Want honest comments (30)
rohaan: A situation from awhile ago has been on my mind. It has to do with employers rights and power. In the final analysis, fairness is an issue, and I am not really sure what is 'technically' fair here.
A friend of mine worked for a supported employment shelter. The mission was to educate and assess skill level to a variety of workers who were incapacitated at some point, either mentally developmentally disabled or physically, or both. She was excellent at her job, and received high point reviews with great salary increases. She had been there four years. She was assigned to take a female worker to several department stores and assist her in purchasing outfits. While waiting for the worker to try on a blouse, she saw a couple of items she wanted, and purchased them. When she returned to the workplace, she mentioned her purchase. The next day, she was terminated for "appropriating personal tasks while on paid business assignment". Initially, unemployment sided with the business, and she appealed, but before anything came of it she was hired on elsewhere. Do you believe the employer acted correctly, and do you believe unemployment acted correctly?
A friend of mine worked for a supported employment shelter. The mission was to educate and assess skill level to a variety of workers who were incapacitated at some point, either mentally developmentally disabled or physically, or both. She was excellent at her job, and received high point reviews with great salary increases. She had been there four years. She was assigned to take a female worker to several department stores and assist her in purchasing outfits. While waiting for the worker to try on a blouse, she saw a couple of items she wanted, and purchased them. When she returned to the workplace, she mentioned her purchase. The next day, she was terminated for "appropriating personal tasks while on paid business assignment". Initially, unemployment sided with the business, and she appealed, but before anything came of it she was hired on elsewhere. Do you believe the employer acted correctly, and do you believe unemployment acted correctly?
Ow, that sucks, but at least she has a new job, so not a total wipeout.
If the contract stated that personal errands were not to be completed in working hours, the company was within their rights.
Technically, it's hard to prove that she hadn't abandoned the worker she was assigned to, and went off to do her shopping elsewhere.
That's what the company is seeing, and if they allow one person to get away with it, it may give the green light for others, who may push their luck.
------ This thread is Archived ------
2girlsnocup: Ow, that sucks, but at least she has a new job, so not a total wipeout.
If the contract stated that personal errands were not to be completed in working hours, the company was within their rights.
Technically, it's hard to prove that she hadn't abandoned the worker she was assigned to, and went off to do her shopping elsewhere.
That's what the company is seeing, and if they allow one person to get away with it, it may give the green light for others, who may push their luck.
Yes. I suppose it does seem very harsh, but after working for so many years, and seeing the antics and behaviors I have, I understand why employers may need to take a very firm stand. Running a business is extremely difficult, and good help is hard to find. I have to admit I am not sure what I would have done. Just to set the record straight, though, I HAVE seen plenty of businesses allow for one worker what they will not for another, and that is not right, either.If the contract stated that personal errands were not to be completed in working hours, the company was within their rights.
Technically, it's hard to prove that she hadn't abandoned the worker she was assigned to, and went off to do her shopping elsewhere.
That's what the company is seeing, and if they allow one person to get away with it, it may give the green light for others, who may push their luck.
------ This thread is Archived ------
It seems very harsh to me.
if she had juat got a verbal warning, that should have surely been sufficient.
Termination of employment seems to me to be a bit extreme under the circumstances .
if she had juat got a verbal warning, that should have surely been sufficient.
Termination of employment seems to me to be a bit extreme under the circumstances .
------ This thread is Archived ------
She bought the exact same Pencil dress as the female boss, except 2 sizes smaller and it actually fits her.
'MIRITE?
'MIRITE?
------ This thread is Archived ------
mollybaby: It seems very harsh to me.
if she had juat got a verbal warning, that should have surely been sufficient.
Termination of employment seems to me to be a bit extreme under the circumstances .
Or, perhaps a written warning---I don't know what to think anymore. It seemed excessive to fire her. If she had been a difficult employee, with too many issues, that would be one thing. JMOif she had juat got a verbal warning, that should have surely been sufficient.
Termination of employment seems to me to be a bit extreme under the circumstances .
------ This thread is Archived ------
rohaan: Yes. I suppose it does seem very harsh, but after working for so many years, and seeing the antics and behaviors I have, I understand why employers may need to take a very firm stand. Running a business is extremely difficult, and good help is hard to find. I have to admit I am not sure what I would have done. Just to set the record straight, though, I HAVE seen plenty of businesses allow for one worker what they will not for another, and that is not right, either.
I'm not saying they were right in what they did, but it all depends on how the contract or employee handbook are worded.
The manager may have been in a bad mood or under pressure from 'above' to clean things up a bit.
Some business seem to only follow the rules when they are having issues. Usually down to having to cut back on staff, or reduce costs. It may have just been a bad week when your friend got balled out.
Personally, I allow errands on company time, so long as it doesn't take any longer than an hour.
