35 replies to this topic

[BeardedPuffin]

Hi all, my employer has recently announced some upcoming changes to the organization which; quite frankly, are at the very least ethically dubious and very possibly some may be illegal. I'm going to try and be as general as possible to maintain my anonymity, but detailed enough to paint an accurate picture. If you have any clarifying questions, please ask; if I can without identifying myself I will answer.

First and foremost, this company is only certified to the Costco standard, and surveyed under the PMO and FSMA. (part 117 not 114)

I work at a yogurt manufacturing company. I currently am in charge of overseeing the quality management system, but am not a manager by title. The management aspect has been filled by a senior corporate manager. Recently the C.E.O. has announced a realignment of the organizational structure to have the QA department directly in the production/ops reporting structure. They will also be filling the vacant QA manager role with someone who is entirely unqualified for the position by any definition, including the company's own job description. This person has absolutely 0 relevant job experience, none of the required certifications, and no relevant academic credentials to substantiate their qualifications for the role. They will be sharing the responsibilities of the role with the plant/ops/sanitation manager, since they do have some limited QA experience from years ago (as a tech), and the required certs. The company made this internal hire without posting the job publicly or internally. The company has a Food Scientist and myself (HACCP, PCQI, SQF Practitioner/Implementation, ~8 years QA experience across seafood, meat packing, and dairy industries) on their payroll currently; neither of us were informed or approached about the intention to fill the vacant role.

This person also has a poorly hid personal relationship with the current production manager. And I've recently learned they were caught on the camera system doing "something" at the facility during a short interlude between production/sanitation shift change where very few to no people are in the building. Mind you, I used to have camera access and can tell you where those cameras can see in the building are all places where something like that absolutely should never occur. This relationship is known to everyone who was involved in making the above decisions. Moreover I have had issues with both of them as they're just really weird about stuff towards me (sorry, I can't really be more specific about this). I have had multiple conversations with both my supervisor and the plant manager over the past year regarding my multiple concerns I've had regarding my professional relationship with these two individuals; to the point I have expressed how uncomfortable and apprehensive their treatment of me makes, and how it negatively impacts my motivation/comfort to come in to the office. These concerns were purportedly shared with the C.E.O. with my concent (save the relationship stuff), and they chose to follow through with putting one of these people directly in charge of me and the other indirectly.

I cannot begin to accurately convey how uncomfortable I am with all of these changes and the surrounding circumstances.

Mostly my question is, is any of these actions taken by my employer illegal? I have a feeling they may be, but I could simply be over analyzing certain regulations. Thank you for any help or advice you can give.

[Setanta]

Unethical, perhaps. Illegal? I don't think so...what do you see as illegal?

[SQFconsultant]

I agree with Setanta - I am not a lawyer/in legal stuff but I see nothing illegal here.

 

Personnally I'd be looking for another position with a differrent company.

[kfromNE]

I agree with everyone else - nothing illegal. 

 

Now - employees engaging in inappropriate activities while on the clock - may be against company policy but not illegal. 

 

Nepotism - that's what you are dealing with. 

[G M]

Certainly some things that would raise red flags in a social or ethics audit, but probably not illegal.

[BeardedPuffin]

@Setanta mostly the hiring of an unqualified person for a role which by legal definition has to have a combination of work experience, training, and/or relevant academic degrees with which to substantiate their qualification for the role.

[BeardedPuffin]

MDaleDDF, you are reading me wrong insofar as me wanting revenge. Yes I am asking if any of this is specifically illegal because it would allow me to resign in protest and maintain my eligibility for unemployment. Really think you're choosing to read me that way, as I mentioned nothing about wanting to retaliate.

As I said, the person has 0 qualifications including degrees or relevant management experience management people or a department. Sometimes it's as clear as day someone is unfit and unqualified for a role and you just have to call it like it is instead of making up excuses to justify nonsense.

Edited by BeardedPuffin, 05 February 2024 - 08:31 PM.

[G M]

Outside government offices, things like nepotism and incompetence aren't legal hiring infractions.  Private businesses can be run as poorly as the owner wants.  If its a publicly traded company with shareholders you get a few extra protections against incompetence and economically self-serving practices, but generally unless they're dumb enough to fire everyone who isn't related to them or something like that you'll have a hard time proving wrongdoing.

