Excluding the military, when is it acceptable for officials to ignore or act contrary to direct instructions from their superiors? When is it acceptable for employees? Obviously, when being asked to do something illegal,but how far can an employer go in trying to force an employee to do something against their belief? And, if fired, should the employee have recourse.

 

It really depends on a lot of things. For example: Missouri is an "at-will" state, that means that you can leave your job without notice, and you can be fired for pretty much no reason at all, at any time, unless of course you have a contract. So, they could just say they fired you for another reason.

 

I like Arizona's approach better. You're correct that Missouri is an "at-will" state. Arizona has a similiar set up, but they call it "right to work". I often enjoyed that phrase when dealing with a difficult employee.

"You have a right to work here...you have a right to work elsewhere."

Insubordination can be a relative term. As the OP mentioned, when asked to do something illegal or immoral, generally an employee can refuse and still have a job. But when you're asked to do something that is necessary and a part of your job and you simply refuse because you believe that you "know better" than your boss, you're being insubordinate and generally, have reduced the amount of time that you will spend with that employer.

I've been on both sides of that fence.

Why? What'd you do?

 

I have done nothing. Just reading a thread in another post in this forum ("A hero in my book") got me to thinking about the conflict between personal beliefs and duties required by an employer as a condition of employment.
I, too, have been on both sides of this one. I'm on the employer side now. When I was an employee, it was my thought (as it is now) that my personal beliefs should not stop me from doing what was asked of me, providing it was within the scope of my job description.I guess my question is regarding things like Pharmacists who won't sell birth control or state officials not carrying out orders or anyone who won't do their job based on their personal beliefs. These are only 2 examples, I'm sure that more can be sited.
I enjoy the discourse, and would like to hear everyones takes. Broaden my horizons ,ya know?

 

Quote lifted from the above mentioned thread...

Excellent point.

I'm not sure if I agree with the decision or not, but the Governor is the "boss" for lack of a better term, and if the employee does not do what the boss specifically spells out, he or she will probably be replaced.

Interesting debate tho. If the Governor says it's legal and proper, how does this guy "know better"?

Hmmmmm.

 

I can't speak for the man, but must assume that he believes in his ethical position to the extent that he would risk this job to avoid it's compromise. That being the case, he should quit and get another job rather than being a roadblock.

 

Exactly. I'm sure what "ethical position" would actually have any bearing to anyone's drivers license.

Seems to me that some folks are a little too busy being "right" as opposed to just doing their job.

 

I was dumping land clearing debris on this cow pasture, It was obvious that "the owner" was letting other companies dump on the property so I never thought a thing about it. Untill one day a guy stopped me while I was waiting for the gate to be unlocked he was coming out of the pasture and I asked him to leave it open, He said you are going to dump that in there I said yes he said who told me I could, I told him the guy I thought was the owners name, He said no way does he have any right to allow us to dump on his companies property!! I called up my supervisor and told him I am not going to be dumping on this property any more. The guys company was a wetland remediation company and the land was going to be turned back into wetlands and protected land, It had lots of old growth oaks, turkey, hogs, deer, bald eagles and I even saw a bunch of albino squirrels there!! The supervisor gave me all kinds of crap
about being scared to dump there, How am I going to let some guy tell me what to do,
I was like exactly, it is a $10,000. dollar fine for me, not to mention the fine the company would get for Illegal dumping not to mention threatning wetlands!! I called the owner of my company up and told him the situation, We never went back there again!!
We had to take it to a place farther away and more expensive, I think the supervisor had a deal going with that guy and they were splitting the money, the supposed owner only had permission to graze his cows there, not dump thousands of yards of dead trees and other crap!! I wasn't fired but the supervisor gave me hell, I said get over it man, I just saved the company money not to mention the company image!!

 

well, if the job has the potential to conflict with a person's belief's, then that person should not have that job. the employer expects when they hire someone that the person hired understands the entire scope of the position and the goals of the company.

the employer should refuse to do something if it is illegal or involves immediate safety concerns or may immediatly endanger someone elses safety.

i have had not much experience outside of the military though, i have only been working a civilian job for a couple of months now.

i think tennessee is a work at will state also, i like that, probably would like it more as an employer, i should not need a reason to fire someone from my own company.

 

I'm under the impression that "right to work" or "work at will" means that a person cannot be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. Is this so?

 

Correct. Or at least, my opinion matches yours.

 

Where I work, I can refuse to to something (and keep my job) under the following conditions:


1. The task is illegal.
2. The task is against corporate policy.
3. The task is unsafe (meaning that IF I do the assigned task, there is a risk of loss of limb [or other severe injury], life [to me or others] or damage to property [anyone's]).
4. The assigned task is covered under the job description of some other department or entity. (In which case, we should do the task, then file grievance.) However, IF the assigned task has an individual immediately available, then that person is to do the assigned task.

I have seen a supervisor disciplined for 'ordering' an individual to perform a task covered by #4, above.
The supervisor (in this instance) was informed that this is not the military, and he cannot 'order' anyone to do anything.

The above mentioned supervisor was told to either retire, or face termination for another instance like that, a year later.

 

I once got fired for "insubordination" at a job I had in town. The situation was that a new hire and I were running a machine, trying to make good parts. The new guy had trouble keeping up with the machine, which was'nt running right anyway, and parts were coming out that had no chance of ever being passed. I told the supervisor that he needed to either shut the machine down to fix the problem, plus it needed to be slowed down so the new guy could keep up. Either that, or put the new guy somewhere else and replace him with someone who could keep up. The supervisor told me no on both counts... machine was to run the way it was, at the speed he decided, and with the operators he put there. So I told him that I was not going to be signing off on any parts the machine made under those circumstances (basically, by signing off on them, I was guaranteeing the quality of the parts, and if they were later found to be of poor quality, it came back on me, not the supervisor). I was told that by refusing to sign off on "my own work" I was committing a breach of company policy and could face disciplinary measures. I asked to talk to the department head and was refused. I could either keep running the machine, or I could go home unpaid.

Well, to me, running bad parts just to run parts and make quotas seems wasteful and silly, so I decided to go home. When I came back to work, I got as far as the front door and was met there by the supervisor, the department head, and the HR mgr who had my discharge papers ready. They stated that I had threatened the supervisor with bodily harm, refused to sign off on my work, left work without authorization, and intimidating the new guy, who I later found out had quit later in the day after having gotten fed up with the supervisor.

I live in an "at-will" state, so they really did'nt need to go into such detail to get rid of me. I did'nt sign their waiver of liability or my discharge papers, and told them the whole story of what had happened to cause me to leave. It did'nt do me any good, but I figured they might as well have my side of the story.

I'm not real proud of getting fired, but I'd do it again if I faced the same situation. I like to think of myself as having some common sense, and like I said, making bad parts just to meet quota made no sense to me.

 

I got to thinking about the meaning of subordinate:

So if you are accused of insubordination you are thinking on your own and acting as a peer and not a subordinate.

I so often think that such accusations are not just the failings of the employee, but instead highlight the failure of management's leadership. FarmForward's post is a good example.

 

Farm Forward,sounds like the deck was stacked on that one. Can't agree more about running parts just to make scrap - I saw my share of that working for a now-defunct aerospace company. I think you did right.