Security Guard Fired for Getting Autograph

[1stWatch]

Boston, MA:
A Fenway Park security guard was promptly fired after he was seen on an ESPN clip getting a baseball autographed by Mets pitcher Pedro Martinez. The guard was employed at the location for nine years. Shock was expressed by Martinez about the firing and he wished to speak to the Red Sox owner about the incident. Several other guards interviewed who refused to give their names (I wonder why) also expressed dissatisfaction about the incident.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRe...ticleid=146429

[aka Bull]

Boston, MA:
A Fenway Park security guard was promptly fired after he was seen on an ESPN clip getting a baseball autographed by Mets pitcher Pedro Martinez. The guard was employed at the location for nine years. Shock was expressed by Martinez about the firing and he wished to speak to the Red Sox owner about the incident. Several other guards interviewed who refused to give their names (I wonder why) also expressed dissatisfaction about the incident.

Well I guess there is no such thing as progressive discipline for park employees at Fenway. Seems to me he could have received some kind of written reprimand and also be required to turn the autographed baseball over to the Red Sox. To my thinking that would have handled the incident and shown the workforce at the park that while the officer violated the rules he was fairly treated when disciplined. But firing....a bit much IMHO.

[Mr. Security]

Well I guess there is no such thing as progressive discipline for park employees at Fenway. Seems to me he could have received some kind of written reprimand and also be required to turn the autographed baseball over to the Red Sox. To my thinking that would have handled the incident and shown the workforce at the park that while the officer violated the rules he was fairly treated when disciplined. But firing....a bit much IMHO.

Agreed. Now if he was asleep at his post, then that wouldn't have been so bad.

[N. A. Corbier]

This sounds political, most likely due to the guard being shown on a national cable outlet (ESPN) in "dereliction of his duties." In reality, he's in a position that other fans aren't, the ability to get an autograph. It probably pissed a bunch of Mets fans off, and they made some noise.

How dare that guard get the opportunity when we can't?

Yes. I'm cynical.

[Lawson]

Wow.... Once when I was on duty, I got an autograph from Seahawks Quarterback Matt Hasslebeck.. we were always having Seattle sports stars coming through, the only problem we ever had was sometimes their executive protection personnel seemed to think their client shouldnt have to go through our screening process and they needed to "keep moving"

[N. A. Corbier]

Wow.... Once when I was on duty, I got an autograph from Seahawks Quarterback Matt Hasslebeck.. we were always having Seattle sports stars coming through, the only problem we ever had was sometimes their executive protection personnel seemed to think their client shouldnt have to go through our screening process and they needed to "keep moving"

That's understandable. You're screening process is creating a choke point for sniper attack or ambush. But are those principals really at that threat level where a choke point is that dangerous?

[CAR54]

Last year I was training a new guy that had been sent down as my replacement as a bank guard. Honestly the guy was just barely employable. At one point while he was suppose to be standing guard outside by the front door he came running in breathlessly asking for a pen. I'd left mine in the back so he interrupts a teller whose in the middle of helping a customer and takes her pen.

Meanwhile I look out the front window and waiting there is Cuba Gooding Jr holding a sack of hot food, and looking slightly confused/irritated. This new security guard has him waiting while he finds a pen. Cuba was pretty good natured about the whole thing but I couldn't help but feel a little sorry for the guy.

The security guard lasted about 2 weeks and was finally fired for talking on his cell phone right in front of the bank manager (after getting several warnings).

[Lawson]

That's understandable. You're screening process is creating a choke point for sniper attack or ambush. But are those principals really at that threat level where a choke point is that dangerous?

It was at the state capitol building, so I could see their understanding, but they have exterior Washington State Patrol patrols, Exterior Legislative Security patrols (us), 4-5 Interior Legislative Security Officers (us), The Client Executive Protection officers (them) and the Washington State Patrol interior security officers.

The screening process was mostly completed indoors (unless there was a line, in which he would have been allowed to use a VIP line[commonly set for senators, House Representatives and other legislators] and bypass). He would have been at a higher threat stepping out of the car and walking up the stairs then standing in the line.

[dla4122]

I wouldn't have fired him,or made him give the ball back. But I would have chewed his a$$, if he was busy getting an autogragh, who was providing security? But we are all human, he was prob a big fan. But he still would have been disciplined, a verbal warning, and the incident documented in his personell file. Firing seems way to harsh, when I am sure a verbal reprimand would have done just as good.

[Mr. Security]

I wouldn't have fired him,or made him give the ball back. But I would have chewed his a$$, if he was busy getting an autogragh, who was providing security? But we are all human, he was prob a big fan. But he still would have been disciplined, a verbal warning, and the incident documented in his personell file. Firing seems way to harsh, when I am sure a verbal reprimand would have done just as good.

If it's documented in his personnel file, then it seems more like a written warning rather than a verbal one.

[dla4122]

If it's documented in his personnel file, then it seems more like a written warning rather than a verbal one.

No not really, you document the fact that he had recieved a verbal warning for what ever act in his file. Depending the companies policy pertaining to Staff disciplinary Procedures. Like for us we get a verbal, then it is documented in our file that we recieved a verbal warning or counciling. Then if we do the same thing again, it goes to a written and so forth. Progressive disciplinary.

[aka Bull]

If it's documented in his personnel file, then it seems more like a written warning rather than a verbal one.

I have to agree with dla4122 here. We have verbal warnings or counselings documented that they occurred. It is necessary to be able to show this occurred should you find need to revisit the problem again and wish to go on to formal written disciplinary action.

Like the old saw goes - if it ain't in writing, it never happened.

[N. A. Corbier]

The term "Verbal Warning" has come to mean "Level 1 warning given verbally, then filed into your personnel record." What "verbal warning" used to me, I somewhat gather, was an "off-the-record warning that was not to be filed."

I call those, "Out-of-School Warnings." They didn't happen. They don't happen. They never will happen. Because if they happen, it shows "failure to document" and some other problems.

[Mr. Security]

Makes sense.