Lost my job =(

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Imp
I hope you leave many many "traces" of yourself before you leave/left. If they fired you cause of "disciplinary" reasons, then chances are you can't use them as a reference anyways. Burn those bridges...

Bottom line here, I think he has a valid case for wrongful termination. Like it or not, you can't 'fire' someone unless you have systematic documentation proving repeated, willful behavior that merited termination.

You can lay someone off for any reason; this is the idea behind right-to-work and employed-at-will states. But, you can't FIRE someone for any reason and prevent them from getting unemployment benefits.

So wrong here. You've obviously never lived in an "At-Will" state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can terminate the relationship with no liability if there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship. Under this legal doctrine:

? any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1]

You can be fired for NO REASON at all. It's their right.

 

[josh0099]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Imp
I hope you leave many many "traces" of yourself before you leave/left. If they fired you cause of "disciplinary" reasons, then chances are you can't use them as a reference anyways. Burn those bridges...

Bottom line here, I think he has a valid case for wrongful termination. Like it or not, you can't 'fire' someone unless you have systematic documentation proving repeated, willful behavior that merited termination.

You can lay someone off for any reason; this is the idea behind right-to-work and employed-at-will states. But, you can't FIRE someone for any reason and prevent them from getting unemployment benefits.

So wrong here. You've obviously never lived in an "At-Will" state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can terminate the relationship with no liability if there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship. Under this legal doctrine:

? any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1]

You can be fired for NO REASON at all. It's their right.

Pretty sure he was just saying that you can't be denied unemployment benefits, just because they didn't want you anymore and said "you were fired". They have to certain reasons which are often hard to prove to deny your unemployment benefits...

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
The kind that prevents our employees from calling out because they don't feel like working. If you are too sick to work, you need to go see a doctor. We also accept a doctor's note for an employee's child, if an employee has to stay home to care for him/her.

Ah, I see. So your workplace is loaded down with people hacking, coughing, and sneezing on each other, passing around colds and flu and other ailments too minor to require a doctor, and therefore not real "sickness". I'm glad I don't work there, sounds like misery.

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
If someone just has a sore throat or is a little nauseas they should show up to work. You must be a Gen X'er.

s
As shocking as this sounds, making the entire office sick does not help productivity.

That said, I'm the guy who usually tries to come in to work if I'm not really bad off. But I have flex-time, so I can sleep in a little, and work later in the evening when I feel better.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: josh0099

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Imp
I hope you leave many many "traces" of yourself before you leave/left. If they fired you cause of "disciplinary" reasons, then chances are you can't use them as a reference anyways. Burn those bridges...

Bottom line here, I think he has a valid case for wrongful termination. Like it or not, you can't 'fire' someone unless you have systematic documentation proving repeated, willful behavior that merited termination.

You can lay someone off for any reason; this is the idea behind right-to-work and employed-at-will states. But, you can't FIRE someone for any reason and prevent them from getting unemployment benefits.

So wrong here. You've obviously never lived in an "At-Will" state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can terminate the relationship with no liability if there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship. Under this legal doctrine:

? any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1]

You can be fired for NO REASON at all. It's their right.

Pretty sure he was just saying that you can't be denied unemployment benefits, just because they didn't want you anymore and said "you were fired". They have to certain reasons which are often hard to prove to deny your unemployment benefits...

Correct. Discharge = lay off. Lay off = unemployment benefits.

Fire = you did something bad, on purpose, and it is entirely your fault that you were terminated.

I feel fairly confident that I made this clear in my original posting that you quoted as well.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: josh0099

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Imp
I hope you leave many many "traces" of yourself before you leave/left. If they fired you cause of "disciplinary" reasons, then chances are you can't use them as a reference anyways. Burn those bridges...

Bottom line here, I think he has a valid case for wrongful termination. Like it or not, you can't 'fire' someone unless you have systematic documentation proving repeated, willful behavior that merited termination.

You can lay someone off for any reason; this is the idea behind right-to-work and employed-at-will states. But, you can't FIRE someone for any reason and prevent them from getting unemployment benefits.

So wrong here. You've obviously never lived in an "At-Will" state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can terminate the relationship with no liability if there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship. Under this legal doctrine:

? any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1]

You can be fired for NO REASON at all. It's their right.

