In case you haven't heard, Cameron Pettigrew, who worked as a client relations manager at Fidelity Investments in Texas, and three other employees were fired after supervisors found out they were sending instant messages about a fantasy football league that they ran.
His offense? As Fidelity put it: "Violation of Company Gambling Policy Involving Fantasy Football."
This kid, who was an exemplary two year employee, is now without a job. Pettigrew said he never received a single verbal or written warning before his dismissal. "I loved my job, my coworkers, and frankly, I loved Fidelity. I practically begged to have my job back," Pettigrew said . "I spent weeks trying to appeal my termination ... I even said I would take a demotion if they accepted me back."
Pettigrew was commissioner of a $20 entry fee league with nine other employees. According to Pettigrew, those other nine league members -- which included three team leaders and a manager -- were simply given warnings and got to keep their jobs. "They are all dear friends of mine and I would never want for them to be fired or additionally reprimanded," said Pettigrew, "but the way in which Fidelity applied our punishment was flawed and unequal."
According to Pettigrew, he was questioned by two company investigators for an hour and a half, where they wanted to know everything he knew about fantasy sports at the Westlake site. "They were insistent upon knowing about everyone involved, especially leadership, and whether those persons even mentioned a league," said Pattigrew. "I kept thinking, 'All of this over a $20 fantasy football league?' "
Fidelity spokesman Vin Loporchio says the company does not comment on individual employees out of respect to their privacy, but he did say that Fidelity has "clear policies that relate to gambling." Mr. Loporchio would not elaborate on whether Fidelity views fantasy sports as gambling, but said that Fidelity is not "making any judgments on fantasy leagues," and stressed that Fidelity's main concern is that it stays out of the workplace.
By the way, laws have been passed which define the terms "bet" and "wager," and fantasy participation has been excluded. Here's a link to a million-word legal definition. Pettigrew may have used his IM account for a non-worked related activity, but he wasn't gambling.
Why the harsh action from Fidelity? Perhaps they were concerned about lost productivity. Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas, estimates that workers who play fantasy football on the job cost American employers more than $32 billion annually in lost productivity, despite gains in workplace morale and camaraderie.
I don't buy it. If managers were to fire employees for every activity that was "non-productive", they would have to start with themselves. And by the time they were done, there wouldn't be anyone left to fire.
Is there anyone out there that agrees with Fidelity's decision? Well, if you do, then maybe you'd agree with these 10 additional stupid reasons to fire employees:
1. Using email or the internet for personal use. You will have a lot of company for this one. More than a quarter of companies have fired employees for misusing e-mail and one-third have fired employees for misusing the Internet, according to a survey by the American Management Association. I'm sure many of these are justified - so in order to qualify for the "stupid reason" list, we'd need to include emails to Grandma and looking up a recipe for tomorrow’s dinner.
2. Using the phone for personal use. Same thing, right?
3. Using your own cell phone or PDA on company time. Heck, the old "lost productivity" justification, right? In fact, it's stealing from the company, isn't it?
4. Pooping on company time. According to a leading Human Resource Consulting company, workers who poop on company time cost American employers more than $32 billion annually in lost productivity. OK, I made that up - but read Laurie Ruettiman's hilarious post and comments on this topic at her Punk Rock HR blog.
5. Selling Girl Scout cookies at work. This would be a clear violation of the company non-solicitation policy.
6. Dressing up as Santa and handing out Christmas cookies at work. This one is from my own HR file... I actually had to a counsel a manager for doing this. That ended up being one of the reasons I decided I could no longer be an HR Manager.
7. All forms of gambling, including brackets, squares, last man standing, and baby pools.
8. Excessive time off for a sick child, or any other personal distractions.
9. Tattoos and nose rings.
10. Anything other than legitimate work performance issues. There are plenty of cowardly ways to avoid having to deal with real performance issues.
