Since there is no excitement or sex in this the only way to rate this is on storyline and contact. If I knew of a company that had so little regard for their employees I would never do any business with them. Should she be reprimanded... Yes. Terminated... No. And the former boss who obviously reported her is just an asshole. Employee moral at this place must be extremely low!
Stupid story and even worse that someone may write this thinking it was appropriate.
by
Anonymous01/04/16
BTB with collateral damage
Talk about vindictiveness ..
by
Anonymous01/04/16
re: Awful company and asshole former boss.
Did you read the story? She was given a direct order. There was no ambiguity about it, and she violated it. Termination was the only rational and logical response.
by
Anonymous01/04/16
Wrong Category
Belongs in Non Erotic category, or perhaps on a different site, altogether.
by
Anonymous01/04/16
It's hilarious to read the clueless housewives discuss employment, not understanding what revealing privileged information means as a major ethics violation. Or what liabilities follow from not following set processes.
Your other stories written several years ago...welcome back...hope you stick around and write more...maybe a sequel/conclusion to "Hook, Lie and Sinker"? Never the less, hope you will write more. This little ditty certainly made for lively discussion.
by
Anonymous01/04/16
Total crap!
What are you trying to tell us with that talk between a president and a secretary?
A completely uninteresting and meaningless bla bla bla!
And then there is again that shithead bonnytyler. Can someone move her into the trash where she belongs to, please?
Read into the story just a little. Hubby coulda conducted an illicit liaison at the current site until caught. So, that's NOT what happened. His Sweetie(?) was caught doing something absolutely unforgivable. Whatever it was, it was bad enough that Hubby transferred away and wanted ALL contact to be between his lawyer and her lawyer! His (trusted?) PA thwarted that process ... her loyalty was to Sweetie, even though Sweetie was not her employer!
ANY business which, or administrator who, tolerated such insubordination would collapse very soon!
"Flash story" is code for a lazy, half baked, cliche scene only here to lap up there praises of the anon btb cowards and their bitter old men allies. With a heaping helping of acorn for women thrown into the comments, because other than being closeted, bisexual wannabe cuckolds, that's one thing that unified anonymous cowards and btb authors together, a barely concealed disdain for women.
1 star for not bothering with a story, characters or anything remotely erotic.
by
Anonymous01/04/16
time to ban the homo hydra
Haven't read the story yet, but will. Lit needs to ban vasty-bonny-frontline. One ip addy should rid us of all three.
Anons regularly post more than once, it's remarkably way to do with a simple proxy server or other means of making our spoofing an IP. Professional websites block these methods easily, but as I've said before lit wants the anon trolls because those are more page views for their ads.
Want proof? Watch even someone as illiterate and stupid as duna or whatever he calls himself now past anonymously five or six times in a row copy/pasting the same blocks of gibberish each time and lit do nothing about it.
And I don't think all anons are the same person. I think most are a small group of people who don't actually constitute the majority of readers they claim to. I also think they can ask be generalized in this section as closeted bisexual wannabe cuckolds who know that they are too sexually inadequate to ever get a wife to cuckold them so they live vicariously through stories then get all mad and have to reassert their "masculinity" by shouting and ranting and emailing me to call me a "hung oup faget" whatever that means because they can't handle how much they wish they could just such a cock. Not just anons, mind you, some named accounts like duna, before his ban, zed, palewriter, and a few others are in the same boat. But they aren't anonymous cowards, so they aren't a cancer in this site.
Positive anons should still be banned, as frankly should spammers like bonnietaylor. But any of that would require work on the part of Laurel and cut into this sites page views.
(And now, let the countdown begin to someone accusing me of /being/ Laurel despite regularly calling this site a lazily run mess.)
by
Anonymous01/05/16
Actually frontlinecaster is an ass clown
And, this story is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Oh, my God! An authority figure has issued an "ORDER." We should fall all over ourselves! Why didn't the chickenshit "boss" handle his own personal business? It was illegal and unethical for the chickenshit to order his PA to deal with his wife. If he didn't want to talk to her, he could get a restraining order, not order his PA to not put her calls through. When he gave the illegal directive and then his "BOSS" enforced it by firing her, they both lost their jobs and the company paid tens of thousands of dollars in her wrongful termination lawsuit. Any attorney would love to get their hands on this case. "Don't put my wife's calls through" is not confidential business information. It's illegal and unprofessional behavior on the part of the chickenshit that won't handle his own problems. Stupid story that wasn't even a story.
by
Anonymous01/05/16
I thoroughly enjoyed this little missive....
.....primarily, because it reflected a little dose of reality into the star-filled eyes of those that think the world would be a better place, if everyone simply did what they (in the opinion of these ne'er-do-wells) recommend....if it stopped there, it might be tolerable, but when they undertake to interfere, trouble commences and runs on for months.
I actually had a situation somewhat similar to this, but instead of a marital breakup, it was a stalker. A third party thought it best to share information that the entire staff had been enjoined from sharing with anyone.
