Let's say, hypothetically, that a local church hires a staff member for a specific job. Let's say that, hypothetically, this job has a written, defined set of responsibilities and that the church has a similar set of written guidelines for their employees. Let's say, hypothetically, that this employee regularly fails to actually fulfill the responsibilities of their job well. Let's say, hypothetically, that one of their job responsibilities is to submit all volunteers for background checks. Let's say, hypothetically, that this has not been done (although it's been discussed regularly for months) for over 6 months.
What should this person's immediate supervisor do?
How does this person's failure to do their job affect other staff members?
What level of responsibility does the church leadership have for these continued failures?
Now let's say, hypothetically, that the church expects (in writing) all of it's full time/salaried employees to work 40 hours a week. Let's say, hypothetically, that the church understands that ministry is not a 9-5 M-F job and generally is very accommodating of the actual schedule worked, and flexible about it. Let's say, hypothetically, that this employee agreed to work from 6AM-2PM M-F as their primary work schedule. Let's also say that this employee has never actually worked an entire week according to the agreed upon schedule, and has never worked 40 hours a week in their tenure.
Is it equivalent to theft to intentionally and consistently work less than the amount of hours you are paid to work, while also not completing the duties of your job?
If the above answer is yes, does the fact that it's at a church make it worse, or is it no different from any other employer?
Finally, hypothetically. Let's say, hypothetically, that this person's spouse got a pert time job at the same church. At some point they realized that with the combined incomes that they were making too much for them to have the taxpayers of the state pay for their health insurance. They faced a conundrum in that they could not afford the health premiums on their combined income. (Leaving aside the affordability or not of healthcare for the moment. The costs are what they are, the choices are what they are. It's pointless to argue about this here. Further, the fact that there is a hard cut off on things like this is stupid.) What do they choose to do?
1. The part time spouse seeks a full time position that would allow them to afford health insurance.
2. The part time spouse quits their job so that the taxpayers (the remaining spouses fellow employees) can pay for their health insurance.
3. If the answer is 2, is that a moral or ethical choice for a believer?
Ultimately as one of many people who financially support this church, I would have serious questions about the stewardship of the money that members donate to the church. It seems reasonable for me/us as stakeholders and financial supporters of the church to expect that our donations be spent wisely and that those who are employed would respect the fact that their salaries are paid via donations.
Thoughts?
42 comments:
In general, while it is unethical to take advantage of the culture of the "company" in order to do as little as possible for wages based on a certain amount of work or hours, in a church or government setting, it's far worse given the source of the wages.
I'd say, about this hypothetical situation, that an online discussion is inappropriate for any real life scenarios like this.
Dan
Then I'd guess it's fortunate that this is a hypothetical situation.
Art, I tend to agree with that. If a staff member of a church is intentionally lying in exaggerating the number of hours they work, I see very little difference between that and any other swindle. That they are swindling those who give money expecting good stewardship only makes it worse. That the leadership/management chooses to allow this, again makes it worse. Allowing one employee to be exempt from the standards applied to others seems a bad choice in any workplace.
Then, yes, of course a church or other organization has a responsibility to provide clear instructions to their employees and oversight to see it through.
And of course, background checks are vital.
Of course, in a non-profit setting where the employee oversight is being done by volunteer and perhaps non-expert congregation, some grace is called for.
In my opinion about this hypothetical.
Dan
That would seem to be a minimum standard.
Of course they are, especially in areas where volunteers are one-on-one with people.
Hypothetically, all management and oversight is done by other employees/staff, including HR specialists.
Thank you so much for your vague, general, and bland opinions. I guess addressing the issue of whether or not this is theft and the quitting one's job for government benefits are just too tough for you.
FYI, I'm going to guess that you would never tell one of your clients who was looking for a job that these sorts of behaviors were acceptable.
I guess, in other words, depending upon the details, it sounds more like a failure of oversight perhaps due to volunteer labor... as opposed to potential intentional bad actions. At least, that would be my first guess as the more likely explanation. Of course, it could be bad intentions on the employee's part, too. I'm just of a mind that the more likely fault is in clarity of of oversight.
Dan
"Thank you so much for your vague, general, and bland opinions. I guess addressing the issue of whether or not this is theft and the quitting one's job for government benefits are just too tough for you..."
You gave a bland vague hypothetical. Without details, I can only give vague, conditional answers.
