Bank employee gets fired for playing crypto games

[hedgeh0g]

If one gets fired as a result of gambling while at work, then its depicts that such a user is also an addicted type or the one that does not gamble responsibly, we must know when to gamble and when not to do so, gambling is not what we are are to do and make us lose anything that is valuable to us, the more the need to emphasis on how to gamble responsibly and never to allow it affect other things we do.

The word is integrity: "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles". As an employee, you are supposed to work and not get entertained while working. I won't give him the name of an addict but I will surely say that the action taken by the bank was correct. It is a financial institution and imagine if this guy had used some of the account holder's money for gambling. The bank secured the account holder's trust by firing him and at the same time informing their customer through a news outlet. This is how they maintain their trust and lure new customers to open accounts with them.

The bank simply did what was profitable for it and showed it to its clients, because without clients there would be no bank, or they would go to competitors. In general, I would not want, as a client of this bank, for example, for my money to be lost, but at the same time, we will never know if this employee could do such a thing. I don’t know about them, but in some countries I often hear about how some employee, having access to the money of a company or other institution, lost it in a casino. He probably thought that it was a great idea to make x2 overnight, and then put it back where he got it from, but it didn’t work out. Imagine that there are those who did it, but we simply don’t know about them and will never know.

[Yamifoud]

Alright, sometimes we might say a person's decision is right or wrong even without knowing the whole story, just like what OP is sharing. Some might say it was the right call, while others firmly disagree. If we were on the employee's side, we would take responsibility for our workers; we know how to appreciate them and when it's time to let someone go. It's not that easy to decide to fire someone over a simple issue but what I really think that happened could be more complicated than it seems, leading to firing him. Well, the court has made its decision, which means this is the final. So, even though it hurts, we must accept it.

[KennyR]

Alright, sometimes we might say a person's decision is right or wrong even without knowing the whole story, just like what OP is sharing. Some might say it was the right call, while others firmly disagree. If we were on the employee's side, we would take responsibility for our workers; we know how to appreciate them and when it's time to let someone go. It's not that easy to decide to fire someone over a simple issue but what I really think that happened could be more complicated than it seems, leading to firing him. Well, the court has made its decision, which means this is the final. So, even though it hurts, we must accept it.

The issue could've been getting around for some time period, and the employee might be noted for his activities. As stated, the firing isn't an immediate one. It looks like they've taken the necessary time and fired him at the right time. At some particular time of the day he might be gambling regularly. This seems to be the reason behind the firing. The authority could've gotten solid evidence and gone further if the employee raised a complaint. Anyhow, the firing of the employee is not because he used cryptocurrency for gambling. He gambled during the working hours, which is the right one.

[stomachgrowls]

Alright, sometimes we might say a person's decision is right or wrong even without knowing the whole story, just like what OP is sharing. Some might say it was the right call, while others firmly disagree. If we were on the employee's side, we would take responsibility for our workers; we know how to appreciate them and when it's time to let someone go. It's not that easy to decide to fire someone over a simple issue but what I really think that happened could be more complicated than it seems, leading to firing him. Well, the court has made its decision, which means this is the final. So, even though it hurts, we must accept it.

The issue could've been getting around for some time period, and the employee might be noted for his activities. As stated, the firing isn't an immediate one. It looks like they've taken the necessary time and fired him at the right time. At some particular time of the day he might be gambling regularly. This seems to be the reason behind the firing. The authority could've gotten solid evidence and gone further if the employee raised a complaint. Anyhow, the firing of the employee is not because he used cryptocurrency for gambling. He gambled during the working hours, which is the right one.

We dont really know on whats the story behind it because we do know that they do make out immediate decision about firing up such employee but actually theres really that possibility at the moment that theyve known that a certain person is really that engaged with gambling activity. There will really be having those criticisms into this regard on which we know that trying out to get involved on what a certain person is doing or the activities that they are dealing with is really that against on someones privacy. We do know that when it comes into this aspect that we do have all the rights on what we do into our funds. If they do find out some potential problems in regarding about misuse or stolen up some funds into the bank then this is the right time that they should be firing him but if theres still none or having no problems then i dont see the reason on why they would be doing so.

