JOB COACH HAD NO WRIGHT TO DO WHAT HE OR SHE DID I WOULD HAVE WENT TO THE SUPEVISOR AND LET HIM TAKE CARE OF AND MYBE IT WOULD OUT BETTRER THEN IT DID.

The Job Coach will need to speak with Laurie about whats some additional aspects of wrking require beside doing the work. Explaining and and role playing what it looks like and what's appropriate versus whats not. I don't agree with the provided solution it can cause more behavior due to Laurie feeling as though shes being treated like child.  This action doesnt provide a form of redirection nor breings about a soulution.This action also causes disturbance with the employer and his workforce by not allowing Laurie to report to work.I would begin by working with Laurie before she gets a job and explain what it actually means to have a job and what her responsibilities are. Also, work on how she response to conflict or when she feels frustrated.

Laurie's job coach interfered and took control away from the employer. Laurie may need a change in her schedule or other ramification. The job coach was aware of Laurie's recent outbursts in behavior, yet she provoked a situation instead of trying to approach a solution. Writing a paper will most likely not modify Laurie's behavior.  Nothing was noted about Laurie having behavior issues at work; I would have allowed the supervisor to address her and only step in if a problem occurred. 

I agree with what others are saying about the Job Coach overstepping. She should have let the supervisor handle the situation. I don't think that Laurie is going to write the two page paper and she is likely to lose respect for the Job Coach which will result in her losing authority. What Laurie did was not right, but the Job Coach should have let the supervisor make the descision on the consequences. 

If she is starting her "teenage rebellious phase," the job coach over stepped her authority at work. The consequence of having a poor attitude at work is finding herself out of  a  job.  Laurie will not write the two-page paper about being disrespectful. This message is to Laurie there is no consequences with regards to her job coach. She lost all the power and respect from Laurie. The company should have made the decison for her to go home.

 It was not apropriate for her job coach to do that because that give Laurie the impression that the job coach is the person she should report to in case of emergency or for anything. This also gives the employer the impression that if there is a problem thjat the job coach will take care of it and it will make it harder for them to fade the job coach for Laurie from her job. If Laurie is not doing what she should be doing, try to use reinforcers. If she doesnt respond or doesnt change the way she behaves at work then it is important that the employer be the one to address the issue, that way the other employees see that just because Laurie has a reason to have a job coach does not mean she gets treated any differently. She should have been taken to the employer first instead of the job coach taking it into their own hands.

I feel like the company should have handled it and not the job coach.  The job coach should have asked her to calm down or used redirection with the behavioral issues unless she was not trained on her BA plan if she has one currently.  However, the job coach is not her boss and should not have acted in that capacity.  Maybe a new job coach should be obtained that might better suit her needs.  I think if a BA plan is present then make sure the job coach is trained.  I don't see how writing the paper will help but maybe the company sending her home will make more impact on her than the job coaching.  The company should explain it as she will be sent home and will receive no pay for the rest of the day.  If the company felt the infraction was serious enough, perhaps a day suspension is necessary.  The job coach should explain to her that no working means no pay.  

 Her job coach wanted her to think about the consequence by doing a 2 page report of her behavior but I dont think thats agood option for this individual. I think a good solution would be to take another approach and have a discussion about her consequences if she continues this behavior how it willaffect her job and relationship with her employer. The message this gives to Laurie is that you are treating her as a rebelling teen and not as a idividual that is still learning future adult skills in life. This will look not professional to her employer and might cause some assumptions of mistrust and  non appropriate communication skills in the work enviroment. I would take the face to face discussion strategy with her and be thorough  about how her being late and unproffessional attitude will affect her realtionship in the work place. Also if it contnues she can loose her job and that will effect her income and resposibilities as well.

I also agree that the job coach over stepped in this situation. The job coach could have had a conversation later on with her and let her know how important being on time is. She even could have asked why she was late, bevuase it could have been something out of her control. As long as she hasnt been making a habit of it. The employeer should have been the one to make if any consequences. 

Laurie needs to have a conversation with the job coach and supervisor about the inappropriate behavior. Once a person starts work it is important they have to follow the rules as any other employee. The supervisor should be consulted about how to handle the behavior, this is not the job coaches responsibility to decide, just support the employer. 

I think the job coach should have a conversation with Laurie about the importance of punctuality and being dependable to her coworkers but the coach should have let the supervisor handle any disciplinary action that needed to be implemented.

Hi! My name is Sharon and I'm just starting and looking forward to the couse. 

Hello. My name is Nick and I'm just getting started. Instructions told me to introduce myself in the first topic. Looking forward to the class.

The couch should have let the supervisor handle it. There are normally policy and proedures in place. The couch should step in and speak to the client after the supervisor handled it. That way she knows there are consequences to her actions.

It would have been MUCH better for her supervisor to send her home -- or deliver whatever discipline he/she felt appropriate. The job coach is NOT her supervisor. The company may have set procedures for dealing with this type of behavior.

This punishment distanced the employee from the employer and made the job coach an authority figure over Laurie. Laurie should know from the employer the consequences of her lateness. Because not all employers have the same policy, she will be less stigmatized if she experiences the corporate consequences rather than a personalized consequence, drawn up by the job coach.