When the victim's situation worsened and they were attacked, they filed suit against the company, because an employee had violated a lawful restraining order by having specific communication with the stalker. The employee was found out, fired and prosecuted. The stalker/attacker was jailed, then prosecuted and sentenced and sent to prison, the victim hospitalized, then recovering moved out of state......and the world moved on.
This was an interesting peripheral view of how meddlers often ruin a good getaway. I'd like to see it expanded to include the other parts of the peripheral story.....the story never told, but rather assumed.....and to make it whole.
Why? Because this approach is practically alone in the vast sea of rehashed stories here. Anything different and well written deserves a lot more attention and a chance to grow.
Thank you.
Please consider adding to this. I find it unique in all Literotica and far more interesting than the acerbic and monotonic BTB stories, or the maudlin and endless cuck rewrites.
by
Anonymous01/05/16
There's someone who doesn't know employment law
No idea where s/he got the idea that stupid disobedience is *not* grounds for firing, but it certainly can be. And yes, I do hire and occasionally fire people.
A failure to obey an explicit and legitimate instruction from your boss, and willfully and deliberately doing the exact opposite in direct defiance of such an instruction, certainly constitutes gross insubordination. The actor in this story did not misunderstand the instruction, she chose to defy it. And then admitted doing so to a third party (the CEO).
That is termination for cause in any company I have worked in, including the F15's.
Would I actually terminate a PA for it ? Possibly.
I can say with confidence that if the PA admitted to doing the exact opposite of their instructions, to the extent in this story, and I did terminate that PA, H.R. would back me completely. There is no amount of "corrective feedback" or whatever the firm might call it that would fix deliberate defiance.
And besides, in this case, the PA disclosed personal information the she was not authorized to. That is, almost always, separately grounds for termination as well.
At the least, I'd toss that PA back into the pool, but it's questionable who would want a PA that disobedient. Their future in this firm would be bleak at best.
Yes it is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
A lawsuit against her.
Disclosing private information as she did is a violation of laws protecting the privacy of employees.
by
Anonymous01/05/16
Dumb shitkicker
@someone who doesn't know employment law. Yes, it's you. I actually happen to be a labor attorney. The anonymous commenter is actually right. The problem is, "Don't put my wife's calls through because she's a cheater" is not a legitimate business demand. It's a personal matter outside the purview of the business. The moment that instruction was given, the matter became actionable. Any subsequent actions or reactions are immaterial. The instruction had nothing to do with ordinary and usual business practice and constituted an intolerable burden on the PA
Supervisors are strictly limited as to what orders they are permitted to give to subordinates. "Suck my cock" is an unambiguous and direct order. It will also land the supervisor giving it in jail and any action resulting from that illegal order is the responsibility of the one issuing the demand. Don't talk about things you don't have a clue about. I would love to take this case.
by
Anonymous01/05/16
Who doesn't have a job affected by privacy laws?
It would seem to be obvious which people do not know any of the privacy laws. I don't know them all but I do know the general rule of thumb is that any personal information that is not available in a public forum (e.g. name/number/address published in public or corporate phone book), you can't give it out. It doesn't matter if you do it during work hours or not. In one case, all I had to prove was that a certain person had accessed the billing information of a certain phone number. There was no business reason for that person to access that information (it sure helps if the person denies accessing any of the information and the ex-husband knows who is the ex-wife's friend at the phone company). Assuming corporate housing info is not available to the general public and it is being used for a temporary private residence, then giving that out is probably a violation of privacy laws (the ones that affect me, anyway). Punishment could be anything from verbal reprimand to termination/prosecution.
I liked the comment about what would happen if it was a man stalking a woman. Many people would consider that to be a bad thing but in this story, it is a woman stalking a man and that apparently isn't as bad for some people...
going on here. not the story, just all the comments. the facts are that different states have different laws for employment. in my state kentucky, you can fire anyone for just about anything. yes there are some exemptions but not a whole lot. race being one of them. we had someone get fired for posting something dumb on facebook. violated corp. policy. the only problem her ex boss's might run into is the for cause part. then they wont have to pay her unemployment. hell the laws in this state are so fucked up the age of consent is actually 16 not 18.
Love how long everyone is spending arguing over this stupid, worthless non-story.
The author clearly doesn't care about justifying what is happening, so why should anyone waste their time worrying about whether it's 'realistic' or not. It's just an excuse for a bunch of bitter old men to feel superior and for a bunch of internet tough guy anons (who are all also closeted bisexual wannabe cuckolds, naturally) to heap scorn on women. Why worry about the details if it's doing it's job there?
Not the most interesting story, but still well written. The woman was honest, but stupid. The big boss followed labor law to the letter by specifically asking poignant questions that could not be misconstrued in a lawsuit. I appreciate accuracy and factual content as much as a the story line.
by
Anonymous01/06/16
Unsatisfying
Cold, correct and unfeeling. Yes, she was wrong ethically, but, as she clearly new the couple well enough to believe the we're perfect together, she was at least human. Yes, she should have got together with the wife, and maybe acted as a go between. I feel a bit sorry for the writer.
