ago and began a career in a variety of hourly wage positions in different departments. Her competence earned her a spot as a technician on a special team upgrading the plant’s automation and wireless communication system. In performance appraisals, her current supervisor, Pete Terbilt, wrote that Anne was an important part of the team and helped them get through certain critical stages in the implementation. In an effort to motivate, Pete suggested to Anne that being in on the project’s ground floor could open up some career advancement. Specifically, Pete dangled the carrot of a salaried position or a pay raise if Anne could maintain her productivity for the rest of the project. In a completely unrelated situation, Nola Contendrie, an employee in another department, was campaigning for a position on the executive board of the union representing Acme’s hourly workers. During the campaign, sexually disparaging flyers about Nola appeared in the plant and locker rooms. Nola complained until Acme investigated. The investigators spread out through the plant and in a conversation with Anne learned that she had seen a female employee leave flyers in the lunchroom and in one of the restrooms. Anne also said that she’d be glad to testify to this fact, if things went that far. Just to be safe, she reserved a few of her remaining vacation days for this purpose. Ultimately, Nola sued Acme, the union and its president claiming she’d been subjected to a hostile work environment. During her deposition, Nola stated that the only witness who saw someone distributing flyers was Anne, who she hadn’t met and who had no vested interest in the suit. This tidbit flew through the management grapevine. Early in the shift the next day, an enraged Pete stormed down a factory aisle to Anne’s workstation, summarily removed her from the project team and sent her back to the assembly line. A few months later, Anne received a memo from Acme’s HR department telling her that she was no longer needed to teach the evening skills training courses for other Acme employees, a part-time job that she relied on for a bit of extra income. Then, in direct contradiction to Pete’s promises, Acme formally declined to promote Anne to the next higher pay grade although the increase was long overdue. To top it off, Anne was informed that she and employees with less seniority were eligible for promotion only if they received more training and worked the night shift. Anne needed a break from this madness. A vacation was in order, but she’d heard nothing about being called to testify. When she tracked down Nola to determine when and if she’d be deposed, Anne was surprised to learn that she was Nola’s only witness and that the suit had already settled. Suddenly seeing a connection between a willingness to testify and the treatment she’d been receiving, Anne went to Cal Varey, Acme’s HR director, about her suspicions. Cal told her there’s nothing to be done and she might as well look for another job. The hazing probably wasn’t going to stop. Ever the optimist, Anne completed the extra training but was still denied the promotion. Then, Acme denied a specific request from the leader of the automation upgrade to have Anne join the team on a visit a key supplier. Acme also denied her a salaried position that could insulate her from the layoffs expected from the improved automation project. The termination steamroller caught Anne. Unlike the others, Acme didn’t refer her to a nearby Acme subsidiary for future employment even though it was known that the subsidiary was interviewing and hiring employees with less experience. An angry Anne filed a charge of discrimination with the state’s human rights commission and the U.S. Equal Employment 61 February 2008 www.PLANTSERVICES.com http://www.PLANTSERVICES.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Plant Services - February 2008

Plant Services - February 2008 Contents From the Editor Letters The PS Files Up and Running Crisis Corner What Works Asset Manager: Why Six Sigma? Technology Toolbox: Ensuring a Calm Response Cover Story: Best Practices Awards Lubricants: A Slick Success Story Motors: Reliable Torque Compressors: Before You Call for Help Web Hunter: Exploiting Intellectual Capital In the Trenches Product Picks Classifieds Fast Facts Energy Expert: Energy, Climate and Food

Plant Services - February 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.