Emily James, a past employee of the Oregon US Bank, was fired for “unprofessionally” assisting a customer in need. On Christmas Eve, Marc Eugenio was stuck at a gas station without any money to pay for fuel or a ride home. Prior to that, he had deposited a paycheck to his US bank account. Marc had been trying to get access to his money so that he could buy Christmas presents for his children. But the bank was unable to get back to him as they had put his money on hold. Although it is not stated by the bank specifically why his money had been put on hold, it is reasonable to assume that the service department had been on a holiday break as it happened on Christmas Eve.
When Marc realized he could not access his money from other branches either, he called the bank’s customer service line, where he reached Emily James. After an hour of explanation, Emily decided to drive to the gas station and give him $20 of her own money. Marc refused at first but realized it was really the only way he could get home.
Shortly after, Emily was fired for putting herself and the company at risk. The US bank claimed that Emily failed to meet the company policies and procedures and conducted an “unauthorized interaction” with the customer. The company also said that Emily “did not use the available solutions to remedy the customer’s situation,” although at that time she had no other way of helping the customer.
Even though the procedures are set to protect the employee and the bank itself, I feel that it was unnecessary Emily had to be fired for doing a good deed. Do you think there’s another way the company could have reacted? This case is similar to national security vs. free speech as Emily was forced to follow company rules, but instead did what she believed was morally right. Do you think the US bank should make changes and limitations to their policies? If so, how?
6 comments:
I understand the company's argument that workers should not have unauthorized contact with customers. After all, they need to set a standard for the company and don't want to appear victim to rule breakers. However, I think this should have been one of the exceptions to that case, as it is unlikely to happen again. James willingly put herself in potential harm to help a customer. In this scenario, there seemed to be only good intentions and good intentions shouldn't be punished. Hopefully this situation will help relax rules about customer interactions in Oregon US Bank.
I get why the company fired James. But, she was doing something good. She gave the man in need her OWN money, not the bank's money. She had good intentions and just wanted to help someone who desperately needed it. Plus, it was during the holidays and she wanted to help him get home to his family. What specific big issues did James risk by helping this man? "Unauthorized interaction" with a customer seems dumb. She went out of her way, not as an employee of the bank, but as herself to help this man. If the service department was down because of the holiday season, the man would not have been able to get money to help himself. She helped him because she wanted to.
Like Shirleen, I see how the bank was trying to be cautious in order to ensure its employee's safety. However, in this situation, I am surprised that this interaction qualified as possibly risking harm towards James. She was not, in fact, going in the same vehicle as the customer or heading to a private location to meet him. James was simply meeting him in a public place to be a good citizen and provide him with money to get home due to the bank's hold on his funds. I think the bank should've evaluated the situation in context more, rather than just saying she did not follow protocol. In addition, it did not seem clear as to how else James could have provided her services towards the customer seeing as the bank itself withheld his funds, so it was not in her control. To me, it sounded like she DID exhaust all her resources and follow protocol until it restricted her from assisting the customer further.
Yeah, sure, I understand the company's line of reasoning, they're a business and they feel as though it needs to be run properly and accordingly, with little room for compromise. However, the facts of the matter should allow for leniency in this situation, in my opinion. She left under the pretense that she was using her break, received supervision from the supervisor to do so, and paid the man out of her own pocket. It seems to me that she took every possible step to ensure that she was acting under just circumstances. As such, it is my opinion that what occurred between Ms. James and Mr. Eugenio should be viewed as nothing more than an everyday interaction between two civilians. Yeaaaaaah, I understand that the call which alerted her to Mr. Eugenio's situation was made during business hours on a company phone, but that's where leniency comes in. I mean, come on people, have we really reached the point of favoring a flimsy company policy over our own morals? That's a dumb question, of course we have, but just let her have this one, please, we need it where it can get it. I seriously admire her quite a bit. I honestly can't say I would have done the same thing if I was in her position (Blame capitalist brainwashing I guess, idk). But yeah, that's just my opinion, take it with a grain of salt, or multiple grains of salt, just don't take too much of my salt, alright?
While I understand the bank’s reasoning behind their decision to fire James, I agree that she definitely shouldn’t have been fired. It would have been a different story had she used the bank’s resources or gotten them more directly involved, however she made the decision of her own volition, with her own money and moral compass. By not addressing this situation, the bank would have set a precedent for more unconventional behavior like this, and the next time it may not be as clearly for something good, so I can see where the bank was coming from in punishing James. Regardless of their reasoning, however, the bank is in the wrong in this situation. Rules can often conflict with our own morals and judgments of right and wrong, and I think that especially in situations like these, they should be flexible enough to allow for some exceptions.
I can see a very faint line of reasoning behind the bank's decision. They could've been worried (irrationally) that Eugenio would let the public know what James did for him over the internet, and criminals will start freezing their bank accounts and asking bank tellers to come to a dark alley to hold a gun to their head until they give the criminals all the money in the bank. Obviously, the chances of this happening are outrageously small in the real world, and there are many clear, obvious, and realistic reasons to not fire the teller and her supervisor. Not only is firing a teller who inconvenienced herself and risked her own safety to help a stranger in need immoral, it will cost the bank money to hire a new teller and supervisor. Clearly, firing two people for doing a good thing will also enrage the public and perhaps cost the bank future or even existing customers. The bank obviously made the wrong decision. Recently, they've realized the errors of their ways. In February, around 30 days after James was fired, US Bank's CEO said that James and her supervisor were offered jobs back at the company. It looks like a superior power at the company is trying to correct the mistake of a heartless subordinate.
Firing James and her supervisor was one of the worst things the bank could've done. There are so many other things they could've done. The bank could've disciplined them by demoting them, docking their pay, or forcing them to leave with no pay if employment laws allow for that. They could've gained brownie points with the public by promoting the teller for putting herself on the line to help a customer in need. If I were in the bank executives' shoes when this happened, I would've chosen the best option: do nothing. If the bank did nothing, business as usual would resume and the customer would've gotten home to his wife and kids.
While I don't think the bank should change the policy that they used to explain firing the teller and supervisor, they should still see this as a special case where the policy was technically broken but no harm was done.
source: https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2020/02/us-bank-offers-to-rehire-2-portland-workers-it-fired-for-helping-customer-on-christmas-eve.html
Post a Comment