I'd really like to hear from my fellow HR and workplace bloggers, managers, and all other readers. Do you agree or disagree with the action Fidelity took?
12/21 - this post has been revised based on feedback from a reader. He makes a good point - there are always two sides to every story, and we are only hearing the employee's.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)




14 comments:
Couldn't agree more, Dan. Pathetic. Our firm encourages our staff to participate in social media for business and pleasure and have reaped the benefits of:
- Relationship building, internally and externally
- Facilitating open communication and responsible risk taking (which isn't a contradiction)
- Healthy outlets for an otherwise grinding 24/7/365 world
- Increasing our online visibility, website traffic and sales leads.
We also encourage pooping at work. The alternatives would result in dramatic productivity dips not to mention severe physical and psychological stress. Do EAP's offer this kind of counseling?
But we frown upon wagering on pooping. Sorry, we have a 15-month-old at home. Couldn't resist milking the poop.
Yikes. ;)
Dan, I agree with the ridiculousness of this too. These are indeed lame excuses to fire someone so as to not deal with real performance issues.
People need breaks from work in order to be productive over the long haul. I'll throw this one out there...we let smokers take smoke breaks and don't fire them for that time. What's the difference between that break and a little internet or solitaire game time?
If more focus was placed on outcome-based performance, this silly stuff wouldn't even be relevant now, would it?
But Dan, Fidelity is a financial services company and we've spent the last couple of years dealing with the results of their leadership, so why does this surprise you?
However, it was extremely unfair to fire Cameron and only reprimand the others
It reminds me of the manager who wanted to fire a female security guard for having sex with a programmer, but planned on doing nothing to the programmer. I'm happy to say that HR VP told him no way, fire both or neither—fair is fair. Heh. Manager didn't want to lose the programmer, so both got a reprimand. (BTW, the manager was NOT invited to the wedding:)
Hopefully Cameron won't forget this when he is running a company in years to come.
Fisher Vista -
Yikes indeed! Thanks.
Aaron -
Thanks. What a jerk.
Janna -
Thanks. Love the smoke breal comparison.
Miki -
Thanks! So far it's Cameron 4, Fidelity 0.
Dan,
Here's what's shocking to me: Cameron actually lobbied to keep his job. How sad that poor economic conditions necessitate that a talented, energetic, model employee have to "beg" to stay.
Don't you believe that there are usually two sides to a story? I used to work for Fidelity, and they were widely regarded as a great employer. Apparently Cameron agreed, since he tried so hard to get back. Fidelity makes super-clear to employees that they may not do ANYTHING personal with their systems at work, because the risk of damage to their award-winning systems and to customers' accounts is too great (both have occurred). Maybe Cameron broke that rule.
Also, one of Fidelity's competitive advantages is their extreme devotion to fast customer response. They have displays thoughout office areas showing he current phone response time. When it gets bad, they cancel training classes and even send lunch to employees' desks. Administrative VPS are pulled from meetings and put on the phones. In that atmostphere, fantasy football at the wrong time would be a serious problem.
Furthermore, a company that handles customers' life savings needs tough rules against gambling -- and everything else that might worry some customers. Their employees have access to customers' accounts, and that calls for stricter rules about on-the-job behavior than, say, a shoelace manufacturer.
How can you be so sure that Cameron is telling the whole truth? Are you positive that he didn't cause a real problem and that he hadn't received warnings in the past? From your blog, we only have his words.
Honestly, you sound biased (maybe because of a love of fantasy football?). You might be right, but I think there are many readers who would like to hear the other side before reaching such a strong conclusion.
Dan -
Thanks, I appreciate your response.You are absolutely right, there are ALWAYS two sides to every story, especially when it comes to employee grievances.
After re-reading my post, and considering your explanation, I think I was too quick to judge Fidelity. I’ve revised my post.
For the record – I do play fantasy football. Did that bias my response? Probably so. I’m also a Fidelity customer, and have always been very satisfied with their service, so all the more reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I’ll chalk it up as a lesson learned.