------ This thread is Archived ------
rohaan: A situation from awhile ago has been on my mind. It has to do with employers rights and power. In the final analysis, fairness is an issue, and I am not really sure what is 'technically' fair here.
A friend of mine worked for a supported employment shelter. The mission was to educate and assess skill level to a variety of workers who were incapacitated at some point, either mentally developmentally disabled or physically, or both. She was excellent at her job, and received high point reviews with great salary increases. She had been there four years. She was assigned to take a female worker to several department stores and assist her in purchasing outfits. While waiting for the worker to try on a blouse, she saw a couple of items she wanted, and purchased them. When she returned to the workplace, she mentioned her purchase. The next day, she was terminated for "appropriating personal tasks while on paid business assignment". Initially, unemployment sided with the business, and she appealed, but before anything came of it she was hired on elsewhere. Do you believe the employer acted correctly, and do you believe unemployment acted correctly?
A friend of mine worked for a supported employment shelter. The mission was to educate and assess skill level to a variety of workers who were incapacitated at some point, either mentally developmentally disabled or physically, or both. She was excellent at her job, and received high point reviews with great salary increases. She had been there four years. She was assigned to take a female worker to several department stores and assist her in purchasing outfits. While waiting for the worker to try on a blouse, she saw a couple of items she wanted, and purchased them. When she returned to the workplace, she mentioned her purchase. The next day, she was terminated for "appropriating personal tasks while on paid business assignment". Initially, unemployment sided with the business, and she appealed, but before anything came of it she was hired on elsewhere. Do you believe the employer acted correctly, and do you believe unemployment acted correctly?
Looking for a reason to sack her/someone.
------ This thread is Archived ------
2girlsnocup: I'm not saying they were right in what they did, but it all depends on how the contract or employee handbook are worded.
The manager may have been in a bad mood or under pressure from 'above' to clean things up a bit.
Some business seem to only follow the rules when they are having issues. Usually down to having to cut back on staff, or reduce costs. It may have just been a bad week when your friend got balled out.Personally, I allow errands on company time, so long as it doesn't take any longer than an hour.
The manager may have been in a bad mood or under pressure from 'above' to clean things up a bit.
Some business seem to only follow the rules when they are having issues. Usually down to having to cut back on staff, or reduce costs. It may have just been a bad week when your friend got balled out.Personally, I allow errands on company time, so long as it doesn't take any longer than an hour.
I like this, actually. When I worked in mid-management, and had the "break-time-lunch hour" authority, my rule of thumb was quite relaxed, with one caveat: the work they were to finish had to be completed in a timely manner according to time-frame mandates, and their rest period could not cause overtime that would not have happened had they not taken a longer break. I thought that was fair.------ This thread is Archived ------
rohaan: A situation from awhile ago has been on my mind. It has to do with employers rights and power. In the final analysis, fairness is an issue, and I am not really sure what is 'technically' fair here.
A friend of mine worked for a supported employment shelter. The mission was to educate and assess skill level to a variety of workers who were incapacitated at some point, either mentally developmentally disabled or physically, or both. She was excellent at her job, and received high point reviews with great salary increases. She had been there four years. She was assigned to take a female worker to several department stores and assist her in purchasing outfits. While waiting for the worker to try on a blouse, she saw a couple of items she wanted, and purchased them. When she returned to the workplace, she mentioned her purchase. The next day, she was terminated for "appropriating personal tasks while on paid business assignment". Initially, unemployment sided with the business, and she appealed, but before anything came of it she was hired on elsewhere. Do you believe the employer acted correctly, and do you believe unemployment acted correctly?
It's a tough call. Common sense on the companies side could have taken in to account her previous record and spoken to the person under care if feasible. The employee also needed some common sense and gone back to the store later. A friend of mine worked for a supported employment shelter. The mission was to educate and assess skill level to a variety of workers who were incapacitated at some point, either mentally developmentally disabled or physically, or both. She was excellent at her job, and received high point reviews with great salary increases. She had been there four years. She was assigned to take a female worker to several department stores and assist her in purchasing outfits. While waiting for the worker to try on a blouse, she saw a couple of items she wanted, and purchased them. When she returned to the workplace, she mentioned her purchase. The next day, she was terminated for "appropriating personal tasks while on paid business assignment". Initially, unemployment sided with the business, and she appealed, but before anything came of it she was hired on elsewhere. Do you believe the employer acted correctly, and do you believe unemployment acted correctly?
thankfully there was a silver lining
------ This thread is Archived ------
rohaan: I like this, actually. When I worked in mid-management, and had the "break-time-lunch hour" authority, my rule of thumb was quite relaxed, with one caveat: the work they were to finish had to be completed in a timely manner according to time-frame mandates, and their rest period could not cause overtime that would not have happened had they not taken a longer break. I thought that was fair.