They are really just that too assuming that there might be some possibility that things get worst specially if addiction will really be that becoming more worst as the time that they will really be that already touching up banks funds and thats why they do make out some action basing up on what they do have observed. Assuming that things might get worst then they do already made out such act on which we can say that its a bit harsh on such decision been made of.

[nullama]

Alright, sometimes we might say a person's decision is right or wrong even without knowing the whole story, just like what OP is sharing. Some might say it was the right call, while others firmly disagree. If we were on the employee's side, we would take responsibility for our workers; we know how to appreciate them and when it's time to let someone go. It's not that easy to decide to fire someone over a simple issue but what I really think that happened could be more complicated than it seems, leading to firing him. Well, the court has made its decision, which means this is the final. So, even though it hurts, we must accept it.

Yeah, the people that make those decisions are usually well rounded human beings and take a lot of things into consideration to make their decisions.

We might not know all the specific details of the case, so we can only speculate about what happened.

Also the headlines usually try to be the most eye catching as possible so maybe there is some nuance that we are not getting.

[delfastTions]

Alright, sometimes we might say a person's decision is right or wrong even without knowing the whole story, just like what OP is sharing. Some might say it was the right call, while others firmly disagree. If we were on the employee's side, we would take responsibility for our workers; we know how to appreciate them and when it's time to let someone go. It's not that easy to decide to fire someone over a simple issue but what I really think that happened could be more complicated than it seems, leading to firing him. Well, the court has made its decision, which means this is the final. So, even though it hurts, we must accept it.

Yeah, the people that make those decisions are usually well rounded human beings and take a lot of things into consideration to make their decisions.

We might not know all the specific details of the case, so we can only speculate about what happened.

Also the headlines usually try to be the most eye catching as possible so maybe there is some nuance that we are not getting.

That's exactly it. It can be expressed in the words "the devil is in the details".
In principle, we can only talk in general terms about the motives of a person's behavior, about his passion for gambling, about his diligence at work, and so on. And on the other hand, we can also talk about the motives of an employer who evaluates an employee and makes decisions about his dismissal or, conversely, about a bonus and promotion of some employee. However, in this already quite large topic, you all give a lot of arguments to motivate such actions.
And at the same time, we should not forget that much is fair, but dismissal against one's own will and deprivation of an employee's source of income is always the strongest stress for a person. And his subsequent actions are often partly due to this and this stress.

[bakasabo]

Even though it is gambling part of the forum, focus on the following, that fired employee was fired because of his actions that were made not during his work or working hours. That is what make situation ridiculous. I cant understand relationship between employer and that employee, when employee was punished for something that is not job related.

[hyudien]

Alright, sometimes we might say a person's decision is right or wrong even without knowing the whole story, just like what OP is sharing. Some might say it was the right call, while others firmly disagree. If we were on the employee's side, we would take responsibility for our workers; we know how to appreciate them and when it's time to let someone go. It's not that easy to decide to fire someone over a simple issue but what I really think that happened could be more complicated than it seems, leading to firing him. Well, the court has made its decision, which means this is the final. So, even though it hurts, we must accept it.

Yeah, the people that make those decisions are usually well rounded human beings and take a lot of things into consideration to make their decisions.

We might not know all the specific details of the case, so we can only speculate about what happened.

Also the headlines usually try to be the most eye catching as possible so maybe there is some nuance that we are not getting.

Yes, we cannot decide whether it is the right or wrong decision because we also have to look at the whole thing that happened. It could be that in the company there is an unwritten rule that employees are not allowed to do something that if it is done, the consequence is dismissal. Well, we all also only accept the results, so you are right we can only speculate. But all decisions have been taken and it has happened. This can be a lesson for those of us who work in a company to always be careful and avoid activities in the environment that feel quite foreign or something that is not allowed.