I believe many of you missed the point of my arguments . . .
Her reasoning is irrelevant.
She was ordered not to put through calls from the wife. During work hours, she followed those orders.
They can not order her to protect or harm aspects of their (or her friends') personal lives outside the job. Note that Stark was very careful to use the words 'at work'. This was good writing, because in court (if it ever went that far), he (and the company) are in real trouble if he indicated that she also had to do this in her private life.
Whether she was a busy body or not is irrelevant.
--She followed her work instructions.
--They bullied her, and actually, worse . . .
--Two men ordering a woman in a lower position to protect and keep secret parts of their personal lives when she's not at work IS a form of sexual harassment. Firing her caps it. If you've sat through those classes, especially the ones for management, you all know this.
Whether we want her to protect Mr. Snow or not . . . that's the reality. A good attorney, or even an average attorney and a conscientious company, and Stark and Snow are both toast (and Stark, at least as written, seems to know it).
Now I understand a lot of you hate what she did, and that's fine. I'd sure want her to keep that stuff secret if it were me . . . but I can't threaten her job over things I want in my personal life. I shouldn't involve her in the first place.
Reading some responses, I can't help thinking that it's tragic how often people will allow prejudice and emotion to override common decency. Kudos to this writer for bringing forth such a situation, and providing a personal test of sorts. Even when emotionally and on a visceral level we side with Snow and Stark, do we have the analytical ability and integrity to stand up for what's right?
Good examples from steve and Mike but especially Anony with 'Dumb shitkicker'
Steve857 what you said is true, but this is not a solicitation from someone (or entity) unknown. This was a very personal order. Mike, the State by State thing is true (which was why in one place I worked, it was great to be next door to a Federal Building that included a specific discrimination section . . . it was easy to get advice and bump things up the ladder if required). Sometimes it's more than State differences . . . it can have a lot to do with visibility of the company, determination on the part of the person complaining, etc.
Anony 1/04 (with the 'Dumb shitkicker' comment title) described it the way I understood some of the stuff we were taught in those various training films . . . there are some orders you really can't give. I know if I'd done what Stark and Snow did, there is one job that would definitely have fired me, and two others that would probably have reprimanded and disciplined me (though I was never as high up as Stark) . . . what Anony pointed out that I hadn't realized was the extent of her rights on the job. Anony's example - very direct though it was - really illustrated it well.
How to prove it? Okay. I call your work. I want your phone number and address. Why? I am not saying why. Wife didn't say why. For all the secretary could know, wife was going to do a Glenn Close on her ex husband.
Do you think that your co-worker should give me your PERSONAL INFORMATION like your address or phone number period? Are you okay with Becky down the hall just openly telling your phone number or address to any askers?
Does it matter if it is after hours or not? If you think it is okay, send me your real name and the phone number of your work by email so I can give it a try.
If, as a sensible human being, you thought that last suggestion was nonsense and beyond the pale, or an intrusion into your personal life, well, you would be correct. It would also be illegal. I don't care where she told the information.
But it is frowned upon. It isn't something that a person can be fired for. I agree with c24j. This secretary has a case for wrongful termination. She would be handsomely rewarded in court.
If being a busybody was reason for termination there would be a lot more pink slips being issued.
Read Anony 1/04 (the one titled Dumb shitkicker) comment
FD45 - I'm not explaining this well . . . Read Anony's post. It's one thing not to give out personal information to unknown outsiders . . . however, when a boss essentially states, 'don't put my wife's calls through because she's a cheater', it falls outside the purview of the business. There are limits to what a boss can order a subordinate to do, and because this particular order had to do with the boss's personal life, it fell outside those limits and was 'actionable'. Anony describes it much better than I. I KNOW I'd have been in deep trouble if I'd given such an order any place I'd worked (though in two places we were high visibility and the press and attorneys were often on the lookout for opportunities).
Further, comparing giving out phone numbers to unknown solicitors on one hand, to ordering a subordinate to take sides in a personal matter on the other, is really apples to oranges, which I think many will realize if you think about it.
Interestingly, when we had to watch various instructional films on employee-cilient / employee-employee / supervisor-subordinate / harassment etc. etc. behavior, I generally thought what they were teaching was silly, because inappropriate actions seemed so painfully obvious. From reading comments here, I can see a large number of people seem blind to what would constitute trying to force an employee to take sides in a personal issue outside the company, and I even sense a blindness to what constitutes bullying and harassment.
My first comment disappeared, so I will try again.
For me, it comes down to two points.
Is the boss allowed to order his subordinate to restrict access to himself? Of COURSE! That is part of the role of secretary! If he is brainstorming or in a meeting, he is perfectly able to say 'Don't put any calls through.'. WHY is irrelevant. Whether he thinks the CEO of Teledyne is an asshole or he thinks his wife is a whore, he is, as her boss, allowed to tell her what she is or is not allowed to put through...or disclose.