Pretty sure he was just saying that you can't be denied unemployment benefits, just because they didn't want you anymore and said "you were fired". They have to certain reasons which are often hard to prove to deny your unemployment benefits...

His first sentence says "Like it or not, you can't 'fire' someone unless you have systematic documentation proving repeated, willful behavior that merited termination. "

Didn't mention anything about unemployment. The quote also didn't mention anything about unemployment. His second paragraph did, but his comments in context are simply not true. At-will states can fire you for any reason. IMP never said anything about denying benefits, just using them as a reference.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: josh0099

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Imp
I hope you leave many many "traces" of yourself before you leave/left. If they fired you cause of "disciplinary" reasons, then chances are you can't use them as a reference anyways. Burn those bridges...

Bottom line here, I think he has a valid case for wrongful termination. Like it or not, you can't 'fire' someone unless you have systematic documentation proving repeated, willful behavior that merited termination.

You can lay someone off for any reason; this is the idea behind right-to-work and employed-at-will states. But, you can't FIRE someone for any reason and prevent them from getting unemployment benefits.

So wrong here. You've obviously never lived in an "At-Will" state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can terminate the relationship with no liability if there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship. Under this legal doctrine:

? any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1]

You can be fired for NO REASON at all. It's their right.

Pretty sure he was just saying that you can't be denied unemployment benefits, just because they didn't want you anymore and said "you were fired". They have to certain reasons which are often hard to prove to deny your unemployment benefits...

His first sentence says "Like it or not, you can't 'fire' someone unless you have systematic documentation proving repeated, willful behavior that merited termination. "

Didn't mention anything about unemployment. The quote also didn't mention anything about unemployment. His second paragraph did, but his comments in context are simply not true. At-will states can fire you for any reason. IMP never said anything about denying benefits, just using them as a reference.

Dude, can you not connect two adjacent sentences?
I talked about unemployment benefits in the second sentence, where I differentiated between firing and laying off and the impact on unemployment benefits. This is immediately subsequent to a sentence where I described the legality of one method of termination vs another.

*shrug* reading comprehension ain't what it used to be....

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Dedication to work != how many vacation days you took, it's how many days you called in sick, how many days you strolled into work 20 minutes late, how many days you decided to cut out a few minutes early, how many days your lunch took 1 hours and 15 minutes, or how many days you decided to go to work and not actually do your work. Trust me, there's a lot more to "unprofessional attitude/demeanor" & "dedication and responsibility" than you think.

:thumbsup: We have a point system at work. You come in 15 minutes late, you get a point. You call in sick but don't have a doctor's note, you get a point. You get 8 points, and you get escorted off the premises.

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: RichardE
Your own fault. If you followed procedures to the letter they would have no reason to let you go for unprofesionalism. Most people know this. If they can't fire you for what they want, they'll fire you for something else. Or if they can save on severance, they'll find something else.

Listen up jerk. Companies give vacation days for a reason... to be used.

It's not wise to take a vacation when your department is going through rough times. You know, unless you want to be canned.

Wow, a doctor's note for every sick day? What if you have explosive diarrhea? How can you make it to the doctor without shitting your pants?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Wow, a doctor's note for every sick day? What if you have explosive diarrhea? How can you make it to the doctor without shitting your pants?

I was going to say, "Suck it up," in the traditional sense, but then it occurred to me that this has a second, less pleasant meaning.



Or just bring 1cup along.

 

[poopaskoopa]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
:thumbsup: We have a point system at work. You come in 15 minutes late, you get a point. You call in sick but don't have a doctor's note, you get a point. You get 8 points, and you get escorted off the premises.

It's not wise to take a vacation when your department is going through rough times. You know, unless you want to be canned.

You work for a pretty ridiculous place. We get treated very well at my work. If you come in late, no one cares. Go home early, sure. Don't want to come in, just email the boss.

As long as we get 40 hours in between Monday and Sunday.

I work for a Japanese company. We get benefits better than the government, pay much higher than the regional average, and all we have to do is work hard. We run a 24-hour operation, so if someone doesn't show up for a shift, they can't make it up.


(Note: This does not concern the salaried, office employees. We are much more lax with them).

Part of the benefits package of the govt is that you have sick leave that accumulates that you can use without a doctors note. Obviously your benefits aren't better.

