Facebooking while out sick gets employee fired...

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Would the company have granted her the sick day if she just said she was feeling poorly? If so, they have no room to talk. Have they required all employees to provide detailed reasons/doctors' notes for their sick days? If so, they're probably in the clear. If not, she actually would have decent grounds for a lawsuit (not that I'd recommend it; too many dumb lawsuits out there as it is.)

Actually, it kinda works the opposite of what you think. If an employee says "I'm sick" or "I'm not feeling well", that's a subjective statement. The employer really can't challenge it too easily. Get caught surfing Facebook? Just say you needed to stay home so you didn't infect coworkers.

If the employee says "I have cancer and need to take a week to go to the Mayo Clinic for treatment" and her boss sees her at a resort in Sao Paolo, that's grounds for instant termination.

From both an employers and employees standpoint, the more specific you are the more likely you are to be in trouble.

I'm talking about the universal application of rules. HR must ensure that standards are applied equally.

If she volunteered additional detail that the company doesn't require, they'd have a harder time proving in court that she should be fired because they typically don't apply that standard to their employees.

If the company requires that level of detailed disclosure from all employees, she doesn't have a case at all because they are uniformly applying the standard.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
companies should just get rid of sick days and add to PTO's.... then it doesn't matter.

There are reasons for differentiating. At my previous company sick days never stopped accruing no matter how many you had; that was because they were used to supplement your short-term disability pay. We were only allowed to carry a certain number of vacation days per year. When an employee left the company, they'd be paid for their vacation days but not their sick days. Sick days could be taken with no notice, but we were expected to notify our manager before using vacation days.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.

 

[darkxshade]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
companies should just get rid of work days and add to PTO's.... then it doesn't matter.

fixed for desirability

 

[torpid]

When I'm home sick I use my iphone regularly. Most of the time, it is to check my damn work email so I can respond in a timely fashion to important emails. What kind of stupid employer cares whether their employee is using facebook a few times while home sick? Let me guess... they'd fire her if she left the dark room in which she was lying to go to the bathroom?

 

[Viper GTS]

I kind of feel bad for her, I had sutures removed from my cornea two weeks ago & spent a couple days at home in the dark. I could stand a monitor for very short periods of time (a few minutes) before the light became unbearable, but I did spend time in bed browsing the web via my smart phone. Even after I was back at work too much time spent by a window would result in one shut eye & streaming tears.

Viper GTS

 

[DrPizza]

I know a guy... if I were in his occupation, looking for a job, I'd send in a resume to his company, then send in a bunch of logs of his facebook activity. Every once in a while, I take a glance to see how much of his day he wasted. Hours upon hours are spent playing games on facebook, doing those idiotic surveys, and becoming a fan of a lot of things that would lead to sexual harassment charges if a female employee happened to walk by his computer and wanted to make a stink.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
I'm talking about the universal application of rules. HR must ensure that standards are applied equally.

If she volunteered additional detail that the company doesn't require, they'd have a harder time proving in court that she should be fired because they typically don't apply that standard to their employees.

If the company requires that level of detailed disclosure from all employees, she doesn't have a case at all because they are uniformly applying the standard.

I disagree. If the standard is 'no documentation or reason necessary' and she volunteers additional information, she does so at her own risk. If that information turns out to be false she bears the risk of censure, reprimand, or termination for knowingly making false statements.

It's like a hiring decision; a potential employer can't ask if you're married, and presumably can't discriminate against you for being married or not, but once you volunteer that information it can be used against you (b/c you'd have an impossible time proving in court the discrimination unless they were braindead and admitted to it).

Now, if the standard is 'no documentation or reason necessary' but the tell her she specifically has to get a note for this incident, and she has no history of excessive absence, THAT is where the company is in the wrong. That's not what happened here. By the account of the article, the standard was applied per policy, she said more information than she needed to, she was caught lying in that additional information, she was terminated for lying.

 

[zCypher]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I know a guy... if I were in his occupation, looking for a job, I'd send in a resume to his company, then send in a bunch of logs of his facebook activity. Every once in a while, I take a glance to see how much of his day he wasted. Hours upon hours are spent playing games on facebook, doing those idiotic surveys, and becoming a fan of a lot of things that would lead to sexual harassment charges if a female employee happened to walk by his computer and wanted to make a stink.

We also don't know the whole story, maybe there are other reasons they aren't mentioning. Maybe they already had reason to question their trust in the employee. Who knows. All I know is I don't Facebook at work, and I rarely Facebook on my own time; it's just not that interesting or fun of a site, in my opinion. To me, hours of 'becoming a fan of XYZ' is just like hours of playing Solitaire. I never do 'personal' activities while I'm at work unless I'm on break, lunch, before or after my shift - and even then, I limit my usage because it just looks bad. Some people seem to think that they are entitled to 'personal time' at work, but that's not true - you're being paid to do what they tell you to do, not to fuck around. I know that in some jobs, there's a lot of dead time, so there are some exceptions - but I've seen so many work places where there's PLENTY of work to do, and yet there they are playing music videos, etc while people that are actually working are forced to pick up the slack.