The other thing is personal data. I was wincing at the phone number. Privacy is a very fragile thing. I was grimacing at the address. Does this secretary know if this woman is a later day Glenn Close? I can at least hang up a phone. My ADDRESS?!? Who the fuck gives out addresses unsolicited?
In the military, at the doctor, on insurance forms, I am constantly requested to allow my personal data to be examined, input or transferred. Yet with all this paperwork, I am to believe it is legal for her to TAKE SIDES and give out an address on her own?
I believe the point can be debated, but I believe I have the stronger argument.
by
Anonymous01/08/16
ASTONISHING !!
I don't understand why so much commentary is being wasted here on labor law.
Maybe I do. It is much more interesting than the story.
Ntropy586 didn't write a story. He wrote a law class brief. A teaching scene.
Come on people! On an erotic(porn) site. He must be laughing his ass off!!
I come here for the entertainment !!
You guys shouldn't take this so seriously.
If it takes Ntropy five years to write something this poor. I'll be happy to wait five more years for his next post,lol.
FD45 - Please read Anony's post that I referred to
FD45 - Please read Anony's post that I referred to, and check with another labor attorney. It's not really matter for debate. Just check it out.
Maybe this explanation helps . . . Of course a boss (or business) can have a policy of not giving out personal information to outsiders or non-related clients. I have no argument there.
The difference is that this is the boss's wife. If 3 months ago, he was fine with information being shared with his spouse (or relative) but today he doesn't want to talk to them FOR PERSONAL REASONS, he is essentially ordering the subordinate to take his side in a personal matter, outside of business activities. This puts undue stress on the employee. A boss can not make such demands of a subordinate, and now his demand is actionable. In court, he's screwed. He changed policy for a personal reason, and has ordered the subordinate (who was friends with both) to take his side. If you're ever in a similar situation, I beg you, don't take any similar action . . . you could lose a lot, and possibly damage your company's reputation.
Now if company policy was that no family member was ever allowed to contact any employee for any reason, during work hours he might have a case (though it would be weak, since her contact was after work hours). Of course, if that were the case, he wouldn't have needed to make the demands of her that he did. If you think Anony's reasoning was wrong, please check with a labor attorney. I know that what Anony said agreed with most of what we were instructed in dealing with those we work with and supervise (at two places I've worked).
Mr Snow was transferred so no longer her boss. His instructions no longer matter.
Stark is hosed and hosed big time. At least on that point.
But most businesses have a non disclosure of personnel information clause. If this company has that she can be terminated under that clause. But from the sound of this story the company doesn't enforce it very well.
As to giving a negative response to a reference, well here also Stark is hosed. A former employer is only allowed to say "yes they work here" and if the individual eligible for rehire. Anything else, unless okay by the former employee, is considered slander in the eyes of the courts.
Now as to Mr Stark, He might very well not know this. This is why larger companies employ HR individuals to advise higher ups. Since HR was not sitting in this interaction my guess is Stark didn't know better.
Oh well I'm sure Stark was looking for a change of jobs anyways.
OK, I get it. She didn't do as instructed and got fired. But WHAT problem was caused by her giving out the information? Did the estranged wife go to the corporate apartment and catch her husband with another woman? Did she shoot them both? Was the apartment nothing but a well used "fuck house" for the corporate officers and now their little play house is now closed?
The story incomplete without same details about WHAT happened because she provided the information to Mrs. Snow.
I may be wrong but us busy body readers would enjoy the juicy details.
I never knew so many labor lawyers read this site. She absolutely failed to do her job. Her job was not to take the boss's side or his wife's side but to just do her job, which was to stay out of their problems. Wife or not he had the right to refuse her communications and the people whose job it was to handle said communications are tasked with one thing, route the calls as they are directed to do. No one has the right to interfere in the personal life of someone they work for. Again, he wasn't having her take his side, he was requiring her to remain neutral. Evidently that is a concept that many of the pontificators in these comments can't understand. Everyone is entitled to their personal privacy, even husbands.
And thank you again. Meddling assholes like this one shouldn't be just fired, she should be included in an "alienation of affection" lawsuit. No, I'm not a lawyer, and yea, maybe she wouldn't be legally liable for any damages, but the bitch should be made to pay for her disloyalty. If not through the courts, maybe another way. Hmmmm... gives me an idea for a story.
As anyone half-blind, like our snitching ex-employee, could tell easily! Mr. Stark was punishing her for putting his mistress back into the arms of her husband, just as "True Confession Stories" told her she should. Shame on him!
English
Awful company and asshole former boss.
Since there is no excitement or sex in this the only way to rate this is on storyline and contact. If I knew of a company that had so little regard for their employees I would never do any business with them. Should she be reprimanded... Yes. Terminated... No. And the former boss who obviously reported her is just an asshole. Employee moral at this place must be extremely low!