[jay2023]

nothing illegal, but surely not meeting customer COP's and any certification requirements you have with untrained staff and lack of independence from production.

Time for a new job i think

[kingstudruler1]

Which part do you feel is illegal?

 

For what is worth, I've worked with individuals that had advanced degrees and all the certs.   Some of them I felt were less capable than a well trained technician.      

 

Its hard to tell your situation in a post. There are tons of jobs available for someone with 8 years of experience.  If your going to hate it, move on.  

[BeardedPuffin]

Which part do you feel is illegal?

 

For what is worth, I've worked with individuals that had advanced degrees and all the certs.   Some of them I felt were less capable than a well trained technician.      

 

Its hard to tell your situation in a post. There are tons of jobs available for someone with 8 years of experience.  If your going to hate it, move on.  

 

21 crf 117.4 (that they do not meet the definitional criteria of a qualified individual).

 

I do get that people from all walks and backgrounds can be great at anything (I myself would identify as such), and that the most learned of individuals can be relatively inept in real world conditions (C's get degrees after-all). And I don't mean for this to be some clamor against seeing potential, and giving opportunity for that to foster, in a motivated individual regardless of background.

 

Generally the individuals I have seen fill such roles have had some amalgamation of training (certs), QA work experience, and academic credentials which substantiate said individual's ability to perform the duties of that role. This person has none of that. They have exhibited no passion or interest in QA generally; food safety broadly; or to develop an understanding of the complexities of managing, maintaining, and revising a food safety management system. Beyond understanding QA tests product and says it can ship if it passes, they have demonstrated through dialog a fundamental lack of awareness what it is QA/QC actually does, in every sense. They have spent the better part of 8 months actively resisting opening the SQF code book to at the very least lightly skim it, regardless of their placement (as the inventory manager - no staff) on the team tasked with working towards obtaining an intermediate level certification under that scheme. They have consistently argued against many of the proposed options to evolve our process/programs to be in compliance with SQF - generally in an attempt to alleviate any complexity they may introduce which the production staff would have to be conscientious of throughout the work day. I've just barely gotten them to accept that suppliers are supposed to update their documentation with us on an annual basis. And the objections go on.

 

Yeah, there is just so much broader context to the alarm bells going off in my head. As I stated in another reply, I'm mostly looking to see if there is anything which would constitute as being illegal since my state has a provision which allows for someone to quit in such a situation and maintain uei eligibility. I am moving on, I'm just trying to fish around to see how long I have to stomach this nonsense.

Edited by BeardedPuffin, 06 February 2024 - 01:58 AM.

[Tony-C]

Hi BeardedPuffin,

 

Sounds like an awkward situation rather than anything illegal and best to vote with your feet.

 

 

Good luck,

 

Tony

[Setanta]

@Setanta mostly the hiring of an unqualified person for a role which by legal definition has to have a combination of work experience, training, and/or relevant academic degrees with which to substantiate their qualification for the role.

 

 

I have never heard of someone being held to a legal definition of a job. and an employer can always say they are willing to train a new hire to a position. 

[kfromNE]

I have never heard of someone being held to a legal definition of a job. and an employer can always say they are willing to train a new hire to a position. 

 

Legally, I believe this would apply to medical positions and other careers that require a state/federal licenses to practice. So a hospital can't hire just anyone to perform medical duties, etc. 

[Scampi]

Just because it isn't illegal (which is doesn't sound like it is) doesn't make it morally or ethically right

 

Keep your mouth shut until you can move on 

 

Put your headphones in, crank the tunes and do your job to the best of your abilities while you're there and take comfort in the fact that situations like this very rarely end well for the company

 

if they don't care about this----the CEO won't care about much else either (besides making a cheap buck(

 

best of luck-the situation stinks

[semajzemog]

I have to agree with everyone else, except in the case of their hiring process. If there are more than 15 employees, and you're in the US, that breaks EEOC guidelines and could be a case of discrimination. Good luck, and I hope this helps.

[AltonBrownFanClub]

First of all, I empathize with your difficult work situation. That really wears on a person.

 

If I am interpreting correctly, there is more to the story that can't be discussed here.

 

My advice is to find a lawyer and discuss what you are experiencing. They're more qualified than any of us to give you legal advice.