Oh yes, that pesky doctor's note is horrible. Obviously any benefits package not requiring a doctor's note for sick leave would be better. :roll:

Do you deduct points for exceeding expectations? By staying 15 minutes late? Being more productive?

And why are you much more lax with salaried workers? Is this a difference in the way contractors and full-time employees are treated, or is this a difference in laborers vs management? If there's a difference, then you have a better benefit for the salaried and a shitty one for the hourlies.

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: josh0099

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Imp
I hope you leave many many "traces" of yourself before you leave/left. If they fired you cause of "disciplinary" reasons, then chances are you can't use them as a reference anyways. Burn those bridges...

Bottom line here, I think he has a valid case for wrongful termination. Like it or not, you can't 'fire' someone unless you have systematic documentation proving repeated, willful behavior that merited termination.

You can lay someone off for any reason; this is the idea behind right-to-work and employed-at-will states. But, you can't FIRE someone for any reason and prevent them from getting unemployment benefits.

So wrong here. You've obviously never lived in an "At-Will" state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can terminate the relationship with no liability if there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship. Under this legal doctrine:

? any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1]

You can be fired for NO REASON at all. It's their right.

Pretty sure he was just saying that you can't be denied unemployment benefits, just because they didn't want you anymore and said "you were fired". They have to certain reasons which are often hard to prove to deny your unemployment benefits...

His first sentence says "Like it or not, you can't 'fire' someone unless you have systematic documentation proving repeated, willful behavior that merited termination. "

Didn't mention anything about unemployment. The quote also didn't mention anything about unemployment. His second paragraph did, but his comments in context are simply not true. At-will states can fire you for any reason. IMP never said anything about denying benefits, just using them as a reference.

Dude, can you not connect two adjacent sentences?
I talked about unemployment benefits in the second sentence, where I differentiated between firing and laying off and the impact on unemployment benefits. This is immediately subsequent to a sentence where I described the legality of one method of termination vs another.

*shrug* reading comprehension ain't what it used to be....

Wow... all this out of my half-assed attempt at making light of the situation...

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
I work for a Japanese company. We get benefits better than the government, pay much higher than the regional average, and all we have to do is work hard. We run a 24-hour operation, so if someone doesn't show up for a shift, they can't make it up.


(Note: This does not concern the salaried, office employees. We are much more lax with them).

Part of the benefits package of the govt is that you have sick leave that accumulates that you can use without a doctors note. Obviously your benefits aren't better.

Oh yes, that pesky doctor's note is horrible. Obviously any benefits package not requiring a doctor's note for sick leave would be better. :roll:

WTF? I thought you worked for the guvment.

link

Interesting.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
I work for a Japanese company. We get benefits better than the government, pay much higher than the regional average, and all we have to do is work hard. We run a 24-hour operation, so if someone doesn't show up for a shift, they can't make it up.


(Note: This does not concern the salaried, office employees. We are much more lax with them).

Part of the benefits package of the govt is that you have sick leave that accumulates that you can use without a doctors note. Obviously your benefits aren't better.

Oh yes, that pesky doctor's note is horrible. Obviously any benefits package not requiring a doctor's note for sick leave would be better. :roll:

WTF? I thought you worked for the guvment.

link

I got a job with Yamaha. I've made a few posts about it recently.

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
:thumbsup: We have a point system at work. You come in 15 minutes late, you get a point. You call in sick but don't have a doctor's note, you get a point. You get 8 points, and you get escorted off the premises.

It's not wise to take a vacation when your department is going through rough times. You know, unless you want to be canned.

You work for a pretty ridiculous place. We get treated very well at my work. If you come in late, no one cares. Go home early, sure. Don't want to come in, just email the boss.

As long as we get 40 hours in between Monday and Sunday.

I work for a Japanese company. We get benefits better than the government, pay much higher than the regional average, and all we have to do is work hard. We run a 24-hour operation, so if someone doesn't show up for a shift, they can't make it up.


(Note: This does not concern the salaried, office employees. We are much more lax with them).

Part of the benefits package of the govt is that you have sick leave that accumulates that you can use without a doctors note. Obviously your benefits aren't better.