Stupid story and even worse that someone may write this thinking it was appropriate.
BTB with collateral damage
Talk about vindictiveness ..
re: Awful company and asshole former boss.
Did you read the story? She was given a direct order. There was no ambiguity about it, and she violated it. Termination was the only rational and logical response.
Wrong Category
Belongs in Non Erotic category, or perhaps on a different site, altogether.
It's hilarious to read the clueless housewives discuss employment, not understanding what revealing privileged information means as a major ethics violation. Or what liabilities follow from not following set processes.
Wrong Category
I'm not sure how you would get EXTRA MARITAL FUN out of this story to justify it in LW. 2*
Interesting tale but it belonged elsewhere.
Fantastic . period
gave you a 5 for a great LW story
Just Read
Your other stories written several years ago...welcome back...hope you stick around and write more...maybe a sequel/conclusion to "Hook, Lie and Sinker"? Never the less, hope you will write more. This little ditty certainly made for lively discussion.
Total crap!
What are you trying to tell us with that talk between a president and a secretary?
A completely uninteresting and meaningless bla bla bla!
And then there is again that shithead bonnytyler. Can someone move her into the trash where she belongs to, please?
I think we need the rest of the story
Another several chapters should do it.
@MGBDallas
Read into the story just a little. Hubby coulda conducted an illicit liaison at the current site until caught. So, that's NOT what happened. His Sweetie(?) was caught doing something absolutely unforgivable. Whatever it was, it was bad enough that Hubby transferred away and wanted ALL contact to be between his lawyer and her lawyer! His (trusted?) PA thwarted that process ... her loyalty was to Sweetie, even though Sweetie was not her employer!
ANY business which, or administrator who, tolerated such insubordination would collapse very soon!
As usual
"Flash story" is code for a lazy, half baked, cliche scene only here to lap up there praises of the anon btb cowards and their bitter old men allies. With a heaping helping of acorn for women thrown into the comments, because other than being closeted, bisexual wannabe cuckolds, that's one thing that unified anonymous cowards and btb authors together, a barely concealed disdain for women.
1 star for not bothering with a story, characters or anything remotely erotic.
time to ban the homo hydra
Haven't read the story yet, but will. Lit needs to ban vasty-bonny-frontline. One ip addy should rid us of all three.
Actually
Anons regularly post more than once, it's remarkably way to do with a simple proxy server or other means of making our spoofing an IP. Professional websites block these methods easily, but as I've said before lit wants the anon trolls because those are more page views for their ads.
Want proof? Watch even someone as illiterate and stupid as duna or whatever he calls himself now past anonymously five or six times in a row copy/pasting the same blocks of gibberish each time and lit do nothing about it.
And I don't think all anons are the same person. I think most are a small group of people who don't actually constitute the majority of readers they claim to. I also think they can ask be generalized in this section as closeted bisexual wannabe cuckolds who know that they are too sexually inadequate to ever get a wife to cuckold them so they live vicariously through stories then get all mad and have to reassert their "masculinity" by shouting and ranting and emailing me to call me a "hung oup faget" whatever that means because they can't handle how much they wish they could just such a cock. Not just anons, mind you, some named accounts like duna, before his ban, zed, palewriter, and a few others are in the same boat. But they aren't anonymous cowards, so they aren't a cancer in this site.
Positive anons should still be banned, as frankly should spammers like bonnietaylor. But any of that would require work on the part of Laurel and cut into this sites page views.
(And now, let the countdown begin to someone accusing me of /being/ Laurel despite regularly calling this site a lazily run mess.)
Actually frontlinecaster is an ass clown
And, this story is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Oh, my God! An authority figure has issued an "ORDER." We should fall all over ourselves! Why didn't the chickenshit "boss" handle his own personal business? It was illegal and unethical for the chickenshit to order his PA to deal with his wife. If he didn't want to talk to her, he could get a restraining order, not order his PA to not put her calls through. When he gave the illegal directive and then his "BOSS" enforced it by firing her, they both lost their jobs and the company paid tens of thousands of dollars in her wrongful termination lawsuit. Any attorney would love to get their hands on this case. "Don't put my wife's calls through" is not confidential business information. It's illegal and unprofessional behavior on the part of the chickenshit that won't handle his own problems. Stupid story that wasn't even a story.
I thoroughly enjoyed this little missive....
.....primarily, because it reflected a little dose of reality into the star-filled eyes of those that think the world would be a better place, if everyone simply did what they (in the opinion of these ne'er-do-wells) recommend....if it stopped there, it might be tolerable, but when they undertake to interfere, trouble commences and runs on for months.
I actually had a situation somewhat similar to this, but instead of a marital breakup, it was a stalker. A third party thought it best to share information that the entire staff had been enjoined from sharing with anyone.
When the victim's situation worsened and they were attacked, they filed suit against the company, because an employee had violated a lawful restraining order by having specific communication with the stalker. The employee was found out, fired and prosecuted. The stalker/attacker was jailed, then prosecuted and sentenced and sent to prison, the victim hospitalized, then recovering moved out of state......and the world moved on.