Even if you have to pay a consultation fee, it will be worth it to vent and clarify if the company is breaking laws or just being immoral.

[kingstudruler1]

21 crf 117.4 (that they do not meet the definitional criteria of a qualified individual).

 

I do get that people from all walks and backgrounds can be great at anything (I myself would identify as such), and that the most learned of individuals can be relatively inept in real world conditions (C's get degrees after-all). And I don't mean for this to be some clamor against seeing potential, and giving opportunity for that to foster, in a motivated individual regardless of background.

 

Generally the individuals I have seen fill such roles have had some amalgamation of training (certs), QA work experience, and academic credentials which substantiate said individual's ability to perform the duties of that role. This person has none of that. They have exhibited no passion or interest in QA generally; food safety broadly; or to develop an understanding of the complexities of managing, maintaining, and revising a food safety management system. Beyond understanding QA tests product and says it can ship if it passes, they have demonstrated through dialog a fundamental lack of awareness what it is QA/QC actually does, in every sense. They have spent the better part of 8 months actively resisting opening the SQF code book to at the very least lightly skim it, regardless of their placement (as the inventory manager - no staff) on the team tasked with working towards obtaining an intermediate level certification under that scheme. They have consistently argued against many of the proposed options to evolve our process/programs to be in compliance with SQF - generally in an attempt to alleviate any complexity they may introduce which the production staff would have to be conscientious of throughout the work day. I've just barely gotten them to accept that suppliers are supposed to update their documentation with us on an annual basis. And the objections go on.

 

Yeah, there is just so much broader context to the alarm bells going off in my head. As I stated in another reply, I'm mostly looking to see if there is anything which would constitute as being illegal since my state has a provision which allows for someone to quit in such a situation and maintain uei eligibility. I am moving on, I'm just trying to fish around to see how long I have to stomach this nonsense.

I understand.  It is / would be odd that the department manager would not have the experience or training.   I agree with you.   What you are describing doesn't really make sense.  Like others stated you may want to find an expert in labor law to see what your options are if you want to take quick action and maintain unemployment benefits.  

[BeardedPuffin]

It would be interesting to hear the other side of the story.

My current direct supervisor, who is a department VP by title, has expressed multiple times in the past few days that they share my concerns and sentiments on the topic.

You're free to keep being passive aggressively rude about it though. I'd say that reflects more poorly on you than it does me. I'm simply going to put you on ignore and never hear from you again. Enjoy screaming into the void. Please have the day you deserve. 😊

Edited by BeardedPuffin, 06 February 2024 - 07:51 PM.

[Setanta]

You're free to keep being passive aggressively rude about it though. I'd say that reflects more poorly on you than it does me. I'm simply going to put you on ignore and never hear from you again. Enjoy screaming into the void. Please have the day you deserve.

 

 

Is that a reference to US?  

Edited by Setanta, 06 February 2024 - 07:58 PM.

[BeardedPuffin]

Is that a reference to US?

😅 No it was directed exclusively at the person who I quoted. They have been insinuating I'm trying to retaliate and/or lieing in each of their posts in this thread. Sorry for the confusion.

Edited by BeardedPuffin, 06 February 2024 - 09:11 PM.

[BeardedPuffin]

I understand. It is / would be odd that the department manager would not have the experience or training. I agree with you. What you are describing doesn't really make sense. Like others stated you may want to find an expert in labor law to see what your options are if you want to take quick action and maintain unemployment benefits.

Thank you for the advice, I will be doing that. And also thank you for the empathy, and also to everyone else who gave it, this has been an incredibly difficult time for me and I have felt a bit lost in all of this.

Edited by BeardedPuffin, 06 February 2024 - 09:23 PM.

[BeardedPuffin]

I have to agree with everyone else, except in the case of their hiring process. If there are more than 15 employees, and you're in the US, that breaks EEOC guidelines and could be a case of discrimination. Good luck, and I hope this helps.

This is something I haven't thought of. Thank you. I will be sure to bring this up during the consultation I'm working on scheduling.

[AltonBrownFanClub]

This is something I haven't thought of. Thank you. I will be sure to bring this up during the consultation I'm working on scheduling.

 

Good luck! If possible, please let us know how it works out. Other people may be in a similar situation and can learn from your experience.

[Setanta]

THAT took a turn.