That's a good rule. Fair and allows a bit of flexibility.
My rule is that they're allowed up to an hour of paid 'errand time' a month, but it can't be something they can do on their way home, IE, fill the car with petrol.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Laws vary from place to place. Private employers are not government agencies and the rules are different. Here, any person may be fired at any time for ANY reason whatsoever. Generally speaking here, if it is a firing, you get no unemployment check. If it was really a lay off, then it is up to you to prove that in a hearing. Many fail to do so. This keeps costs low for both the State and the employer who has to contribute money if someone is laid off.
Also as someone else points out above, sometimes a boss just gets tired of seeing you then finds a technical reason (in states that require such) to fire you. Ten seconds late on returning from lunch one day six months ago. That works. The US Post office once fired a worker for using a paper towel in the Post Office bathroom to clean their eyeglasses. Reason for dismissal? Misappropriation of Govt. Property. Paper towels had been placed there to dry hands with, not clean personally owned eyeglasses. Merit Systems Protection Board agreed the firing was justified and case law was established.
Also as someone else points out above, sometimes a boss just gets tired of seeing you then finds a technical reason (in states that require such) to fire you. Ten seconds late on returning from lunch one day six months ago. That works. The US Post office once fired a worker for using a paper towel in the Post Office bathroom to clean their eyeglasses. Reason for dismissal? Misappropriation of Govt. Property. Paper towels had been placed there to dry hands with, not clean personally owned eyeglasses. Merit Systems Protection Board agreed the firing was justified and case law was established.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Wow! This company sounds hard core and they wanted to make an example of her. If they so disapproved of this above average employee's behavior the employer could have given her a write-up or even a suspension if they thought it was serious enough. No warning, nothing. UNFAIR!
As far as unemployment office, UNFAIR! At this point it wouldn't make sense to waste her energy and time to appeal it a second time. Had she not found another job so quickly (thank goodness she did), then I'd fight until I won!
Good luck to your friend.
As far as unemployment office, UNFAIR! At this point it wouldn't make sense to waste her energy and time to appeal it a second time. Had she not found another job so quickly (thank goodness she did), then I'd fight until I won!
Good luck to your friend.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Unsupervised time can be rife with bad behavior.
If taking clients shopping was a regular thing, I'd be shocked if there weren't many stories of employees neglecting the client to look at personal items.
She went shopping with a client to get them presumably interview/work wear?
...and lacked the good sense not to brag in the office about what she got herself?
Some places might be ok with it, but no...they weren't wrong to fire her.
That was the clients time, she was being paid to service the client,
and they deserved her full attention.
If taking clients shopping was a regular thing, I'd be shocked if there weren't many stories of employees neglecting the client to look at personal items.
She went shopping with a client to get them presumably interview/work wear?
...and lacked the good sense not to brag in the office about what she got herself?
Some places might be ok with it, but no...they weren't wrong to fire her.
That was the clients time, she was being paid to service the client,
and they deserved her full attention.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Here is another issue, which I hadn't picked up till just now, CLIENT.
Did the group bill the client for the trip and the time?
Did the client have to pay extra for the time spent while the employee was shopping? That would clearly justify a firing I think, also an apology to the Client and maybe a redacted bill, which means a dollar loss to the employer caused by the employee actions.
Did the group bill the client for the trip and the time?
Did the client have to pay extra for the time spent while the employee was shopping? That would clearly justify a firing I think, also an apology to the Client and maybe a redacted bill, which means a dollar loss to the employer caused by the employee actions.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Everything has pretty much been said. Technically, the employer was within his right. The employee is paid to do a task and not engage in personal activities while on the clock. Even without a specific employment contract, that is what is understood in an employment situation. It may seem silly to not allow the employee to pick up something while in the store, but her full attention is supposed to be on the client, not on what personal stuff she might need or want.
Standard is to give the employee a written notice and after three notices, dismiss her, but again, that depends on the laws in that state and what the usual and customary practices are in that particular industry.
Standard is to give the employee a written notice and after three notices, dismiss her, but again, that depends on the laws in that state and what the usual and customary practices are in that particular industry.
------ This thread is Archived ------
rohaan: A situation from awhile ago has been on my mind. It has to do with employers rights and power. In the final analysis, fairness is an issue, and I am not really sure what is 'technically' fair here.
A friend of mine worked for a supported employment shelter. The mission was to educate and assess skill level to a variety of workers who were incapacitated at some point, either mentally developmentally disabled or physically, or both. She was excellent at her job, and received high point reviews with great salary increases. She had been there four years. She was assigned to take a female worker to several department stores and assist her in purchasing outfits. While waiting for the worker to try on a blouse, she saw a couple of items she wanted, and purchased them. When she returned to the workplace, she mentioned her purchase. The next day, she was terminated for "appropriating personal tasks while on paid business assignment". Initially, unemployment sided with the business, and she appealed, but before anything came of it she was hired on elsewhere. Do you believe the employer acted correctly, and do you believe unemployment acted correctly?