This was an interesting peripheral view of how meddlers often ruin a good getaway. I'd like to see it expanded to include the other parts of the peripheral story.....the story never told, but rather assumed.....and to make it whole.
Why? Because this approach is practically alone in the vast sea of rehashed stories here. Anything different and well written deserves a lot more attention and a chance to grow.
Thank you.
Please consider adding to this. I find it unique in all Literotica and far more interesting than the acerbic and monotonic BTB stories, or the maudlin and endless cuck rewrites.
There's someone who doesn't know employment law
No idea where s/he got the idea that stupid disobedience is *not* grounds for firing, but it certainly can be. And yes, I do hire and occasionally fire people.
A failure to obey an explicit and legitimate instruction from your boss, and willfully and deliberately doing the exact opposite in direct defiance of such an instruction, certainly constitutes gross insubordination. The actor in this story did not misunderstand the instruction, she chose to defy it. And then admitted doing so to a third party (the CEO).
That is termination for cause in any company I have worked in, including the F15's.
Would I actually terminate a PA for it ? Possibly.
I can say with confidence that if the PA admitted to doing the exact opposite of their instructions, to the extent in this story, and I did terminate that PA, H.R. would back me completely. There is no amount of "corrective feedback" or whatever the firm might call it that would fix deliberate defiance.
And besides, in this case, the PA disclosed personal information the she was not authorized to. That is, almost always, separately grounds for termination as well.
At the least, I'd toss that PA back into the pool, but it's questionable who would want a PA that disobedient. Their future in this firm would be bleak at best.
A brief tale, well told, thank you.
re: a lawsuit waiting to happen
Yes it is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
A lawsuit against her.
Disclosing private information as she did is a violation of laws protecting the privacy of employees.
Dumb shitkicker
@someone who doesn't know employment law. Yes, it's you. I actually happen to be a labor attorney. The anonymous commenter is actually right. The problem is, "Don't put my wife's calls through because she's a cheater" is not a legitimate business demand. It's a personal matter outside the purview of the business. The moment that instruction was given, the matter became actionable. Any subsequent actions or reactions are immaterial. The instruction had nothing to do with ordinary and usual business practice and constituted an intolerable burden on the PA
Supervisors are strictly limited as to what orders they are permitted to give to subordinates. "Suck my cock" is an unambiguous and direct order. It will also land the supervisor giving it in jail and any action resulting from that illegal order is the responsibility of the one issuing the demand. Don't talk about things you don't have a clue about. I would love to take this case.
Who doesn't have a job affected by privacy laws?
It would seem to be obvious which people do not know any of the privacy laws. I don't know them all but I do know the general rule of thumb is that any personal information that is not available in a public forum (e.g. name/number/address published in public or corporate phone book), you can't give it out. It doesn't matter if you do it during work hours or not. In one case, all I had to prove was that a certain person had accessed the billing information of a certain phone number. There was no business reason for that person to access that information (it sure helps if the person denies accessing any of the information and the ex-husband knows who is the ex-wife's friend at the phone company). Assuming corporate housing info is not available to the general public and it is being used for a temporary private residence, then giving that out is probably a violation of privacy laws (the ones that affect me, anyway). Punishment could be anything from verbal reprimand to termination/prosecution.
I liked the comment about what would happen if it was a man stalking a woman. Many people would consider that to be a bad thing but in this story, it is a woman stalking a man and that apparently isn't as bad for some people...
a lot of stupid
going on here. not the story, just all the comments. the facts are that different states have different laws for employment. in my state kentucky, you can fire anyone for just about anything. yes there are some exemptions but not a whole lot. race being one of them. we had someone get fired for posting something dumb on facebook. violated corp. policy. the only problem her ex boss's might run into is the for cause part. then they wont have to pay her unemployment. hell the laws in this state are so fucked up the age of consent is actually 16 not 18.
Love how long everyone is spending arguing over this stupid, worthless non-story.
The author clearly doesn't care about justifying what is happening, so why should anyone waste their time worrying about whether it's 'realistic' or not. It's just an excuse for a bunch of bitter old men to feel superior and for a bunch of internet tough guy anons (who are all also closeted bisexual wannabe cuckolds, naturally) to heap scorn on women. Why worry about the details if it's doing it's job there?
Not the most interesting story, but still well written. The woman was honest, but stupid. The big boss followed labor law to the letter by specifically asking poignant questions that could not be misconstrued in a lawsuit. I appreciate accuracy and factual content as much as a the story line.
Unsatisfying
Cold, correct and unfeeling. Yes, she was wrong ethically, but, as she clearly new the couple well enough to believe the we're perfect together, she was at least human. Yes, she should have got together with the wife, and maybe acted as a go between. I feel a bit sorry for the writer.
I believe many of you missed the point of my arguments . . .