[traderethereum]

Yes, we cannot decide whether it is the right or wrong decision because we also have to look at the whole thing that happened. It could be that in the company there is an unwritten rule that employees are not allowed to do something that if it is done, the consequence is dismissal. Well, we all also only accept the results, so you are right we can only speculate. But all decisions have been taken and it has happened. This can be a lesson for those of us who work in a company to always be careful and avoid activities in the environment that feel quite foreign or something that is not allowed.

We can only obey the rules if we want to still work in that company. We can't risk our job by doing something that is prohibited by the company. Besides that written rules, we should care about the unwritten rules that may be not allowing us to do something. It is better we work carefully so nothing bad will happen to us and we don't get any problems. But if we do something by coincidence, maybe the company can forgive us but they will give a warning not to do the same thing in the future. So if we can be careful while we work, we can be a good employee and the company may reward us with something good.

[bakasabo]

We can only obey the rules if we want to still work in that company. We can't risk our job by doing something that is prohibited by the company. Besides that written rules, we should care about the unwritten rules that may be not allowing us to do something. It is better we work carefully so nothing bad will happen to us and we don't get any problems. But if we do something by coincidence, maybe the company can forgive us but they will give a warning not to do the same thing in the future. So if we can be careful while we work, we can be a good employee and the company may reward us with something good.

Have you read the article? That fired person wasnt gambling at work or during work, but the reason to fire him was gambling. I have never heard that any company has "any form of gambling is forbidden everywhere" kind of rule. For example, if gambling at home is not acceptable by company, then this is a total nonsense.

[hedgeh0g]

We can only obey the rules if we want to still work in that company. We can't risk our job by doing something that is prohibited by the company. Besides that written rules, we should care about the unwritten rules that may be not allowing us to do something. It is better we work carefully so nothing bad will happen to us and we don't get any problems. But if we do something by coincidence, maybe the company can forgive us but they will give a warning not to do the same thing in the future. So if we can be careful while we work, we can be a good employee and the company may reward us with something good.

Have you read the article? That fired person wasnt gambling at work or during work, but the reason to fire him was gambling. I have never heard that any company has "any form of gambling is forbidden everywhere" kind of rule. For example, if gambling at home is not acceptable by company, then this is a total nonsense.

I think it would be appropriate to warn your employees when hiring them that they should not play in the workplace because in the worst case scenario it could lead to dismissal. If the employer did not warn about this in advance, then I think this is not the best option for dismissal, because an employee can be fired under any other pretext and even if there is no reason, a higher-up can deliberately make it up because of personal hostility, for example. In general, I think that the first point in this case should have been a warning, not dismissal, this seems too harsh. I wonder if they have trade unions that could prove that this did not affect the employee's work and the entire bank as a whole.

[Hispo]

According to me, bank or any other employer must respect his employees. Employee has a problem - try to help or at least find out what could be done to help. I dont know what should exactly bank do. Maybe send this guy to visit a psychologist first. Or it leads to: addicted employee - fire immediately, employee got sick - fire him, employee urgently needs to pick up a child from school or child got into accident - fire employee, employee spend 1:01h instead of 1h lunch - fire.

It greatly depends on what company you are working, and they policies when comes to mental health and management of their employees. There are companies which have their own psychologist and department dedicated for employees to seek mental well-being, all sponsored by the company itself. On the other hand, there are companies which work at the edge of the law and offer their workers the bare minimum for the company not to break laws of the country and get fired, the latter case is specially prevalent in countries which are not developed and where man-of-war is not as valuable as in other places, where people can be replaced easily with no consequences.
Here in my country I have seen people getting fired for the most absurd things, because the market is saturated and the economy is bad, so businesses can mistreat people working for them.
Wherever that bank was from, it is clear there was no within the scope of law to provide psychological attention to their employees, otherwise she would have not been fired immediately in the manner she was.