Oh yes, that pesky doctor's note is horrible. Obviously any benefits package not requiring a doctor's note for sick leave would be better. :roll:

So if I'm at home puking every couple hours, I should come in to the office? Go to the doctor?

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Kyle

So if I'm at home puking every couple hours, I should come in to the office? Go to the doctor?

I would prefer you went to the doctor. If you work for us, it costs you nothing.

 

[oiprocs]

Originally posted by: Prince2klbAzn
This just sucks. Less than a year our of college and I've already lost my first job. What the hell could I have done differently?

Majored in engineering. You definitely wouldn't be out of a job, and if you did end up getting terminated, you'd have a new one by the end of the week.

 

[vhx]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
The kind that prevents our employees from calling out because they don't feel like working. If you are too sick to work, you need to go see a doctor. We also accept a doctor's note for an employee's child, if an employee has to stay home to care for him/her.

We also do a 10-panel drug screen pre-employment with random drug testing weekly. You have a problem with that too?

We take good care of our employees, so we expect them to work hard for us.

A note everytime you are sick is ridiculous. Maybe someone just has a sore throat or was nauseas when they woke up. No need for a doctor, just rest a day or tow, and go back to work.

If someone just has a sore throat or is a little nauseas they should show up to work. You must be a Gen X'er.

It all depends on what you do. For instance having a sore throat if you do technical support over the phone. It's not the best thing for your throat.

I am also against infecting the whole office with something... unless they are douchebags.

 

[DangerAardvark]

"Hey your piss is a little cloudy! Have you been having FUN on the weekends? Are we here at the Verizon Wireless family not enough FUN for you?"

Fuck yer day job. "Here's some money, now give us your life." Fuck that.

 

[invidia]

Go work for the government. It's like that chinese proverb or saying.

Doctors, pharmacists and whatever career that pays high with a high job security and demand eat in a diamond bowl. Eat from a high value dish and with an nearly unbreakable career.

Federal jobs might pay way less, but you're eating in a steel bowl. Not great but very difficult to break.

Those other jobs are like eating in a ceramic bowl. The fine China may be expensive and great, but your career can go down the hole and shatter easily.

I'm pretty sure the Asians had their parents talk about this bowl shit. My parents do it all the time. Avoid the high paying but volatile careers, and go after the medium paying with high job security. That's why Asian parents always value the medical field so greatly. If I went medicine, that's equivalent to winning the mega-lottery for my parents.

My dad's been working for the Postal service for the last 40 something years. The pay may not be more than 150k a year, but he makes more than enough to get by, own a home, 2 cars, and get 2 kids through college with more than enough to retire. And he won't lose his job to immigrants, Indians, a depression, etc.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Kyle

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
:thumbsup: We have a point system at work. You come in 15 minutes late, you get a point. You call in sick but don't have a doctor's note, you get a point. You get 8 points, and you get escorted off the premises.

It's not wise to take a vacation when your department is going through rough times. You know, unless you want to be canned.

You work for a pretty ridiculous place. We get treated very well at my work. If you come in late, no one cares. Go home early, sure. Don't want to come in, just email the boss.

As long as we get 40 hours in between Monday and Sunday.

I work for a Japanese company. We get benefits better than the government, pay much higher than the regional average, and all we have to do is work hard. We run a 24-hour operation, so if someone doesn't show up for a shift, they can't make it up.


(Note: This does not concern the salaried, office employees. We are much more lax with them).

Part of the benefits package of the govt is that you have sick leave that accumulates that you can use without a doctors note. Obviously your benefits aren't better.

Oh yes, that pesky doctor's note is horrible. Obviously any benefits package not requiring a doctor's note for sick leave would be better. :roll:

So if I'm at home puking every couple hours, I should come in to the office? Go to the doctor?

Seriously. Requiring a doctor's note is idiotic. I don't need a doctor to tell me I'm sick. So they encourage people who may be contagious to come to work and infect other people. Smart. :roll:

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: josh0099

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Imp
I hope you leave many many "traces" of yourself before you leave/left. If they fired you cause of "disciplinary" reasons, then chances are you can't use them as a reference anyways. Burn those bridges...

Bottom line here, I think he has a valid case for wrongful termination. Like it or not, you can't 'fire' someone unless you have systematic documentation proving repeated, willful behavior that merited termination.

