David Tuff is a security guard, who is 24 years old; and has been working in Minneapolis for the Blue Mountain Company for about 17 months. This company manages retail shops and malls; this company has a section which trains security guards and distributes them to the malls.
According to the local and Minnesota laws, the county police department is the one mandated with licensing security officers and approving them; therefore, security officers are suppose to adhere to all police unit’s rules. Tuff took his training and passed the examination taken by all security guards, and he was given a license.
Also, as Tuff was training at Blue Mountain, he acquainted himself to procedures in the Manual meant for security officers. According to the manual, a security officer should notify the police department of any serious accident or crime happening at the licensee premises, and failure to do so the security guard will have violated the manual’s provisions.
The provisions in the manual also demand that a security guard should surrender his badge together with the identification card when he is suspended or revoked. Violation of the provisions will lead to a disciplinary action. Security guard officers are also supposed to adhere to lawful rules and orders given by the superintendent officer and any other officer giving orders on behalf of him.
Tuff vowed to adhere to these provisions knowing that any violation will cost him his license and a punishment. After joining Blue Mountain, security guards were issued with new rules and these rules required them to order intoxicated persons off parking lots and escort them to up to the public roads; such people included those under the influence of alcohol.
Tuff was not pleased with the new rules because they were against the rules of the police department; therefore, he presented his complaint to the company’s superiors about his dissatisfaction, but they dismissed him.
Tuff decided to take a step to discuss the issue with the fellow security guards and its violation of the provisions in the manual who agreed with him. He also reported the issue the organization that was against driving under alcohol influence, who interrogated about the company about the policy.
Later he contacted the people from the media, and talked to reporter about the issue and they supported Tuff’s argument. Tuff’s move irritated the company and accused him of disclosing company policies to the media, however, Tuff did not give up, he complained to the police department who agreed with him.
The company told Tuff to mind his paycheck more than his license; this did not deter his determination to expose the company’s bad policies.
Tuff found himself in a dilemma; the rules of the company he was working for were formulated in a way that they were in conflict with provisions in the manual for security guards. To deal with this dilemma he presents his complaint to the company superiors who did not help him, instead; they dismissed him.
When he pursues the case further, he finds himself in trouble for disclosing the company’s policy to the media. The company also accuses him of being disloyal to the company, and, therefore, not fit to be an employee of the company.
According to the rules of the police department, a security guard should report any crime to the police, and this includes people under the influence of alcohol. Tuff was to obey this rule because the consequences were loss of his license; he was justified to pursue the case of the company being in conflict with the police department rules, although, he was going against his employers rules (Treviño et al, 1999).
He was right in the sense that going together with the company’s rules would lead to the withdrawal of his license, and after all the company would not care about his license withdrawal. In fact, the company would not risk having a security guard without a license; therefore, they will have to get another one; this means that Tuff will be the one on the receiving end.
According to the company rules, an employee should not disclose company information to the media without any authorization, and he should obey all the company rules. Tuff violated this by disclosing the company’s policies to media and refused to obey his seniors and the rules of the company (Ethics Resource Center and Hay Group, 2009).
This jeopardized his job at the company. If he could have played along with them, he could be a happy employee, but his employment would not have lasted for long before the police department notices his violation of their rules.
Tuff, apart from protecting his license, he was fighting for public safety; if people under the influence of alcohol are left to wonder on roads, they can cause accidents killing innocent people. He was also wise to reason out that losing a job is fair than losing a license, because he can get another job more easily than another license.
Companies should learn to listen to their employees to get their point before dismissing them so as to find a way to solve the problem amicably (ConocoPhillips, 2007).
In this case, if the company would have listened to Tuff and reasoned together with him, then the matter would have been solved earlier before reaching the media. The company can be affected for compromising its rules; however, it will save its image for not being exposed to the public and the media.
This company might be affected in its strategic planning; the changes, which might be done on its policies because of Tuffs allegations might force the company to re-strategize again.
Reference List
ConocoPhillips. (2007). Code of business ethics and conduct for directors and employees. Houston: ConocoPhillips.
Ethics Resource Center and Hay Group. (2009). Ethics and employee engagement. New York: Ethics Resource Center.
Treviño, W. et al. (1999). Managing ethics and compliance: what works and what hurts. California management review, 41(2), pp. 204-213.