I feel that in this situation the job coach should have taken an extra moment and talked to Laurie in a quiet even toned manner and explained that this behavior is unacceptable. Laurie should have been allowed to work her shift because this could have resulted in her termination because the supervisor did not send her the job coach did. The solution that the job coach came up with may give Laurie the idea that if you come to work with an attitude that you will get sent home and she may purposely try it again to escape work. The employer is looking for an employee to be at work and on time and will give them the impression that she is an unreliable imployee.  I would address the problem the end of the shift to see what happened in a quiet tone and not take things personal when she "act out"  to get to the true cause of the problem so she can maintain employment.

By taking Laurie’s attitude personally and reacting emotionally, the job coach has disrupted several dimensions of Laurie’s employment. The job coach overstepped their position by not consulting the employer. The job coach damaged the current rapport in Laurie’s professional relationships. They caused the supported employee to be stigmatized. The audience must understand where and why Laurie exhibits an attitude. The job coach based their actions on emotions and assumptions, not consultation. The audience does not know how the employer reacts to difficult situations. The employer, however, knows the company’s procedures and policies for insubordination. (Most employers receive training or have the authority to decide the appropriate course of action.) They are equipped to devise consequences. Additionally, if the employer is viewing Laurie as a teenager and employee, they may be responding to the situation as they would with other teenagers who do not have a job coach. (This statement is not to say that their response is correct; rather, Laurie is not being treated separately from her coworkers. The audience neither knows the company nor the work culture.) Nevertheless, the employer’s leadership was undermined, which places them in a difficult position. Laurie may now perceive her job coach as a supervisor, and the employer may become reliant on the job coach for handling future situations with Laurie; hence, she receives specialized treatment and becomes removed from her coworkers. Her consequence may be preferential, leading to future disputes and animosity between coworkers and the employer. The ramification is the job coach damages several professional relationships. The employer, furthermore, may become frustrated or angry because they lost a team member for the shift, which causes additional work for everyone. Teams often are disgruntled when overworked. The stressful situation now spreads. Instead of handling only Laurie, the employer must appease the team. The perception of a united workforce is disrupted until Laurie can return. If the employer had been consulted, they may have devised a solution with the job coach. This solution may have built better rapport between the employer, job coach, and Laurie. More importantly, Laurie would have been viewed as a team member on equal terms. The job coach may have stigmatized Laurie in many ways: disability, age, and temperament. Since the forum topic does not state whether the job coach confronted Laurie in private or public, the audience must assume the latter because the job coach exhibits a tendency of handling situations incorrectly. A public confrontation would stigmatize Laurie as a “bad” worker. Job coaches must be aware of how the supported employee’s disability is perceived in the workplace, lest temperament is negatively correlated with disability or workmanship. Laurie may be labelled as temperamental as other workers would witness her raised “volume, inappropriate tone and attitude.” Moreover, if the company has a generational workforce, the job coach provided an inappropriate consequence; this consequence reflected her age and not her status as an employee. The assigned task was unnatural in a professional environment. Viewed in a negative light, Laurie may struggle to re-adjust when she returns. Her consequence may then become two-fold. She loses trust in others and others in her. She may be secluded by her job coach and by her coworkers. Hence, her behavior may continue to occur. Laurie is exhibiting an attitude in her comfort zones, home and work. She seems to be rebelling against adults who attempt to control her. Since her employer and coworkers do not restrict her, she seemingly has not directed her attitude towards them. They either may be excluding her in the work environment or may be more understanding (empathetic) by providing her the necessary space to explore her limitations. Regardless of the answer, she did not receive any consequence from her employers or coworkers, which is then interpreted as reinforcement. Once again, the job coach’s consultation with the employer would help. Laurie’s behavior can be addressed in a professional manner by consulting the employer, speaking privately with Laurie and her family, and discovering new systems of communication. Laurie may be communicating her boundaries. She must nurture these skills because they are important in her development; how she manages it will affect her home and professional life for a long time. The best solution would be to give Laurie some control, adjusting to the new perspective she has about herself, her abilities, and her relationships. She may also require a new job coach who is better equipped to address her attitude and redirect negative emotions. I personally experienced this transition with a past person supported. This individual did not have a job. Although her parents sought employment, she was uninterested in every search. She also had multiple job coaches prior to our introduction. For several months, I showed possible work environments, taught technical skills, and provided companionship to her activities. She was often unhappy. When we last met, she was relaxing at home and delving into her interests. She wanted alone time more than employment. Previous job coaches addressed this situation with her parents. Although we adjusted her services, her outlook was poor. Currently, she has declined services. 

I understand the Job Coach's frustration with this teenager's attitude, however, I do not agree with the Job Coach's solution to that problem. I don't think it's our job to scold clients, even if they're at a young age and defiant. This sends the wrong message to the supervisor and employer that we're more of an authority figure than a support person. The employer can issue out the punishment to the client for being defiant and coming into work late, which is the typical process. As Job Coaches, I think we have to be careful not to interrupt the normal processes that any employee has to experience. We can advise, encourage, and coach, but at the end of the day it's the client's responsibility to maintain their employment and follow the typical work procedures. It gives Laure the wrong idea of what the Job Coach's actual role is in her life. 