It is just a manner of fact that companies reserve their right to fire people to work for them with little to no excuse, and that is something we must live with, at least until there are changes of laws.

[EarnOnVictor]

~snip~
Let's face it, what the judge did was a miscarriage of justice. If that guy was sacked based on the subject matter, it would have been a different thing but he was emphatically sacked for crypto involvement despite not being illegal in his country, these are two different things and this guy was not involved in suspicious acts, neither did he err in his responsibilities as an employee, so we should not drag it far.

Also, desperation is a different context that never showed in the suit. Gambling or not, employees are desperate on a daily basis, it is now left to how the establishment tightens its security not to allow unsuspected/unscrupulous employees to take advantage of it.

It's really hard to know without having all the facts, which I'm sure the judge had...

I agree with you, this is not the case we are so privy to the right documents, so the complete facts are hidden to entirely judge anyone.

Also, yes, people do get frustrated, and desperate in many situations, but I guess you can know that it will potentially happen if you know that someone is a gambling addict.

Don't judge people on presumption. When a crime has never been committed, you don't pass a judgement believing "he can do it." Fine, anyone can be desperate or frustrated, but you will be shocked about how many gamblers have good jobs and even have them in sensitive places. Or should I say with the high percentage of gamblers in the world, should all of them be sacked simply because they gamble? C'mon, they are not criminals.

[blockman]

It is just a manner of fact that companies reserve their right to fire people to work for them with little to no excuse, and that is something we must live with, at least until there are changes of laws.

Yup, that's the life of being employed. We can be removed anytime the management wishes to. With politics or not, with something good or bad that an employee did, always think that they have the rights to do whatever they want to retain or remove an employee. But on this case, they all have the right to impose that rule because that's not right at all for an employee to do something inside working hours that's not in line with company's business.

[nullama]

~snip~
Yup, that's the life of being employed. We can be removed anytime the management wishes to. With politics or not, with something good or bad that an employee did, always think that they have the rights to do whatever they want to retain or remove an employee. But on this case, they all have the right to impose that rule because that's not right at all for an employee to do something inside working hours that's not in line with company's business.

Yeah, that's basically it.

The company pays for your time so they basically own you for that period. You get their money, they get you.

You are only worth anything to the company because without you they couldn't sell whatever they are selling.

The moment they can automate you, they will kick you out, immediately.

[bakasabo]

According to me, bank or any other employer must respect his employees. Employee has a problem - try to help or at least find out what could be done to help. I dont know what should exactly bank do. Maybe send this guy to visit a psychologist first. Or it leads to: addicted employee - fire immediately, employee got sick - fire him, employee urgently needs to pick up a child from school or child got into accident - fire employee, employee spend 1:01h instead of 1h lunch - fire.

It greatly depends on what company you are working, and they policies when comes to mental health and management of their employees. There are companies which have their own psychologist and department dedicated for employees to seek mental well-being, all sponsored by the company itself. On the other hand, there are companies which work at the edge of the law and offer their workers the bare minimum for the company not to break laws of the country and get fired, the latter case is specially prevalent in countries which are not developed and where man-of-war is not as valuable as in other places, where people can be replaced easily with no consequences.
Here in my country I have seen people getting fired for the most absurd things, because the market is saturated and the economy is bad, so businesses can mistreat people working for them.
Wherever that bank was from, it is clear there was no within the scope of law to provide psychological attention to their employees, otherwise she would have not been fired immediately in the manner she was.

It is just a manner of fact that companies reserve their right to fire people to work for them with little to no excuse, and that is something we must live with, at least until there are changes of laws.

I guess then its best to admit that both are guilty or acted incorrectly in that situation. Employee that gambled, even though it is prohibited in South Korea. Bank that interpret situation only from one side, from the side of power. I think not many have noticed how important this case is. When usually a person is fired, he either admits it and let it go, or get negotiations with former employer, hear fully detailed explanation, yet still search for another job. In current case, whole situation ended with a case in court.