Her reasoning is irrelevant.
She was ordered not to put through calls from the wife. During work hours, she followed those orders.
They can not order her to protect or harm aspects of their (or her friends') personal lives outside the job. Note that Stark was very careful to use the words 'at work'. This was good writing, because in court (if it ever went that far), he (and the company) are in real trouble if he indicated that she also had to do this in her private life.
Whether she was a busy body or not is irrelevant.
--She followed her work instructions.
--They bullied her, and actually, worse . . .
--Two men ordering a woman in a lower position to protect and keep secret parts of their personal lives when she's not at work IS a form of sexual harassment. Firing her caps it. If you've sat through those classes, especially the ones for management, you all know this.
Whether we want her to protect Mr. Snow or not . . . that's the reality. A good attorney, or even an average attorney and a conscientious company, and Stark and Snow are both toast (and Stark, at least as written, seems to know it).
Now I understand a lot of you hate what she did, and that's fine. I'd sure want her to keep that stuff secret if it were me . . . but I can't threaten her job over things I want in my personal life. I shouldn't involve her in the first place.
Reading some responses, I can't help thinking that it's tragic how often people will allow prejudice and emotion to override common decency. Kudos to this writer for bringing forth such a situation, and providing a personal test of sorts. Even when emotionally and on a visceral level we side with Snow and Stark, do we have the analytical ability and integrity to stand up for what's right?
Good examples from steve and Mike but especially Anony with 'Dumb shitkicker'
Steve857 what you said is true, but this is not a solicitation from someone (or entity) unknown. This was a very personal order. Mike, the State by State thing is true (which was why in one place I worked, it was great to be next door to a Federal Building that included a specific discrimination section . . . it was easy to get advice and bump things up the ladder if required). Sometimes it's more than State differences . . . it can have a lot to do with visibility of the company, determination on the part of the person complaining, etc.
Anony 1/04 (with the 'Dumb shitkicker' comment title) described it the way I understood some of the stuff we were taught in those various training films . . . there are some orders you really can't give. I know if I'd done what Stark and Snow did, there is one job that would definitely have fired me, and two others that would probably have reprimanded and disciplined me (though I was never as high up as Stark) . . . what Anony pointed out that I hadn't realized was the extent of her rights on the job. Anony's example - very direct though it was - really illustrated it well.
C24j
I think you are wrong.
How to prove it? Okay. I call your work. I want your phone number and address. Why? I am not saying why. Wife didn't say why. For all the secretary could know, wife was going to do a Glenn Close on her ex husband.
Do you think that your co-worker should give me your PERSONAL INFORMATION like your address or phone number period? Are you okay with Becky down the hall just openly telling your phone number or address to any askers?
Does it matter if it is after hours or not? If you think it is okay, send me your real name and the phone number of your work by email so I can give it a try.
If, as a sensible human being, you thought that last suggestion was nonsense and beyond the pale, or an intrusion into your personal life, well, you would be correct. It would also be illegal. I don't care where she told the information.
It isn't illegal to give out a phone number
But it is frowned upon. It isn't something that a person can be fired for. I agree with c24j. This secretary has a case for wrongful termination. She would be handsomely rewarded in court.
If being a busybody was reason for termination there would be a lot more pink slips being issued.
Read Anony 1/04 (the one titled Dumb shitkicker) comment
FD45 - I'm not explaining this well . . . Read Anony's post. It's one thing not to give out personal information to unknown outsiders . . . however, when a boss essentially states, 'don't put my wife's calls through because she's a cheater', it falls outside the purview of the business. There are limits to what a boss can order a subordinate to do, and because this particular order had to do with the boss's personal life, it fell outside those limits and was 'actionable'. Anony describes it much better than I. I KNOW I'd have been in deep trouble if I'd given such an order any place I'd worked (though in two places we were high visibility and the press and attorneys were often on the lookout for opportunities).
Further, comparing giving out phone numbers to unknown solicitors on one hand, to ordering a subordinate to take sides in a personal matter on the other, is really apples to oranges, which I think many will realize if you think about it.
Interestingly, when we had to watch various instructional films on employee-cilient / employee-employee / supervisor-subordinate / harassment etc. etc. behavior, I generally thought what they were teaching was silly, because inappropriate actions seemed so painfully obvious. From reading comments here, I can see a large number of people seem blind to what would constitute trying to force an employee to take sides in a personal issue outside the company, and I even sense a blindness to what constitutes bullying and harassment.
My first comment disappeared, so I will try again.
For me, it comes down to two points.
Is the boss allowed to order his subordinate to restrict access to himself? Of COURSE! That is part of the role of secretary! If he is brainstorming or in a meeting, he is perfectly able to say 'Don't put any calls through.'. WHY is irrelevant. Whether he thinks the CEO of Teledyne is an asshole or he thinks his wife is a whore, he is, as her boss, allowed to tell her what she is or is not allowed to put through...or disclose.
