Zero tolerance is intolerable

The Mayor of New York fired a low-level office worker for playing Solitaire at work.

I find this worrisome for several reasons.

1. Retaining an employee is not a yes-no decision. It's a matter of "Do I need this job done?" and "Do I really believe I can get someone else to do this job better?" And "Will they do it enough better, and stay long enough, to make it worth the overhead of the staff churn?"
   


2. This is exceptionally egregious micromanagement. What happened to the model wherein the mayor makes demands of, say, high-level city managers, and manages them. And these mangers manage some middle managers, all the way down to whoever supervised this random office worker. And the question that matters is not, what kind of office environment do they have, do they play solitaire for a few minutes each day, do they have a Playstation in the break room, etc. The question that matters is, is this office performing? And if it's not, yell at the supervisor. And let him figure out that he needs to get this worker to quit screwing around and get some work done.
   
   Maybe this fellow was low level enough that a supervisor should be
   micromanaging his time. But the mayor?


3. It's not clear to me that playing solitaire violated any policy here. Is taking a break using a program installed on the computer really inappropriate? Certainly seems open to interpretation. If the purpose of the computer is getting work done, and throwing a couple solitaire cards around encourages coming up with euphemisms for the latest crime spree or whatever this fellow's job was, then it was appropriate. Would he have been fired if he'd had a GMail window open and was firing off a quick email his wife to say he'd forgotten to buy diapers for his kid on the way to work?
   
   Why was Solitaire installed on the computer if it was by definition against policy to play the game?
   
   Would he have been fired if he'd just been eyes-glazed-over staring at a spreadsheet?
   


4. Two words: progressive discipline. Have enough respect for an
   employee and for your hiring process to implement a means of
   encouraging, warning, disciplining, and eventually firing an employee
   if necessary.
   


5. This appears to be exceptionally myopic. A US-Robotics-style "no employee ever makes a mistake twice; he is fired the first time" approach. No consideration of the larger context.
   
   Is someone going to discipline the mayor for inappropriate use of his time?
   

On the other end of the spectrum, a Milwaukee police officer idly watched some other Milwaukee police officers beat some guy (who was not under arrest). The police chief fired him on the grounds that this was gross dereliction of duty. He was re-instated by the police and fire commission on the grounds that he didn't do anything. He did receive a 60 day suspension.



Play solitaire when your job is office work, get fired. Fail to intervene or report a violent crime when your job is law enforcement, keep your job.

What of the officers who did something?

"Three fired officers ... have all been charged with felonies in connection with the beating. ...

The officers were fired May 24 but have continued to receive full pay and benefits under a 26-year-old state law that applies only to Milwaukee police officers. They are paid until their appeals are exhausted with the commission."