Running a business usually isn't easy, and it costs a shitload of money to pay employees (not just the cost of their salary). Often, those who complain about the company are the shitty employees, although nobody likes to admit they're one of them. I will admit there are a lot of shitty companies out there, too though. Part of the problem is companies put up with shitty employees (often tricky though), and employees put up with shitty companies (usually easy to see if you're at least a bit intelligent).

If the employee in question was a great employee, and got canned just cause they were on Facebook a bit while sick at home, then yes I would sympathize with the employee - but we don't really know much about the reality of the entire situation in proper context. As I understand it, both the company and the employee are happy to go their separate ways. heh.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
I'm talking about the universal application of rules. HR must ensure that standards are applied equally.

If she volunteered additional detail that the company doesn't require, they'd have a harder time proving in court that she should be fired because they typically don't apply that standard to their employees.

If the company requires that level of detailed disclosure from all employees, she doesn't have a case at all because they are uniformly applying the standard.

I disagree. If the standard is 'no documentation or reason necessary' and she volunteers additional information, she does so at her own risk. If that information turns out to be false she bears the risk of censure, reprimand, or termination for knowingly making false statements.

It's like a hiring decision; a potential employer can't ask if you're married, and presumably can't discriminate against you for being married or not, but once you volunteer that information it can be used against you (b/c you'd have an impossible time proving in court the discrimination unless they were braindead and admitted to it).

Now, if the standard is 'no documentation or reason necessary' but the tell her she specifically has to get a note for this incident, and she has no history of excessive absence, THAT is where the company is in the wrong. That's not what happened here. By the account of the article, the standard was applied per policy, she said more information than she needed to, she was caught lying in that additional information, she was terminated for lying.

Look at it this way:
Employee A says, "I'm sick" with no more detail, goes home, posts on Facebook, doesn't get fired.
Employee B says, "I'm sick and can't look at a computer screen", goes home, posts on Facebook, gets fired.

In court there's a good chance the firing would not hold up because the company did not treat another sick employee posting on Facebook the same way. The fact that she disclosed the information is not relevant unless the company requires all employees to disclose that information, thereby ensuring equal treatment.

For all they know that's the reason that employee A would have given them if they'd asked, requiring them to fire employee A to be equal. If they didn't ask employee A, they can't use the info against employee B.

As far as the bolded part of your comment, you can't use that information to discriminate in hiring, even if it was volunteered. You're right that functionally they could and it would be hard to prove in court, but you still cannot legally use information like that in making a hiring decision.

<--- ex-HR

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: zCypher

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I know a guy... if I were in his occupation, looking for a job, I'd send in a resume to his company, then send in a bunch of logs of his facebook activity. Every once in a while, I take a glance to see how much of his day he wasted. Hours upon hours are spent playing games on facebook, doing those idiotic surveys, and becoming a fan of a lot of things that would lead to sexual harassment charges if a female employee happened to walk by his computer and wanted to make a stink.

We also don't know the whole story, maybe there are other reasons they aren't mentioning. Maybe they already had reason to question their trust in the employee. Who knows. All I know is I don't Facebook at work, and I rarely Facebook on my own time; it's just not that interesting or fun of a site, in my opinion. To me, hours of 'becoming a fan of XYZ' is just like hours of playing Solitaire. I never do 'personal' activities while I'm at work unless I'm on break, lunch, before or after my shift - and even then, I limit my usage because it just looks bad. Some people seem to think that they are entitled to 'personal time' at work, but that's not true - you're being paid to do what they tell you to do, not to fuck around. I know that in some jobs, there's a lot of dead time, so there are some exceptions - but I've seen so many work places where there's PLENTY of work to do, and yet there they are playing music videos, etc while people that are actually working are forced to pick up the slack.

Running a business usually isn't easy, and it costs a shitload of money to pay employees (not just the cost of their salary). Often, those who complain about the company are the shitty employees, although nobody likes to admit they're one of them. I will admit there are a lot of shitty companies out there, too though. Part of the problem is companies put up with shitty employees (often tricky though), and employees put up with shitty companies (usually easy to see if you're at least a bit intelligent).

If the employee in question was a great employee, and got canned just cause they were on Facebook a bit while sick at home, then yes I would sympathize with the employee - but we don't really know much about the reality of the entire situation in proper context. As I understand it, both the company and the employee are happy to go their separate ways. heh.