The other thing is personal data. I was wincing at the phone number. Privacy is a very fragile thing. I was grimacing at the address. Does this secretary know if this woman is a later day Glenn Close? I can at least hang up a phone. My ADDRESS?!? Who the fuck gives out addresses unsolicited?
In the military, at the doctor, on insurance forms, I am constantly requested to allow my personal data to be examined, input or transferred. Yet with all this paperwork, I am to believe it is legal for her to TAKE SIDES and give out an address on her own?
I believe the point can be debated, but I believe I have the stronger argument.
ASTONISHING !!
I don't understand why so much commentary is being wasted here on labor law.
Maybe I do. It is much more interesting than the story.
Ntropy586 didn't write a story. He wrote a law class brief. A teaching scene.
Come on people! On an erotic(porn) site. He must be laughing his ass off!!
I come here for the entertainment !!
You guys shouldn't take this so seriously.
If it takes Ntropy five years to write something this poor. I'll be happy to wait five more years for his next post,lol.
AMerryman
FD45 - Please read Anony's post that I referred to
FD45 - Please read Anony's post that I referred to, and check with another labor attorney. It's not really matter for debate. Just check it out.
Maybe this explanation helps . . . Of course a boss (or business) can have a policy of not giving out personal information to outsiders or non-related clients. I have no argument there.
The difference is that this is the boss's wife. If 3 months ago, he was fine with information being shared with his spouse (or relative) but today he doesn't want to talk to them FOR PERSONAL REASONS, he is essentially ordering the subordinate to take his side in a personal matter, outside of business activities. This puts undue stress on the employee. A boss can not make such demands of a subordinate, and now his demand is actionable. In court, he's screwed. He changed policy for a personal reason, and has ordered the subordinate (who was friends with both) to take his side. If you're ever in a similar situation, I beg you, don't take any similar action . . . you could lose a lot, and possibly damage your company's reputation.
Now if company policy was that no family member was ever allowed to contact any employee for any reason, during work hours he might have a case (though it would be weak, since her contact was after work hours). Of course, if that were the case, he wouldn't have needed to make the demands of her that he did. If you think Anony's reasoning was wrong, please check with a labor attorney. I know that what Anony said agreed with most of what we were instructed in dealing with those we work with and supervise (at two places I've worked).
Legally, Stark and Snow are hosed.
a question of law
Mr Snow was transferred so no longer her boss. His instructions no longer matter.
Stark is hosed and hosed big time. At least on that point.
But most businesses have a non disclosure of personnel information clause. If this company has that she can be terminated under that clause. But from the sound of this story the company doesn't enforce it very well.
As to giving a negative response to a reference, well here also Stark is hosed. A former employer is only allowed to say "yes they work here" and if the individual eligible for rehire. Anything else, unless okay by the former employee, is considered slander in the eyes of the courts.
Now as to Mr Stark, He might very well not know this. This is why larger companies employ HR individuals to advise higher ups. Since HR was not sitting in this interaction my guess is Stark didn't know better.
Oh well I'm sure Stark was looking for a change of jobs anyways.
Thanks for the offering.
What?
OK, I get it. She didn't do as instructed and got fired. But WHAT problem was caused by her giving out the information? Did the estranged wife go to the corporate apartment and catch her husband with another woman? Did she shoot them both? Was the apartment nothing but a well used "fuck house" for the corporate officers and now their little play house is now closed?
The story incomplete without same details about WHAT happened because she provided the information to Mrs. Snow.
I may be wrong but us busy body readers would enjoy the juicy details.
The comments here are hilarious.
I never knew so many labor lawyers read this site. She absolutely failed to do her job. Her job was not to take the boss's side or his wife's side but to just do her job, which was to stay out of their problems. Wife or not he had the right to refuse her communications and the people whose job it was to handle said communications are tasked with one thing, route the calls as they are directed to do. No one has the right to interfere in the personal life of someone they work for. Again, he wasn't having her take his side, he was requiring her to remain neutral. Evidently that is a concept that many of the pontificators in these comments can't understand. Everyone is entitled to their personal privacy, even husbands.
5 stars from pappy
5 stars
Neat.
I dislike meddlers.
Thank You
And thank you again. Meddling assholes like this one shouldn't be just fired, she should be included in an "alienation of affection" lawsuit. No, I'm not a lawyer, and yea, maybe she wouldn't be legally liable for any damages, but the bitch should be made to pay for her disloyalty. If not through the courts, maybe another way. Hmmmm... gives me an idea for a story.
great
this story put a smile on my face
But they were made for each other!
As anyone half-blind, like our snitching ex-employee, could tell easily! Mr. Stark was punishing her for putting his mistress back into the arms of her husband, just as "True Confession Stories" told her she should. Shame on him!
Wow once again the village cunt has spoken
Vicky, he was trying to protect himself from that money grabbing whore he married. Look between the lines not at how your life has gone.
Click here to leave your own comment on this submission! or
Back to Thirty Minutes or
More submissions by Ntropy586.