Supervision Tactics.

[ChuckyZ73]

Do you think its a pour discipline tactic to disable the AC on a patrol car?

[jeff194307]

Any time that type of "disipine" is used by a client or a company, there has to be some type of underlying reason for the poor supervision being displayed. Case in point would be the college where I work. They suddenly decided that we could no longer use our pov's to patrol in inclimate weather, stating that they found out that the schools insurance did not cover us ( from talking around, I discovered the real reason- we caught too many students violating the rules) Now we must patrol in a covered utility vehicle that resembles the clown car at the circus. It is so noisy that one cannot hear the radio or cell phone!!! We have a dean of students who is so liberal that she chooses to codel even the worst students. I say that you have two choices here, either put up with the non air conditioned vehicle or find another place to work.

[ChuckyZ73]

I am not the one it happened to I am the one doing it. He says its not fair. I wanted to get others opinions before I went to my supervisor. The reason I was instructed to disable it was because the guard supposedly did a no call no show. He claims to have never agreed to work the shift. my supervisor says he did.

[txinvestigator]

That is poor management, IMO. Disabling the AC has nothing to do with the alleged violation. Managing like that is usually a result of the Peter Principle.

The principle holds that in a hierarchy members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain.

[Jedi]

If you value your job, don't do it. Taking actions like this can be construed as creating a hostile work environment and can lead to the employee suing the company and the supervisor. The company should have a progressive discipline system in place that includes verbal discipline, written discipline, suspension, and termination. In fact, if your company management instructed you to take this action, I suggest finding another company... FAST.

[ChuckyZ73]

Belive me I would like to find another job but I am currently in the police academy and I currently have a shaky employment history, quiting and going to a new job will only cast more shakiness into the mix.

[SecTrainer]

Do you think its a pour discipline tactic to disable the AC on a patrol car?

Okay - (and I know everyone's been waiting for this day :D) - NOW I'm totally speechless. I can't find words to describe my contempt for such a tactic.

[tanko]

I'm not surprised that your manager/supervisor told you to disable the AC. I'm guessing he wants to pawn off all responsibility of any foul up on you. Granted shaky employment history seems bad, but having someone file a workplace grievance for hostile work environment and naming you in the complaint is far worse down the road.

Try to document everything you can on your own end, without raising any eyebrows. Also, it comes down to a moral issue, since your becoming a law enforcement officer would you tolerate such behavior... Or better yet, do you think whoever interviews you would tolerate such behavior if they found out?

If I were you, I would absolutely refuse to do this and find out how to deal with this. This could be a real career ender for you. Just my two cents.

[Mr. Security]

That is poor management, IMO. Disabling the AC has nothing to do with the alleged violation. Managing like that is usually a result of the Peter Principle......



Very good advice.

[CAP]

#1
The no call/ no show is easily dealt with if there are S.O.P.'s outlining attendace, tardiness, etc. It sounds like there needs to be an investigation into whether or not the officer was aware of the schedule change. Was it posted in a timely fashion and did the officer ACKNOWLEDGE the schedule change?

#2
It sounds like the disengaging of the air conditioner on the patrol vehicle is a personal "hit" towards the officer. You CANNOT supervise/manage based on PERSONAL FEELINGS. It appears your supervisor needs some remedial management/supervisory training. (Does the company have a "Supervisor Training Program"?)

#3
Front-line employees and supervisors (in our company at least) are not allowed to tamper with, attempt to repair, or perform any type of maintenance to a vehicle unless it falls under normal P.M.C.S..
I would most definately check the Company's S.O.P.'s to see if you are even allowed to perform any type of maintenance-like functions to the vehicle.

[doulos Christou]

Do you think its a pour discipline tactic to disable the AC on a patrol car?


Absolutely. This is nothing but a lawsuit waiting to happen as it has been stated already. I would definitely note everything and leave as soon as I could...

[bpdblue]

Brother,

When you finally get out from your company, please list the name of your company for us to see.

Speaking for myself (but probably for many others also), I would NOT WANT TO WORK for a company like yours, with supervisors like you have (and I'm not talking about you).

The kind of tactic that your supervisor wants you to use on that employee just plain SUCKS. Don't do it.

[bigshotceo]

Keep in mind that if you start doing things that seem on the surface to be more about frustrating and annoying the guard than as part of a proper disciplinary structure, you're running a greater risk that the guard'll take it personally and have feelings or resentment and anger, which can unfortunately result in bad things happening (theft, vandalism, bad-mouthing of the company you work for, etc...)

[theconstipated1]

We usually put them on the street for a couple of days on the first offense of No Call No Show. We asked them to check the schedule when they get here and when they leave. When I make "unusual" changes to the schedule. I tell them to check the schedule thoroughly.If they still don`t do it ,that`s on them.

[Sgt.Campbell]

I know I'm late jumping in on this subject, but I felt it was an important enough topic for future reference.

In reading the above replies, I noted that most of the posters were concerned about lawsuits. I agree, but for different reasons.