Teenagers in the society tend to experience development in their brain, and physical body which tend to affect their societal behaviors. This tends to demand a lot from them because they tend to see the society to require them to behave like adults and therefore they work ensure that their actions portray maturity and independency. However, this is not always the case. Their attempts to express their maturity turn out to depict arrogance, lack of respect and carelessness. This makes them a nuisance to the society and more often get them rejected in places of work due to their awkward behaviors.Dealing with teenage rebellion requires strict measures and effective guidelines to be put in place in order to make the teenagers abide to certain rules that will restrict them from displaying their arrogance and disrespect to the society. Laurie acts like she knows everything; this is one of the habits developed during adolescence and she has not yet outgone the behavior. To mitigate this, there need to be a counseling talk between her job coach and her to enlighten her on the importance of accepting corrections especially in a work place and the consequences of failing to accept correction.Oppositional defiance disorder is a mental illness majorly diagnosed for teenagers is a major problem among the youth. It is characterized by symptoms such as defying of adults, constantly arguing with adults and refusing to comply with the request of adults. This condition drives teenage to only to what their mind thinks is right and tend to reject the adults decisions implicated to them. Laurie acts like she can do it on her own and does not need any help. Her behavior depicts that she does not accept correction from her job coach, a condition that shows oppositional defiance disorder. Therefore, Laurie should be taught the importance of team work in a company or an institution and its benefits; for instance she should be educated on how effective team work leads to efficiency of work and also saves time.The fact that Laurie raises her volume and answers her Job coach in an inappropriate tone and attitude is a reflection of lack of respect and arrogance. Defiance and other several reasons for emotional difficulties and disruptiveness in the society has been one of the common behaviors of teenagers. Laurie needs to be taught the importance of etiquette and respect to the authority as a way of improving her relation and social life at work.There are two ways of dealing with defiance; it can either be pathologized or it can be criminalized. In this, I would let Laurie know the consequences of defiance and lack of respect to authority. Laurie needs to understand that defiance scan lead to her losing her job which might be her only source of income and therefore would affect her life in that she would not be able to meet her expenditures. Additionally, she needs to learn on the importance of respect, self-obedience and use of low tone when she feels offended. Laurie needs to understand the importance of team work, as a way of achieving targets on time, a way of learning and making corrections and also a way of social interactions. She therefore needs to change her attitude of thinking that she can do everything on her own.Laurie’s employer needs to enact strict rules and regulations at their place of work; for instance, there should be reporting of defiance and arrogance to a given authority and various punishments. Rules on time to report to work and reporting of lateness should also be implemented. Individuals with arrogance and lack of respect to their fellow employees should be warned or even fired in instances that they persist in the behavior. Laurie’s employer should also initiate programs that teach the members of the company or institution especially the teenagers on how they should relate with their fellow workers, the importance of team work and also the importance of accepting correction.Initiating of programs that teach on how to overcome teenage rebellion is one of the strategies I would use. The programs will entail lessons on the importance of teamwork, respect to the authority and acceptance of correction from the authority and fellow workers. I would also develop strict measures where by individuals who defy the company regulations are warned and to some extent punished. Additionally, I would initiate authorities to deal with cases of indiscipline in the company, for instance a company disciplinary committee.  

So I think that this solution is the incorrect response to the problem. The reason being is that by sending Laurie home yourself you have unintentionally taken the authority away from the natural supervisor. You have now put yourself in the supervising role and given Laurie the impression that you are the boss not her current employer. You have also disrespected the employer by undermining his position and you have left him short staffed by sending someone home that he wasn't prepared to leave. What I would have done differently is this: I would have had a conversation with the acting supervisor and discussed options on how he/she would like to proceed with this situation. If the supervisor does end up deciding to send her home and reprimand then HE NEEDS TO BE THE ONE TO DO IT.  If you as the job coach take on the role as trainer and disciplinarian then you have made the employee and the employer dependent on you which makes the fading process harder or impossible.

Writing a paper prior to being allowed to return back to work is atypical of what one would expect from their employer. The job coach not only should not have been the person to reprimand the worker, but certainly he should not have treated her like a student, or someone that was not an equal peer in the workplace. Not only that, but now he has taken the employer out of the equation. We want more companies to hire people with disabilities and to know how to respond to them in these situations. I am sure she was not the first employee with an attitude the employer has ever dealt with and likely had more experience handling the situation than the job coach. This would have been an opportunity for them to work together and for the job coach to give strategies on how to deal with this individual if he needed it. Going over the employee rules with the worker would be more beneficial. Discussing why she is late and addressing those reasons and coming up with a solution for that problem would be much more appropriate than a paper.

In my opinion the job coach should have let the employer determine the consequence of the employee being late. The job coach telling the employee to write a paper is treating her like a child and thats the last thing a teenager wants to be treated like. The boundries of the job coach was defintly over stepped. I would have took the employee to the employer and let them take care of it just like they would any other person without a job coach.