Adam Smith appears to have been caught on the wrong side of supply side economics. After the chief financial officer posted a video (below) of himself confronting a minimum wage worker at a drive thru window, his Tucson medical manufacturing company Vante fired him. The question is whether a protest that occurs outside business hours should be the grounds for dismissal.
Smith drove up to order a free cup of water to harass the company for its position on gay rights. In picking up the water, he proceeded to lecture the young person in window.
Most people agree that Smith was being a bit of a jerk to dress down the young lady in the drive thru. After all, this is not her policy and she remained calm and polite through the confrontation. I thought it was a bit boorish and if anything was likely to incur more sympathy for the company. I am not sure what Smith thought he was achieving by first lecturing the worker and then posting it on YouTube. I found it a bit over-the-top for a CFO of a company to tell a minimum wage worker that “I don’t know how you live with yourself and work here.”
It appears that CEO Roger Vogel had equal problems with the encounter and cashiered Smith. Vogel stressed “we hope that the general population does not hold Mr. Smith’s actions against Vante and its employees.” Smith had already removed the video before his termination but it did not help.
We have been dealing with an array of cases where employees — often public employees like teachers and police officers — are fired for their outside activities and associations. It is a highly problematic trend.
I tried to find how Smith was identified as part of this company. That would seem a key issue. If the company fired him upon learning of his participation in a protest, it would raise many of the same issues in the prior cases. Yet, from the company’s standpoint, he elected to post the video and, in so doing, threatened a backlash against the company. It is simple business. The company did not want to lose customers based on the conduct of one of its employees. From a free speech angle, private companies are not limited by the first amendment in such actions since the Constitution protects us against government denials of free speech. However, there remains the public policy question of the right of employees to engage in expressive speech. As a senior member of the company, Vogel clearly views this action as threatening a serious backlash from customers.
What do you think?
Source: Fox
Please contact Adam with the info below and tell him how you feel:
Adam M Smith
5050 N Soldier Trl
Tucson, AZ 85749
(520) 749-2035
He Teaches at the U of Arizona and you can contact them at:
UA Switchboard (520) 621-2211 – Eller School of Business 520.621.3462 (ask for Jen Jessup)
or email him at
sias@email.arizona.edu & CC len@eller.arizona.edu
A good way to express himself may have been to ask for the manager and calmly tell him that you will get your chicken at KFC or eat the McChicken from now on and then post that and sugest the viewers to always go to Chic-Fil-A and announce where they will get there fast food and why. And then to post their videos of the same. But to always be calm and polite
To berate a low wage employee for the owners feelings, religious beliefs and business practices is an abuse of the highest sort and shows that the man is not qualified for his position. Simple as that.
As for how the high ranks of his company found out about the video don’t you imagine he posted to youtube then sent an email to all his buddies and had a big laugh at his heroic stance?
He’s probably a Log Cabin Republican, who are notorious for not seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to hypocrisy about their political beliefs.
My guess is that often a guy like this (or others who have been let go under similar situations) have already had one foot out the door based on their dealings in their work environment (poor performance, social issues, whatever) and that the public event just becomes the tipping point.
It’s been years since I checked, but the law in Arizona used to be that you can fire a person for a good reason or for no reason, but not for a bad reason. There was a case generally referred to as the Moon River Case, where a nurse was fired for refusing to moon some doctors on an outing. That was considered to be a bad reason to fire someone.
Jerk…..
It’s a classic bully move that does his side no credit. Might as well castigate the cop for enforcing an unreasonable speed limit — wrong time, wrong place, wrong target.
Well said, Darren
Bron,
Explain what to you, Bron? Your own thought process? Only you can do this.
I see that you pull up a false equivalency about a dentist and child molestation which as your wont is your approach to argument — change the subject.
Immaturity has nothing to do with philosophy? The two are mutually exclusive.
If you remember, I have stated that the $12 trillion bandied about by the Federal Reserve was a boondoggle. However, I’m not sure what this particular subject has to do with this thread.
My point is your philosophy seems to be changing with regards to “Wall Street” and I’m just curious if you’ve integrated this possibly new perspective into your traditionally binary view.