A friend of mine worked for a supported employment shelter. The mission was to educate and assess skill level to a variety of workers who were incapacitated at some point, either mentally developmentally disabled or physically, or both. She was excellent at her job, and received high point reviews with great salary increases. She had been there four years. She was assigned to take a female worker to several department stores and assist her in purchasing outfits. While waiting for the worker to try on a blouse, she saw a couple of items she wanted, and purchased them. When she returned to the workplace, she mentioned her purchase. The next day, she was terminated for "appropriating personal tasks while on paid business assignment". Initially, unemployment sided with the business, and she appealed, but before anything came of it she was hired on elsewhere. Do you believe the employer acted correctly, and do you believe unemployment acted correctly?
Firing someone from a job for something like that seems pretty extreme to me. Could a warning either written or verbal not sufficed in a case like this? Good thing she got another job. The unemployment people don't care...it's just one less person they have to pay so they'll side with the employer. Maybe the U.S. Department of Labor would have been a better option to challenge her case.
------ This thread is Archived ------
rohaan: A situation from awhile ago has been on my mind. It has to do with employers rights and power. In the final analysis, fairness is an issue, and I am not really sure what is 'technically' fair here.
A friend of mine worked for a supported employment shelter. The mission was to educate and assess skill level to a variety of workers who were incapacitated at some point, either mentally developmentally disabled or physically, or both. She was excellent at her job, and received high point reviews with great salary increases. She had been there four years. She was assigned to take a female worker to several department stores and assist her in purchasing outfits. While waiting for the worker to try on a blouse, she saw a couple of items she wanted, and purchased them. When she returned to the workplace, she mentioned her purchase. The next day, she was terminated for "appropriating personal tasks while on paid business assignment". Initially, unemployment sided with the business, and she appealed, but before anything came of it she was hired on elsewhere. Do you believe the employer acted correctly, and do you believe unemployment acted correctly?
A friend of mine worked for a supported employment shelter. The mission was to educate and assess skill level to a variety of workers who were incapacitated at some point, either mentally developmentally disabled or physically, or both. She was excellent at her job, and received high point reviews with great salary increases. She had been there four years. She was assigned to take a female worker to several department stores and assist her in purchasing outfits. While waiting for the worker to try on a blouse, she saw a couple of items she wanted, and purchased them. When she returned to the workplace, she mentioned her purchase. The next day, she was terminated for "appropriating personal tasks while on paid business assignment". Initially, unemployment sided with the business, and she appealed, but before anything came of it she was hired on elsewhere. Do you believe the employer acted correctly, and do you believe unemployment acted correctly?
I'm sure you won't like my response to this but it is not only my honest comment but it is the rule of the workforce.
It seems that she wasn't a salaried employee, therefore she was an "At Will" employee. That means that she can be fired without cause.
Was it fair? When it comes to firing people fairness doesn't enter the minds of the establishment. They should have warned that if it happens again she will be terminated. I think they wanted to get rid of her for whatever reason and they made this the opportunity to do so.
"At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning. When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will", courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning. In contrast, the practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power."
------ This thread is Archived ------
I would say that was a good honest answer and commensurate with my own thoughts.
------ This thread is Archived ------
The termination of her empoyment was very harsh.
A worning was the appropriate thing.
A worning was the appropriate thing.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
Manifesting
This is a thread that might become a poll..about charging everyone for membership but read!!!
makeover
Cat Calling
The Real Stormy Story
Say Anything Again
If Our Profiles Were Truly Honest
Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
Thoughts on Daylight Savings
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
1,987 Views
29 Comments
Created: Apr 2015
Last Viewed: Apr 17
Last Commented: Apr 2015
0 Likes
Related Forums
- One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
- Manifesting
- This is a thread that might become a poll..about charging everyone for membership but read!!!
- makeover
- Cat Calling
- The Real Stormy Story
- Say Anything Again
- If Our Profiles Were Truly Honest
- Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
- Thoughts on Daylight Savings
A friend of mine worked for a supported employment shelter. The mission was to educate and assess skill level to a variety of workers who were incapacitated at some point, either mentally developmentally disabled or physically, or both. She was excellent at her job, and received high point reviews with great salary increases. She had been there four years. She was assigned to take a female worker to several department stores and assist her in purchasing outfits. While waiting for the worker to try on a blouse, she saw a couple of items she wanted, and purchased them. When she returned to the workplace, she mentioned her purchase. The next day, she was terminated for "appropriating personal tasks while on paid business assignment". Initially, unemployment sided with the business, and she appealed, but before anything came of it she was hired on elsewhere. Do you believe the employer acted correctly, and do you believe unemployment acted correctly?