Position duties changing, Accountability?

[choopes]

question has been answered

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Al.
If my job duties have changed from when the original job description was created, can I be held accountable?
Here is an example. When hired computer skills were barely mentioned (Basic windows operating skills required). Now, 5 years later, 90% of it is networking, TCP/IP, and IP number assignment. No advice or guidance is given to obtain these skills. Can I be punished or fired for not satisfactorily keeping up with this skill that was different when hired?
This is the Public sector.

Thank you.

Barring a bona-fide employment contract or CBA saying otherwise, yes, you can be penalized/fired legally for this.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Sounds like it would be a financially sound decision to fire you. The business has evolved and apparently you were not savvy enough to adapt effectively.

 

[commentator]

If this is public sector employment, civil service job protections may apply. But seriously, is there no possibility for training to enhance your skills and abilities in the job related areas offered to you through your workplace? When they got new systems, they didn't offer you some way to learn how to use them?

Is this city, county, state, federal? Most of these entities have all sorts of resources for employees to increase their technology competence. If you decidedly choose not to participate, and were not required to do so as part of your job, then I can see very little protection for you against being moved or having your job assignment dramatically altered, in other words, punished.

If they terminate you, in the absence of a contract, they pretty much have not broken any laws, unless, as I said, there is any sort of civil service protection involved. You will in public sector employment, have an EEOC contact, at least an HR which is very informative, and I would stay in close contact with them.

Most public sector employment is information based, and this type of employment is always changing, upgrading, moving forward. I remember when our public sector employment office workers had a big black rotary dial telephone and a box of file cards of job applicants on their desks to work with. The job descriptions then were very different from what they had evolved to thirty or forty years later when these people retired. If you begin your job with one skill set, and the job changes dramatically, but you do not upgrade your skill set, yes, that could actually be seen as failure to maintain your competence at your job, in other words, "do your job to the best of your abilities."

 

[choopes]

question anwered

 

[cbg]

Without some valid and supportable evidence that you would have been treated differently but for your race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, pregnancy, genetic information or age (over 40 only), the EEOC will not be interested.

 

[commentator]

If this is state government, you need to get in touch immediately with your departmental EEOC compliance officer. Let them know there are possible issues, see if you have any possible protections there. As we so often say, everyone is a member of at least some protected category.

I agree, there would be no point in filing a complaint at this point with the regular EEOC. I'm not referring to the state's EEOC section, not sure if Alabama actually has one in the Department of Labor, or if like many, they just rely on the regional federal office. But usually in every state governmental department, there will be an EEOC representative sitting around somewhere. You might begin by calling your department's HR and asking who you'd need to talk to about possible EEOC situations. You don't even have to mention it's for you. If you get no good answers in your department, go to the state's department of personnel or HR, whatever they call it these days.

Even if you do not have or are you not a member of your state employee's association (union ) there will be information you can get about the hiring and firing and employee disciplinary processes, so you are not getting all your information through your supervisor and through word of mouth from other employees.

If you have been a full time regular employee of the state for 5 years, you should have some civil service protections. They definitely will have channels they would have to go through to get rid of you or rework your job title to "bathroom monitor." Unlike private enterprise, your supervisor in the state will have several levels of red tape he should have to go through before he could arbitrarily fire you for performance issues, or any other. They'd look very carefully at any possible EEOC issues that might arise before they actually did terminate you. If you'd been considered to be performing consistently well, received favorable evaluations, have attended trainings as required, had never received any corrective action or warnings about your lack of technological skills, I'd say you are not in much danger of termination.

But the most important thing for you to do right now is find out how much power this supervisor actually has over you. This will help you figure out how intimidated and worried you should be about the fact that he/she has it in for you. If you are doing your job to the best of your abilities, regardless of verbal feedback or how this person treats you, in most state agencies, he/she is virtually powerless to do anything else to you other than try to make you miserable. Insubordination is something you will want to avoid, but also, don't be upset and defensive all the time. Some supervisors will not be pleased, that is their whole game. Fortunately in state government, that one supervisor is rarely the sole person who will be making HR decisions regarding you.

If there is a possibility of a transfer, you may want to explore it. If your job title is changed or you are "demoted" take it and do it, and work on going elsewhere laterally. At the same time, do work diligently to enhance your skill level. See if there are additional classes offered by your department's HR that you can request to take. Even if they do not come easily to you, if you do have specialization in some area of the work you do, be found trying to show that you are willing to be flexible and learn and change with the job.

 

[cbg]

I'm still looking for any suggestions of EEO problems. Haven't found them yet. Even the company EEO officer isn't going to be concerned unless there's an EEO issue, and nothing in the OP even remotely suggests that there is anything of the kind.

 

[eerelations]

OP has a very interesting posting history. PLUS, he asked this particular question here back in 2012 and had it answered in full back then. (Maybe that's what he meant when he deleted everything he posted here and replaced it all with "question answered" or similar? )

 

[commentator]

I'm still looking for any suggestions of EEO problems. Haven't found them yet. Even the company EEO officer isn't going to be concerned unless there's an EEO issue, and nothing in the OP even remotely suggests that there is anything of the kind.

Honestly, if this were private sector, I'd be on exactly the same page as you. But in public sector, particularly state government employment, I'd thoroughly explore the whole "they're discriminating against me because I'm...." aspect of any problem I was having with a supervisor. For several reasons. For one thing, though I'd never encourage anyone to file an invalid or useless claim with the real EEOC, those departmental EEOC officers get paid to do this type of counseling as part of their job duties and shouldn't mind giving you at least an opinion on the situation. That's what they're supposed to be there for.

I also suppose I'm making a generalization here. It was hard in the last 20 years to get through your youth without developing quite a bit of computer expertise. So I somehow picture this OP as someone over 40, possibly dealing with new technology in the workplace as a slightly older worker. That issue has been huge in many governmental agencies of late. It's so much easier to get rid of the person who lacks the new skills and replace them with a younger, spry-er more tech minded person in private industry, but in the state there are a few civil service regulations to slow this movement.

Another reason. Many supervisors in the public sector aren't much better informed about what constitutes an EEOC case or how to go about legitimately disciplining or taking steps to terminate an employee than the employees are. There are lots of rumors and sacred cows and people who walk around constantly threatening to file discrimination suits at the slightest word of criticism. Though HR constantly tries to provide new supervisor training, there's a learning curve there, lots of rumors about people who've been terminated for amazing things and later reinstated by the governor, the commissioner or the courts. It will be greatly to this employee's benefit if they know exactly where they stand as far as danger of termination, so they can best figure out how to deal with their supervisor. That they've discussed the issues with the EEOC rep isn't going to do anything but make it appear that they're quite serious about keeping their job and they aren't going to go quietly because the supervisor threatens them a few times.

 

[cbg]

But that's the whole thing - nowhere did he make any suggestion that he was being discriminated against in any way. He asked if he could be fired for not keeping up with technology. Nowhere did he suggest that he was being singled out in any way.

But since the OP appears to be satisfied with the answer (and it certainly can't do any harm to investigate) it would appear to be a moot point.