No, I'm not encouraging anyone to do subpar work. It just sounded more like a scenario where you're talking about congregation gossiping with guesses as to intentions, not having the details and facts. Many churches are notorious for operating on rumor and guesses and Without grace.
Dan
While there has been, I believe I mentioned it in the hypothetical, a failure on the part of the staff members charged with oversight of this one hypothetical employee. That doesn't seem to absolve the employee of living up to the employment agreement that they agreed to when they were hired.
If I worked at a bank and stole $100 every day with the knowledge of my supervisor, and even if my supervisor didn't correct me, it's still theft and I'm still responsible for my actions, aren't I?
I guess expecting some baseline level of integrity and commitment to fulfilling the most basic terms of the employment agreement is too much to expect.
It really was a pretty specific hypothetical, with plenty of details. However, I guess I shouldn't be surprised when you make assumptions and jump to conclusions rather than ask for the details that you think are missing. That you jumped to the conclusion that this was about a volunteers supervising a paid staff member (which seems absurd on it's face), I guess the details I did include just eluded you. That you then jumped to a conclusion about the congregation gossiping, with absolutely nothing in the hypothetical that even hints at that situation, shouldn't surprise me either.
Interesting that you bring up "Grace" in this hypothetical. It's almost as if you are suggesting that paid staff should be given "Grace" when they fail to fulfill the most basic requirements of their job. Like showing up on time, and working the amount of hours their salary is based on.
All in all , very helpful.
To answer your questions directly...
"What should this person's immediate supervisor do?"
Assuming all the above is factually correct...
1. Apologize for letting these problems go for six months without clarification and support.
2. Make it clear that the background checks need to happen within X number of days of being alerted of the volunteers name.
3. Clarify, Are we on the same page now?
"What level of responsibility does the church leadership have for these continued failures?"
Leadership is primarily responsible for making sure a new hire understands and is doing the work satisfactorily.
IF there is clear evidence of intentional misdeeds, the employee should probably be let go.
Dan
The same answer holds true for the hours being completed... that the employee, of course, has to work 40 hours if that's expected. With clarification on matters like, being on call or available to help does/doesn't constitute work time.
In my experience of working with churches/non-profits and with employee/employer relations, these sorts of problems are far and away the result of misunderstandings and miscommunication. But, in cases where intentional misdeeds are happening, the employee should be reprimanded or let go.
Dan
I know it's tough for you to answer questions directly, and I appreciate you choosing to answer a couple.
I agree, and pointed out in the post, that there is definitely a degree of failure on the part of HR/management/leadership to properly deal with this problem. I agree that this item (one of many) should be addressed immediately and your suggestion makes sense.
What if, for example, the issue of background checks had been covered and those things expressed on a regular basis for several months. Would that make a difference.
What if it's not so much "intentional misdeeds" and more simply stupidity or lack of ability to function?
Again, I agree that the hypothetical leadership has failed everyone as has the hypothetical manager, but at some level isn't there a degree of responsibility to at least make the attempt at doing the job?
One more reasonably clear answer, thanks. It's interesting that your first response is to place the responsibility for these basic job requirements on the hypothetical management, and only consider the hypothetical staff member as responsible if it's an "intentional misdeed".
FWIW, hypothetically, there is an understanding that working in a church (especially in a ministry department) is not always a M-F, 9-5 job. Hypothetically, there is great flexibility in when the hours can be worked and historically there has hypothetically been a great deal of grace applied to the subject of hours.
So, let's try this. Hypothetically, this hypothetical staff member has agreed to work from 6AM-2PM M-F, yet rarely comes in before 8:30 or 9. Would this qualify as an "intentional misdeed" is it happens more than 75% of the working days out of a month?
I don't know how much detail is required beyond what the hypothetical situation laid out. Basically, regardless of the job and the organization providing it, terms are laid out at the point of sale...the interview. If those terms are agreed to by the applicant, then the applicant is hired and expected to abide those terms. Failing that in any way should lead to consequences which should also have been expected. That management fails to enforce their own policies is as much a failure of service to those who pay the wages of management as the questionable employee. Both are failing to live up to the terms of their employment.
"What if it's not so much "intentional misdeeds" and more simply stupidity or lack of ability to function?"
Same deal. It's doing no favors to put someone in a position they can't handle.
