shad boy,
With all due respect, I'm not sure why I'm even debating with you, because seem to have your mind made up. Southwest is wrong, period, just based on what you read in a newspaper article. When somebody attempts to tell you that, indeed, another side exists to the story, you automatically attempt to discredit them.
You have an employee come on this board, and he tells of information from one of his employees who personally witnessed the event and who says that there IS more to the story. You then compare his credibility to that of the reporter? Well, if his credibility is equal to that of the reporter...what makes you so darn sure the reporter has it right? I read the article, and even the REPORTER admits that there may be more to the story than he knows.
Southwest is NOT going to divulge the findings of the investigation to a newspaper reporter. He has no right to that information, and neither does the public at large. There is the privacy of several people that has to be respected, including those that were witnesses to the event. If Southwest were to divulge that type of information to the press, I could guarantee you that virtually nobody would ever come forward to file another harassment or discrimination complaint ever again, because they wouldn't want to risk that information being made public.
Let's face it: from a public relations standpoint, Southwest was in no-win situation when this reporter decided to write his article. They can't divulge the findings of the investigation, so they can't defend their decision. And by their inability to defend themselves, they automatically are deemed guilty.
Is it that difficult to see that there may be more to the story that, for multiple reasons (some of them legal), Southwest CANNOT disclose?
And speaking of corporate counsel, I can tell you this: almost anytime somebody is fired for a non-routine offense (read: discrimination or harassment), there is usually a consultation with General Counsel. That tends to be a matter of practice, since there is so much legally at stake. So I would bet money that this VP did indeed consult General Counsel in regards to his decision. But in the end, the decision whether or not to fire still resides with the leader, as it's the leader that's in charge of administering discipline.
AAmech wrote:
"But its very doubtful it went down like that because SW management would have had no problem explaining their side of the story. Their squirming and dancing around is making this look like PC gone mad!!! "
AAmech, in that point, you're wrong. I bet even if THAT were the case, you still wouldn't see SWA disclosing the findings of their investigation to a do-gooder newspaper reporter who sounds like he's doing little more than trying to rally up support for one of his buddies who lost his job.
Hey, maybe this newpaper guy is right. It's always a possibility, I'll concede that. But it's also been my personal experience that when Southwest has to terminate somebody for this sort of thing, they make sure they've done a thorough investigation and they have their ducks in a row. I personally don't see them caving in just due to one state senator. Remember, this is the company that took the "eenie, meenie" case to court, rather than just roll over and settle like most airlines would.