The young lady at the window is marvelous. She was respectful informative and efficient. This day was probably one of her busiest ever. Kudos to her and the manager that hired her.
This Dickwad Smith probably did more to promote Chic Fil a (especially that one franchise) than a months worth of advertising.
Be this my blue collar bias, or my true holler soul; This young woman represents the best values of this country. In my travels as a mailman and frequent visits to corner stores, I get to know and observe many minimum wage workers.
The counter person is so often ignored and disrespected by the hurrying self centered public. At times disrespected and degraded by some rude inconsiderate customers and still continue to be cheery and efficient.
A tip of my hat to all the good quality minimum wage workers that service all us equal humans. Many times I have seen higher quality in them than myself. Wealth does not quality make.
PS. If I owned a business I would be eager to have it staffed by workers with the character and quality this young woman exhibited.
gbk:
why dont you explain it to me.
What you have said is equivalent to: “some dentists are child molesters so I will never go to another dentist.”
thinking a problem is related to immaturity has nothing to do with a philosophy. Thinking the bail out was a bad idea has a philosophical basis.
Not kind of a jerk. A complete and utter jerk. I agree with Darren: an employee at this level should have driven to the corporate office. Put up a video response to Dan Cathy. Wrote a letter to the company. Totally inappropriate and I would have fired him, too. And who filmed it? This was a planned act showing terrible judgement. I have personally never heard of Vante before today. They are right to be concerned that all that I know of them is that at least one jerk worked there.
What Gene said. This guy bit the hand that fed him. I agree that he should have the ability to speak his personal opinions, but he has to be sure to do it on his own time. If he is an at will employee, they don’t even need a reason, in absence of any state law outlawing it.
Bron,
Didn’t you say on November 21, 2011 that we would all be better off investing in “the market” instead of Social Security?
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/11/19/the-smell-of-corporatist-fear-smells-just-like-a-lobbyist-memo/#comment-293295
And now, again, as you did in the thread referenced above, you contradict yourself with, “Wall Street . . .” is “. . . a bunch of immature jack wads.”
This must be your philosophy evolving. However, this leaves me confused as in the thread referenced below you claimed that one, “. . . cant separate the components of a philosophy.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/04/17/appellate-judge-writes-opinion-denouncing-limits-on-cowboy-capitalism/#comment-359975
Yet, it is apparent that your view of “Wall Street” has changed since Nov. 21, 2011. Have you successfully integrated this new perspective into your monolithic belief structure that can’t have components of thought separated?
Someone with a supervisory management position + this behavior = reason to be fired.
‘Nuff said.
A mixed bag this is. However I do not see any evidence of whistleblowing here so Adam does not really have in my view much recourse against his former employer.
His behavior, while not mean in appearance, is demeaning and dishonorable. Someone at an executive level of a company should not treat basic employees of another company in this fashion. At his level, he should talk with other executives with his grievances. He should know this and not condemn someone of her level as she does not set policy with the company, and to shame her on camera, not executive material in my book. For me this was enough to fire him. He sets a poor example for an executive since at his level, they are effectively the face of the company. At the employee’s level, not at work and out of uniform, they have a different presence in the mind of the public. And they are both private companies. Again, a mixed bag. But I suppose they are just as free to fire him as he is to cause it.
that guy was a jerk, he should have sent a letter to the president of Chic Fil-A and made a personal commitment to not purchase meals at Chic Fil-A.
From a purely business perspective he is:
1. immature
2. has bad decision making skills
3. is a bully
4. and is probably deceitful, he “shines up and shits down”.
In my mind reason enough to fire him.
Maybe this is why we are having so much trouble with Wall St., they are all a bunch of immature jack wads like this guy.
He was wrong, in every way. If let folks know in video for which company he worked then he is acting as a rep for the company and was wrong. Firing? That may be too much a ‘punishment’
Just as in the military, officers and those of high rank have different rules of conduct since they are visible well known individuals of a company or organization. It makes no sense to penalize those who are low level workers who have no visibility. Discipline would be justified if the worker wore clothing that identified the company they worked for. I think since Smith was a high level officer of the corporation, they were justified in firing him.
The guy’s a jerk and not all that smart since he posted his “jerkiness”. Firing him is a bit much.