 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
School worker was treated too harshly© St. Petersburg Times published December 23, 2001 Whether we cheated on a test as teenagers or cheated on our taxes as adults, we all expected there to be consequences for breaking the rules. Most of us also expected that when caught, our punishment would fit the crime. The purpose of punishment, after all, should be to correct the misbehavior -- dishing out no more than necessary to accomplish that goal. But Superintendent David Hickey has a different approach. No punishment works better than a permanent one, Hickey apparently reasons, so the best way to prevent employees from repeating an offense is to not give them the opportunity to do it again. Rose Henry learned about Hickey's one-strike-and-you're-out policy the hard way. Henry, 50, has worked for the Citrus County School District for 10 years, most recently in the cafeteria at Hernando Elementary School. One of her neighbors filed a complaint, alleging she had seen Henry's grandchildren drinking juice that was taken from the school cafeteria. When Henry's supervisor at school accused her of stealing, Henry admitted that on one occasion she was in a hurry and instead of drinking two four-ounce juice cartons at school, as all cafeteria workers are allowed to do, she threw them in her bag and drove away. She put them in her refrigerator at home and several weeks later, she allowed her grandchildren to drink them. That admission was enough for Hickey to lower the boom. After a brief investigation that confirmed only what Henry had already told them, Hickey recommended she be suspended without pay and began to build a case to fire her. Rather than submit to Hickey's heavy-handed sentence, Henry quit. Henry readily admits she made a mistake, based on the school district's rules that no food or other items may be taken from the premises for personal use. But she also thinks her transgression was minor and that the punishment was too severe. We agree. Unless Henry had a history of problems in the school district, of which there is no evidence, suspension and a strongly worded reprimand would have been a more appropriate punishment. Another concern here is how the district handled the release of the information about its case against Henry. By announcing that Henry would be fired because she admitted stealing from the school, district officials conveyed a perception that she had taken something of greater value. But Henry was not accused of stealing money or a computer, or a co-worker's belongings. She took two cartons of juice from a place where workers routinely eat and drink for free. And when confronted, she admitted her mistake. If that first offense merits firing a 10-year employee, then Hickey is handing out a punishment harsher than Henry would have received if she had gone to court. Something's very wrong when the lowest-paid workers have their world turned upside down like this, and their only avenue of appeal is a go-through-the-motions grievance procedure. It is no wonder workers have looked to unions for protection from this kind of absolutism. Rose Henry deserved more than a slap on her wrist. But she did not deserve to lose her livelihood. Citrus County residents should watch closely to see if Hickey's brand of justice applies to the next person who violates a district policy, or if he just reserves it for blue-collar workers.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
Citrus Times |