[blockman]

~snip~
Yup, that's the life of being employed. We can be removed anytime the management wishes to. With politics or not, with something good or bad that an employee did, always think that they have the rights to do whatever they want to retain or remove an employee. But on this case, they all have the right to impose that rule because that's not right at all for an employee to do something inside working hours that's not in line with company's business.

Yeah, that's basically it.

The company pays for your time so they basically own you for that period. You get their money, they get you.

You are only worth anything to the company because without you they couldn't sell whatever they are selling.

The moment they can automate you, they will kick you out, immediately.

Yes, that's what will happen whenever the company is no longer in need our service. They can automate things and then kick us with some separation pay. But while we are on their premises and we're hired to do our job and task, they can do whatever they want to do because of it and so they respect and pay your time, and so do it as well in return.

[Fredomago]

We can only obey the rules if we want to still work in that company. We can't risk our job by doing something that is prohibited by the company. Besides that written rules, we should care about the unwritten rules that may be not allowing us to do something. It is better we work carefully so nothing bad will happen to us and we don't get any problems. But if we do something by coincidence, maybe the company can forgive us but they will give a warning not to do the same thing in the future. So if we can be careful while we work, we can be a good employee and the company may reward us with something good.

Have you read the article? That fired person wasnt gambling at work or during work, but the reason to fire him was gambling. I have never heard that any company has "any form of gambling is forbidden everywhere" kind of rule. For example, if gambling at home is not acceptable by company, then this is a total nonsense.

I think it would be appropriate to warn your employees when hiring them that they should not play in the workplace because in the worst case scenario it could lead to dismissal. If the employer did not warn about this in advance, then I think this is not the best option for dismissal, because an employee can be fired under any other pretext and even if there is no reason, a higher-up can deliberately make it up because of personal hostility, for example. In general, I think that the first point in this case should have been a warning, not dismissal, this seems too harsh. I wonder if they have trade unions that could prove that this did not affect the employee's work and the entire bank as a whole.

You got a good point, if that's  not a part of your contract then dismissal should not be the first option, there's should be a warning first before dismissing an employee as you mentioned it can easily be abused by any higher authority in that company since they can quickly decide to punished you with dismissal if they wish using that kind of reasoning, though it's tough decision to make since employers or any head of the company have that authorization if that's part of the contract then there's nothing to talk they can simply implement the dismissal.

[jossiel]

You got a good point, if that's  not a part of your contract then dismissal should not be the first option, there's should be a warning first before dismissing an employee as you mentioned it can easily be abused by any higher authority in that company since they can quickly decide to punished you with dismissal if they wish using that kind of reasoning, though it's tough decision to make since employers or any head of the company have that authorization if that's part of the contract then there's nothing to talk they can simply implement the dismissal.

But check the clause of the contract you sign, maybe there is something written there about terminating the contract and the employee at any time the company sees some valid reasons in doing so.

While there is a certain abuse to it but the employee doesn't have any power to alter the decision once it is final based on the basis that the company has seen to dismiss the employee by doing such acts.

[Koadharber]

It is just a manner of fact that companies reserve their right to fire people to work for them with little to no excuse, and that is something we must live with, at least until there are changes of laws.

Yup, that's the life of being employed. We can be removed anytime the management wishes to. With politics or not, with something good or bad that an employee did, always think that they have the rights to do whatever they want to retain or remove an employee. But on this case, they all have the right to impose that rule because that's not right at all for an employee to do something inside working hours that's not in line with company's business.

One of the risks when you are really just that depending into a single source of income or having that day job is that you can possibly be kicked out or laid off because of those common reasons. As much as possible you will really be needing to have that multiple source as much as you could even if its hard but at least you are doing your best on trying to make your living way more better. Just be sure that you will really be obeying companies rules and policies and as much as possible on trying out to avoid on things on which you do seem that it will really be able to affect your work and possible that being removed due to some reasons.