Dan
"Would this qualify as an "intentional misdeed" is it happens more than 75% of the working days out of a month?"
It would be a case where mgt should have intervened and put an end to it. Regardless of intent.
And yes, given my job and experience, I tend to default to defending employees and asking how mgt and the employee could prevent this kind of thing. I think this is reasonable.
Dan
"let's try this. Hypothetically, this hypothetical staff member has agreed to work from 6AM-2PM M-F, yet rarely comes in before 8:30 or 9. Would this qualify as an "intentional misdeed" is it happens more than 75%..."
It's a problem, whether or not it's intentional. A problem that should be addressed by the supervisor.
Dan
Art,
For most of the US workforce I agree that it's pretty simple. If you agree to the terms of employment it's pretty cut and dried. Only Dan can make something simple so complex.
I definitely agree that the longer it goes on without management enforcing things, the more responsibility management shoulders.
I don't disagree with this. Yet, I also believe that the employee has a responsibility to do the job they applied for. At least to do the bare minimum and show up on time.
Craig:
I also believe that the employee has a responsibility to do the job they applied for. At least to do the bare minimum and show up on time.
Of course, we are in agreement on that point.
Well, that's something. At least you do expect some minimum level of performance from the employee.
I expect HUGE levels of performance from employees and employers both, especially when they're busy doing good work. If you've heard me saying that employees should do minimal levels and quality of work, that literally is not what I'm saying.
I believe in maximizing good work done at workplaces and having genuine, wholesome, life-giving productivity.
I recommend the book, Beloved Economies that are about building powerful, productive workplaces that are good arrangements for employers, employees and the world.
Dan
You'd never know that from your comments in this thread.
I'll try to be clearer. Perhaps you're starting out with presuming the worst of me and progressives that causes you to make presumptions about ideas that we haven't said?
Dan
That'd be great. Excellent job with the passive-agressive response though. Perhaps I'm reading your responses and responding to what you say, and it's just that simple. Perhaps it's you making assumptions and basing your responses on your assumptions. But mostly it's just reading what you write and responding.
Perhaps, you err when you assume that I respond to people in the same way you do. That I automatically classify people based on what "group" they're in and respond based on my biases and prejudices about that "group", as opposed to treating people as individuals.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say Dan's book recommendation would be a wholesale waste of time. What Dan finds profound typically isn't except to marxists like him.
At this point, there's very little "presuming" about Dan and those like him so much simply expecting what their history of behavior has proven to be the case.
I was going to ignore the recommendation, but since you brought it up...
I suspect it's probably not particularly valuable if one isn't of a particular ideology.
Art, after years of interacting with Dan there is very little presuming when it comes to him. Even when he's less than clear, you don't have to presume much at all.
One thing I learned, from a progressive who might have been more unhinged than Dan, is to never presume that people who might be ideologically similar automatically share the same view on a specific issue (as we do not). Because of my assuming, and being called out on it, I've been intentional about not making the types of assumptions Dan makes regularly. I don't assume that another lefty believes something because Dan does. It was a valuable lesson for me.
You asked some questions with obvious answers. I was simply attempting to give a more nuanced answer. No lies, no attempts to be misleading or passive aggressive.
IF someone is stealing from or cheating a company or agency, what should happen? They should be fired or reprimanded. There's no other answer to that.
If someone is otherwise incapable of doing a job, what should happen? Remove them from the role, either by firing or change the work they do.
There is no mystery as to the answers to the simplistic questions you asked.
I assumed you weren't just asking rhetorical questions where there are obvious answers. I guess you were just asking rhetorical questions.
I answered with more nuanced understandings of employee/employer scenarios with more real world scenarios.
My apologies for failing to understand.
To be clear, you aren't suggesting that people think someone should remain on a job if they are inept, harmful or corrupt, are you? (Maga notwithstanding)
Dan
Impressive, that passive aggressive thing comes so naturally to you.
The question asked was whether or not working less than the number of hours in your job description is the equivalent of theft. I don't recall ever asking what should happen to an employee that steals.
Interesting that you consider making up fanciful situations and responding to your imaginary situation as adding "nuance". Interesting that you claim that your reason for making shit up was that there was not enough "detail", yet instead of asking for "detail" you just went with your imagination and pretend like it's nuance.
No, I'm asking different questions.