You can lay someone off for any reason; this is the idea behind right-to-work and employed-at-will states. But, you can't FIRE someone for any reason and prevent them from getting unemployment benefits.

So wrong here. You've obviously never lived in an "At-Will" state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can terminate the relationship with no liability if there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship. Under this legal doctrine:

? any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[1]

You can be fired for NO REASON at all. It's their right.

Pretty sure he was just saying that you can't be denied unemployment benefits, just because they didn't want you anymore and said "you were fired". They have to certain reasons which are often hard to prove to deny your unemployment benefits...

His first sentence says "Like it or not, you can't 'fire' someone unless you have systematic documentation proving repeated, willful behavior that merited termination. "

Didn't mention anything about unemployment. The quote also didn't mention anything about unemployment. His second paragraph did, but his comments in context are simply not true. At-will states can fire you for any reason. IMP never said anything about denying benefits, just using them as a reference.

Dude, can you not connect two adjacent sentences?
I talked about unemployment benefits in the second sentence, where I differentiated between firing and laying off and the impact on unemployment benefits. This is immediately subsequent to a sentence where I described the legality of one method of termination vs another.

*shrug* reading comprehension ain't what it used to be....

*shrug* no one was talking about unemployment. The quote you quoted wasn't in regards to unemployment.

WTF are you talking about "Bottom line here, I think he has a valid case for wrongful termination." He does NOT have ANY case for wrongful termination if he lives in an at-will state. There's no such thing. They can fire him for any reason they feel like. Sure, they could also fight his unemployment, but he can't say he was "wrongfully terminated".

I guess knowing the law ain't what it used to be. *SHRUG*

http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/employment-contracts/Employer-At-Will-Employment-FAQ.html

"Generally, an employee is eligible for unemployment compensation if he or she is dismissed for any reason other than "for cause." If an employee leaves voluntarily, he or she is not eligible for unemployment benefits unless the employee leaves for "good cause," which is commonly known as "constructive discharge."

"An employer does not have the power to deny unemployment benefits, only to protest them. The state unemployment office makes the final decision. Both the employer and the employee have a right of appeal."

He can't sue for wrongful termination or do anything about how he was terminated. He can only appeal if the company protest his unemployment.


I don't care WHAT you're talking about in the second paragraph. This sentence is absolutely WRONG.

" Like it or not, you can't 'fire' someone unless you have systematic documentation proving repeated, willful behavior that merited termination."


FYI: I'm not sure why this is even in question. He says they have proof that he was leaving work early and doing other things. Sure it may be "bs" by most companies, but if he's leaving before his intended work time......you do the math.

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
The kind that prevents our employees from calling out because they don't feel like working. If you are too sick to work, you need to go see a doctor. We also accept a doctor's note for an employee's child, if an employee has to stay home to care for him/her.
We also do a 10-panel drug screen pre-employment with random drug testing weekly. You have a problem with that too?

We take good care of our employees, so we expect them to work hard for us.

A note everytime you are sick is ridiculous. Maybe someone just has a sore throat or was nauseas when they woke up. No need for a doctor, just rest a day or tow, and go back to work.

If someone just has a sore throat or is a little nauseas they should show up to work. You must be a Gen X'er.

That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I run a small business, and it really hurts when someone is home sick, but it's far worse when they come to work and give everyone else whatever it is they have. How is it better to have ten sick employees as opposed to one?

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Greenman

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
The kind that prevents our employees from calling out because they don't feel like working. If you are too sick to work, you need to go see a doctor. We also accept a doctor's note for an employee's child, if an employee has to stay home to care for him/her.
We also do a 10-panel drug screen pre-employment with random drug testing weekly. You have a problem with that too?

We take good care of our employees, so we expect them to work hard for us.

A note everytime you are sick is ridiculous. Maybe someone just has a sore throat or was nauseas when they woke up. No need for a doctor, just rest a day or tow, and go back to work.

If someone just has a sore throat or is a little nauseas they should show up to work. You must be a Gen X'er.

That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I run a small business, and it really hurts when someone is home sick, but it's far worse when they come to work and give everyone else whatever it is they have. How is it better to have ten sick employees as opposed to one?