Agree with the sentiment here. It sounds like they were trying to can her for other reasons and this just wound up being a convenient technicality that allowed them to do it.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
so her reason for being out sick was specifically that she couldn't be in front of a computer monitor? What exactly is that called, because I'm certain that I'm coming down with a wicked case of it right now..

migraines? I know I couldn't look at a monitor for even an additional second when I start getting them. It's literally very nauseating. If she used that as just an excuse, she definitely deserves some sort of reprimand... and I guess they chose one that they thought fit.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Look at it this way:
Employee A says, "I'm sick" with no more detail, goes home, posts on Facebook, doesn't get fired.
Employee B says, "I'm sick and can't look at a computer screen", goes home, posts on Facebook, gets fired.

In court there's a good chance the firing would not hold up because the company did not treat another sick employee posting on Facebook the same way. The fact that she disclosed the information is not relevant unless the company requires all employees to disclose that information, thereby ensuring equal treatment.

For all they know that's the reason that employee A would have given them if they'd asked, requiring them to fire employee A to be equal. If they didn't ask employee A, they can't use the info against employee B.

As far as the bolded part of your comment, you can't use that information to discriminate in hiring, even if it was volunteered. You're right that functionally they could and it would be hard to prove in court, but you still cannot legally use information like that in making a hiring decision.

<--- ex-HR

I think the key is that she was fired for lying. IF she were fired for being on Facebook, then I agree with your position. Since she was fired for lying, treatment of employees using Facebook is irrelevant.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Look at it this way:
Employee A says, "I'm sick" with no more detail, goes home, posts on Facebook, doesn't get fired.
Employee B says, "I'm sick and can't look at a computer screen", goes home, posts on Facebook, gets fired.

In court there's a good chance the firing would not hold up because the company did not treat another sick employee posting on Facebook the same way. The fact that she disclosed the information is not relevant unless the company requires all employees to disclose that information, thereby ensuring equal treatment.

For all they know that's the reason that employee A would have given them if they'd asked, requiring them to fire employee A to be equal. If they didn't ask employee A, they can't use the info against employee B.

As far as the bolded part of your comment, you can't use that information to discriminate in hiring, even if it was volunteered. You're right that functionally they could and it would be hard to prove in court, but you still cannot legally use information like that in making a hiring decision.

<--- ex-HR

I think the key is that she was fired for lying. IF she were fired for being on Facebook, then I agree with your position. Since she was fired for lying, treatment of employees using Facebook is irrelevant.

I guess the question comes down to this: can you fire an employee for lying on information that you've previously deemed irrelevant (as proven by the fact that you did not ask for it from other employees)?

Legally that's probably a toss up.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
companies shouldnt even be required to give a reason for firing a person

The whole concept of a protected class insists that businesses keep records and documented explainations for everything to cover their asses anyway.

 

[Marinski]

god forbid anybody calls into work sick every once in awile. Doesnt her boss have any work to do instead of snooping on her??

 

[nageov3t]

and that is why I refuse to friend anyone I work with.

of course, I would also never get that specific when taking a sick day either. "sorry, not feeling well" is about all they'll get out of me when I call out sick.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: dighn

Originally posted by: hanoverphist
i can see that, she couldnt go to work since she couldnt be in front of the monitor. sounds like a migraine attack or eye issues. using the net on an iphone would pretty much tell me she was ok to go back to work, but i doubt i would fire her over it. maybe a talking to, maybe something more severe, but not firing. and the trust level would be lower too.

I don't think it that unreasonable. Maybe she couldn't (ok, wasn't comfortable enough to) to stare at a screen for 8+ hours in an office environment, but that doesn't mean she couldn't briefly check her phone or god forbid her personal computer occasionally. Very different imo.

I've definitely had days where I didn't feel comfortable enough to go to work (a bad headache for example), but it didn't mean I was completely disabled for the day.

i agree, i said that i would lose a bit of trust (maybe), but not fire her over it. more than likely i wouldnt even know about it, since we dont track facebook or myspace pages of the employees. i think thats a bit too intrusive for my tastes. the fact that the company doesnt allow facebook at the office is bs too. how did they "accidentally" come across her use if the page is not allowed on their network? that means they were targeting her on her day off and looking for her use. im betting they had other reasons to suspect her and used this to get rid of her.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
companies shouldnt even be required to give a reason for firing a person

slippery...

not to me

if a company hires and fires on any basis other than skill/value to company, they aren't going last

sounds like this lady got goosed.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
companies should just get rid of sick days and add to PTO's.... then it doesn't matter.

At my last employer we had just a PTO bank, and for the most part I really preferred that system as opposed to "sick days" and "vacation days."

Anyhow, I think what the employer did was absolutely unacceptable.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
companies shouldnt even be required to give a reason for firing a person

RIGHT ON! Landlords should be able to evict for no reason either! What if you get a better rent offer and stuck with a tenant for a year?