You just can't do it. You just have to inject one of your pet topics into every comment thread, whether it's relevant or not.
Hmm...I agree in theory. But it's not going out on a limb to suggest that lefties tend to walk in lock step. The slightest and most insignificant of nuances might separate some of them from the rest, but overall, until it's made clear what a given lefty claims and support for that claim in provided, I'm good with writing them off as pretty much all the same. But that's just me.
Again, as stated originally, it's clear that the hypothetical suggests theft, or at the very least, an expectation of pay without providing that for which the pay is offered. Neither warrants continued employment and management which doesn't act to address either also fails in their duties.
I'm not sure what the dope meant about "Maga notwithstanding". Was it to imply the MAGA types would insist a goldbricker or incompetent remain employed? If so, that's clearly leftist projection of their own bad notions. Lefties have imposed all manner of obstructions to employers wishing to rid themselves of dead weight.
Obviously there's a degree of that, but I've chosen to try to respond to individuals as individuals, not based on their affiliation as much as possible. Just as obviously, there are times when it's appropriate to generalize. You do you, I just see people like Dan and his troll do it often and can't imagine behaving like that.
My intent was to ask whether or not it is theft, not to suggest it. Although the circumstances might naturally do so. My assumption is that if it IS considered theft, then dismissal would be the logical conclusion.
Who knows what he means when he's trying to change the subject.
Again, sorry. I assured everyone know that time theft is illegal and grounds for firing. To answer that question, yes, time theft is wrong, criminal and grounds for dismissal.
Of course.
Dan
I agree that it's theft. There was a time in my life where I had finally gotten a day-time job after working nights for several years. I had a hard time adjusting and at that time, I had a clock/radio alarm as well as one of those old time wind up clock alarms which sounds like the firehouse bell. I had them set a few minutes apart and slept through the both of them half the time. My job was on the line and I knew it and understood that it was on me to figure it out. I went to sleep much earlier, which itself wasn't easy to do at first, and was well rested when those alarms went off, sometimes awaking before they did. (I was later fired for another reason which I still don't understand, but that's another story. Turned out to be a really good thing for me.)
In those cases where one doesn't care to get to work on time, perhaps even leaving early every chance which presented itself, and doing as little as possible when finally arriving, that's clearly theft. It's a breach of contract. Fraud. A crime, though it might not be worthy prosecuting.
Marshal is somehow perplexed...
I'm not sure what the dope meant about "Maga notwithstanding".
Your little president only worked about 31 hours a week. He famously didn't want to take part in reasonably required regular security updates. He's someone who is lacking in the intellectual rigor to do the job, and yet, you all want to keep hiring him.
https://rollcall.com/2024/07/12/trumps-presidential-office-hours-were-the-shortest-since-fdr-bidens-not-far-behind-him/
Can you imagine a PRESIDENT of the US not working something like a full 40 hour a week schedule? Of course, Biden was almost (but not) as bad as Trump (who as you see above, only worked a little more than THIRTY hours a week!)... part of the problem of very old people doing this kind of job.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/29/trump-daily-schedule-executive-time-944996
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/22/trump-decline-intelligence-briefings-leak
Whatever you think of presidents, attending intelligence briefings IS a part of the job. If you're not working something like a full 40 hour a week job and not attending intelligence briefings, you should be fired. IF he were an employee at any other company, he would be fired.
But you all think this is okay.
FYI: Making up nonsense, false posts until 3 in the morning on social media does NOT count as "work hours" for Trump, any more than it would for you or me.
By all means, HOLD this cretin accountable for not putting in a full day's work. I'd respect you for that much of integrity.
But we all know, old rich white men get a pass on this kind of work ethic (or lack, thereof). At least when they claim to be conservative.
I was unaware that POTUS was specified as a 40 hour/week job. I guess under this construct POTUS ceases to be POTUS at some point in the day and reverts to a private citizen.
But hey, if you want to play apples/oranges and make this about Trump, it sends a clear message.
I'd agree that it is theft, and that theft from an organization where you're stealing from people who's donations are paying you is a bit more egregious.
Back when I was working retail, I was shocked at the number of otherwise good employees who got fired because they couldn't show up on time.
For someone who brags and is so prideful about answering questions clearly and directly, the fact that it took this long to get this answer makes the other claims seem dubious at best.
I'll let it slide that there's been no answer to the insurance questions.
Post a Comment