A "financial services" company fires ANYONE for gambling with money...Oh, right. They 'manage' money. Yeah, right.
Here is another example of using "rules" v. "communicating" with employees to understand needs and motivations. Great workplaces focus on figuring out the needs of their employees and treating them with respect, not like docile revenue producers.
OK let's hear Fidelity's side of the story! I can't imagine any company firing someone over something like this. I can see a stern warning with a "don't do it again", but firing someone over running a fantasy football league..give me a break. What difference does it make if it's Fidelity vs. a shoelace company. I hardly think running a fantasy football league has anything to do with integrity or honesty. I don't get it..they're worried about an employee who runs or participates in a fantasy football league stealing from customers? Ridiculous! So if someone runs the league from home it makes them less likely to steal? Interestingly enough I used to manage a shoelace company and we had some pretty strict rules, including gambling. I can tell you this, I wouldn't dream in a million years of firing someone over something like this unless the circumstances were extreme. But as Dan said there are always 2 sides to the story. Let's hear it.
Dan,
Valid points in your post. I find that usually, it's our systems, policies and procedures that fail rather than people. Pettigrew may have been using bad judgment, and perhaps the punishment (dismissal) is in fact over the top. On the other hand, if there is a clear policy on “personal use of company equipment and time,” and it has been consistently enforced, then we have to accept the consequences of our actions. Since I don’t know the details on Fidelity’s policies, I will err on the side of not drawing hard conclusions. I believe they have the right to define “gambling” as they see fit for the purposes of policies (as opposed to legal action). Intuition tells me that if they are like most companies, they have not been consistent in policing their policies. Otherwise, employees need to know the rules of the game and play by them and take the consequences of their actions.
Dave K.
Executive Leader Coach
Zane -
Lol.
Workerhelp -
Thanks for your 2 cents!
Steve -
Agree, I wish we could hear more. And thanks for sticking up for the shoelace industry. (-:
Dave -
I agree, my sense is that inconsistancy came into play here.
This does not surprise me. Fidelity is very strict about gambling on work premises and equipment. Legend has it that many years ago a Fidelity associate accidently stuffed his NCAA brackets along with a customer's monthly account statement into an envelope that was mailed to the customer. His picks must have been bad as the customer was not happy about it – how can I entrust my money with the firm when employees are gambling during business hours. I believe this started the entire conquest to squelch gambling at Fidelity. Interesting though, a team outing to a local race track is not an issue. Here is an example - If you participate in a fantasy football league on Yahoo and while at work access Yahoo for a stock quote, you have violated Fidelity's gambling policy - during work hours or on work equipment, you navigated to a gambling website. If you are not participating in a fantasy football league on Yahoo, then this is not an issue.
Second, I work for a company who does not allow: personal internet usage from your desk, more than 3 1/2 hrs of personal phone time per month, or excessive use of email for personal items. And, it is frowned upon for having a mobile device turned on during working hours (cell phone, blackberry, iphone). To make it even more interesting, no tattoos can show, no excessive piercings, and no soliciting whether for a non-profit or profit (girl scouts, junior achievement, etc). As I manager, I have no choice but to support these polices even though I don't agree with them. But this is literally how it has been done for 120 years.
Your thoughts and the comments of others that followed were very interesting to me as I understand the points of view. But since I have worked in both environments, I understand the policies given the workforce demographics or number of employees. Fidelity’s gambling stance is tough, but fair. Multiple times throughout the year, the policy is communicated along with the consequences and I would question why someone would even think of violating it. It is similar to saying if you hold a hammer above your head and place your hand on the workbench, it will smash you hand when you swing the hammer.
Anon -
Thanks for providing your perspective. I've read it 3 times, and am really trying to understand why a workplace would impose rules like you've described. I just don't get it. However, a job is a choice, and we don't like it, we can leave.
Post a Comment