If someone is not sick enough to go to the doctor, why should I be worried about the contamination of my other workers? Is that a harsh stance? Maybe. If someone is really sick and they come in, I will send them home, no doctor's note needed. I don't want the flu spreading freely around here.

Management here is not unreasonable, and it actually very empathetic, but in a lean manufacturing environment with past history of floor workers abusing their sick leave, this policy makes a lot of sense. Nice call with the exaggeration btw.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

The kind that prevents our employees from calling out because they don't feel like working. If you are too sick to work, you need to go see a doctor. We also accept a doctor's note for an employee's child, if an employee has to stay home to care for him/her.

We also do a 10-panel drug screen pre-employment with random drug testing weekly. You have a problem with that too?

We take good care of our employees, so we expect them to work hard for us.

There are plenty of situations where you would be unable to work effectively or could even present a health risk to your co-workers, yet not need to see a doctor. Examples would include severe migranes, a really rough cold or flu, food poisoning, etc. Do you really want ALL of your employees to be sick for a week just because you were too much of an ass to let ONE employee take ONE day off to beat the worst of a nasty bug? And people with migranes sometimes have severe perceptual disturbances. But 9 out of 10 people will not need to see a doctor about this. You pop a couple Excedrine and go to bed all day, and the next day you're probably feeling a lot better. But if you tried to work (IF you made it to work without crashing your car), you'd be worse than useless because you'll make mistakes and not be presentable to interact with vendors or clients. Business is about protecting your bottom line and making the most money, and your policy is counterproductive to both. Good luck with that shit.

And for the record, I'm sure that random drug testing does WONDERS for staff productivity and morale. People are really in good spirits and bringing in the bucks when they pee in that cup! Hire and fire based on performance, period.

"Take good care of our employees" my ass.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

The kind that prevents our employees from calling out because they don't feel like working. If you are too sick to work, you need to go see a doctor. We also accept a doctor's note for an employee's child, if an employee has to stay home to care for him/her.

We also do a 10-panel drug screen pre-employment with random drug testing weekly. You have a problem with that too?

We take good care of our employees, so we expect them to work hard for us.

There are plenty of situations where you would be unable to work effectively or could even present a health risk to your co-workers, yet not need to see a doctor. Examples would include severe migranes, a really rough cold or flu, food poisoning, etc. Do you really want ALL of your employees to be sick for a week just because you were too much of an ass to let ONE employee take ONE day off to beat the worst of a nasty bug? And people with migranes sometimes have severe perceptual disturbances. But 9 out of 10 people will not need to see a doctor about this. You pop a couple Excedrine and go to bed all day, and the next day you're probably feeling a lot better. But if you tried to work (IF you made it to work without crashing your car), you'd be worse than useless because you'll make mistakes and not be presentable to interact with vendors or clients. Business is about protecting your bottom line and making the most money, and your policy is counterproductive to both. Good luck with that shit.

And for the record, I'm sure that random drug testing does WONDERS for staff productivity and morale. People are really in good spirits and bringing in the bucks when they pee in that cup! Hire and fire based on performance, period.

"Take good care of our employees" my ass.

Our policy seems to be working just fine as we are one of the only companies in the industry not to suffer a loss right now. In fact, we are expanding. Not to mention, our retention rate is higher than average for the manufacturing industry.

If someone really needs to stay home and doesn't want to go to the doctor, they can. They will get a point, but as long as they don't abuse the system there isn't going to be a problem. I think it's more than fair to give someone 8 chances not to show up late to work or call out without a verifiable excuse.

We do take excellent care of our employees, and they know it.

 

[timswim78]

Originally posted by: Prince2klbAzn

Originally posted by: SampSon
Congratulations on losing your first job! That's basically a right of passage for entering the working world.
Expect much of the same types of experinces in the future.

You knew they were heavily laying people off, so being put on the chopping block should have been on your mind.
They were obviously looking for any reasons to substantiate thinning out your department, and they found them.

File for unemployment, update your resume and get back out there. It happens to everyone.

I was told I couldn't file for unemployment benefits in NY since it only applies to people being 'laid-off' and not fired. They fired 3 of us.

I still find it really bs... I pulled 70 hour weeks for 5-6 months doing every bit of work they could rustle up for me. ><

I'd suggest contacting the unemployment office for your area. If what you say is true, it is possible that the company may be trying to skirt some unemployment laws.