Depending on the area, this could actually be construed as an officer safety issue. I work in the Sacramento Valley, and I can tell you that no amount of wind in the world can cool you off when wearing a ballistic vest under a black uniform on a summer day here. If the officer can't/won't drink enough water when on patrol, there is a significant risk of heat exhaustion or even heat stroke. Grounds for a lawsuit could reach far beyond simple harassment to other, more serious criminal charges.

[Justice_Hound]

I know I'm late jumping in on this subject, but I felt it was an important enough topic for future reference.

In reading the above replies, I noted that most of the posters were concerned about lawsuits. I agree, but for different reasons.

Depending on the area, this could actually be construed as an officer safety issue. I work in the Sacramento Valley, and I can tell you that no amount of wind in the world can cool you off when wearing a ballistic vest under a black uniform on a summer day here. If the officer can't/won't drink enough water when on patrol, there is a significant risk of heat exhaustion or even heat stroke. Grounds for a lawsuit could reach far beyond simple harassment to other, more serious criminal charges.

This is interesting:

That line of reasoning implies that the company may be REQUIRED to provide patrol vehicles with A/C due to the workplace safety aspects. What if the reasoning was just that the A/C increased fuel consumption or was broken. Along that lines, I think that if you want to work for me, wonderful, but you have to deal with a vehicle that doesn't have A/C if I can't afford to buy another patrol vehicle.

I don't think that it would hold up in court. Well, maybe in sue happy Cali but not in my state.

[Sgt.Campbell]

This is interesting:

That line of reasoning implies that the company may be REQUIRED to provide patrol vehicles with A/C due to the workplace safety aspects. What if the reasoning was just that the A/C increased fuel consumption or was broken. Along that lines, I think that if you want to work for me, wonderful, but you have to deal with a vehicle that doesn't have A/C if I can't afford to buy another patrol vehicle.

I don't think that it would hold up in court. Well, maybe in sue happy Cali but not in my state.

God bless California! :D Frankly, I think that to reduce costs (if that were an issue), we should do away with our outmoded Interceptors and switch over to the more fuel-efficient Chargers. Unfortunately, like many patrol companies, we are locked into leases that don't expire for at least another year, so we're stuck with our gas-guzzling vehicles. Which doesn't make sense to me, considering we have a no-pursuit policy.

Also, a security officer that gets out of their vehicle sweating like Jeffrey Dahmer when the cops opened his refrigerator just plain looks unprofessional.

[Swifty]

That line of reasoning implies that the company may be REQUIRED to provide patrol vehicles with A/C due to the workplace safety aspects. What if the reasoning was just that the A/C increased fuel consumption or was broken. Along that lines, I think that if you want to work for me, wonderful, but you have to deal with a vehicle that doesn't have A/C if I can't afford to buy another patrol vehicle.

I don't think that it would hold up in court. Well, maybe in sue happy Cali but not in my state.

Yeah but that is not the issue at hand. If you purposely disabled it to make someone suffer as a form of punishment then it can very easily turn into civil liability even without any direct damages. If you were in an area where heat is a serious issue (Texas, So Cal, Arizona, etc.) and the person suffered some sort of bodily harm because of this intentional act then you could be looking at criminal charges as well.
Your explanation is like comparing a premeditated murder to a kid shooting his brother while playing with a hand gun. The intent is the defining issue here.

[SecTrainer]

Yeah but that is not the issue at hand. If you purposely disabled it to make someone suffer as a form of punishment then it can very easily turn into civil liability even without any direct damages. If you were in an area where heat is a serious issue (Texas, So Cal, Arizona, etc.) and the person suffered some sort of bodily harm because of this intentional act then you could be looking at criminal charges as well.
Your explanation is like comparing a premeditated murder to a kid shooting his brother while playing with a hand gun. The intent is the defining issue here.


+1.

Inflicting physical punishment of any sort is simply forbidden, folks, and I can guarantee you that it would take a competent attorney NO time at all to show that this was exactly that. Do you have to provide AC in the first place? Probably not. But to DISABLE the AC that IS already available as a disciplinary technique will undoubtedly be viewed as quite a different matter by the court.

With that having been said, even if it WERE legal, this has to be the most ignorant, totally brain-dead, ineffective and stunningly IDIOTIC supervisory tactic I've ever heard of, and I've seen some pretty dumb ones. I would not merely relieve this person of his supervisory responsibilities, I would hustle him out the door so fast he wouldn't know whether it was March or Tuesday. And then I'd throw his lunch to the hogs.

[Investigation]

I am not the one it happened to I am the one doing it. He says its not fair. I wanted to get others opinions before I went to my supervisor. The reason I was instructed to disable it was because the guard supposedly did a no call no show. He claims to have never agreed to work the shift. my supervisor says he did.

This is just plain immature on behalf of your supervisor. It really sounds like he needs some training in personnel supervison. The correct way would be to document the employee's work performance and take action up to termination depending on your company guidelines.

[Mr. Chaple]

This is just plain immature on behalf of your supervisor. It really sounds like he needs some training in personnel supervison.

Agreed. Training tool of choice....

[travis061986]

Thats ridiculous to disable the AC due to a No Call No Show. It has nothing to do with the violation. I could understand if the employee never got out of the car and always kept the windows up.

Sounds to me like poor management skills. It sounds like your supervisor is trying to have you do their dirty work!