Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At no point in that article did Mr. Sorabella state that he would NEVER be in the office during regular office hours. He just needed a flexible schedule to be with his wife for important procedures and would make up the time.
Cancer patients sleep a lot. Or, they are too tired to 'visit'. It leaves opportunities for Mr. S leave the hospital room to check his messages, make phone calls and do work. It can be done anywhere - his car, the cafeteria, anywhere the hospital doesn't ban phones and internet connections.
What do you think CEO's do when they are out of the office???
Well considering that you nor I really know what Mr. Sorabella was asking for and we don't know know why the circumstance was not considered.
But its okay lets lynch the company and just tell the remaining workers that they can find new jobs elsewhere and good for them to not work for such a sleazeball company-- because you know its so easy to find jobs and all.
This has nothing to do with stockholders, is this company even traded?
If they're going to fall apart because one employee needs to have an altered schedule for a few months, who would invest in them anyway?
Seain-- the company has approximately 20 employees.
They are family owned and if we take their statement at its word then they have multiple employees working for them over a decade-- which one would think that they can not be that devilish if people have chosen to work for them in a small company for that long as the Husband also did.
Ironically I read on one of the news sites that the wife's cancer was not as advanced as had been believed whether that is from what was initially reported or what the husband initially told the company-- it is unclear, "Kathy Sorabella said her cancer had not spread as far as initially believed, though she will not know if she has a year or 10 years to live until her next CAT scan in three months."
So this goes back to my whole belief-- we know what news stories have written about-- we know what they say the husband asked for-- and what he said he was responded to by his boss. We also know the statement from the company.
Quite frankly, I refuse to lynch the company on the basis of news stories and assuming that I know what happened to the employee.
The curse does not deflect back if the parties named are actually guilty. For their lack of mercy the laws of the universe stand against them. Just as Haynes and Butler have my curse, Carl and Kathleen Sorabella have my blessing. I bless and I curse. I do good and I do evil. I work with the force that flows through me and the merit of a blessing or a curse is on the parties named. I remain neutral. It is the force that does the work.
You REALLY think YOU (or any other reader of the news) is going to get the facts???
There are three basic stories as with any other situation.
1. What the One side believes happened
2. What the Other side believes happened
3. What actually happened
This is a private company-- the owe you NOTHING. If they are crappy and amoral and unethical-- more than likely this is not the first nor the last time they have acted in such a manner to employees or customers.
Once again-- you have NO idea what number 3 story is-- What actually happened.
And-- about your thing with the father-- the lack of universal health care is NOT what is in question right now. The company has NOTHING to do with that. If anything I am sure that most business owners, especially with smaller businesses, are learning that as health costs sky rocket that it is even more important for them to not be saddled with the burden of providing health insurance for employees versus a basic level of universal health care.
No company is responsible for anyone who overextends themselves with credit whether it was for a noble reason or if it was because you had a shopping problem.
The father analogy has nothing to do with universal health care. Where are you getting that from? Where did I even mention health care at all, for that matter? You are a confused, little puppy.
I made it to draw a comparison between these two situations. The point is, very few people are going to feel much sympathy for a family whose father/primary bread winner overextended himself with debt. The morality of that issue is not what I'm interested in debating. Rather, it was made to illustrate how people make bad mistakes that impact a larger group all the time. The owner or manager here made an unwise PR decision (notice I didn't say business decision). I think most people who read the article are going to agree with that. All you have to do is read the reader comments to see the frustration. I don't know how the move impacted Haynes' business situation. Nonetheless, if the PR fallout has major repercussions in terms of lost jobs, I'm going to feel the same way I feel about that father who can't put bread on the table because he spent all his money on the decked-out Escalade: I'm going to feel sorry for them, but that's about it.
The conservative/libertarian mindset is that people must live with the decisions they make, good or bad. And since NJBest, you, manderly6, and kodaka serve as the more conservative-minded faction on this board, I drew that comparison to hopefully make you understand where at least I am coming from.
In terms of this privately owned company owing anybody anything, I agree. They owe nobody an explanation. At the same time, they risk their reputation with the public and the community in which they reside because, as I already mentioned above, most people seem to be pretty upset about this incident. If they want to play Russian Roulette with their reputation, that is their prerogative.
Last edited by Z3N1TH 0N3; 06-18-2011 at 08:40 AM..
The father analogy has nothing to do with universal health care. Where are you getting that from? Where did I even mention health care at all, for that matter? You are a confused, little puppy.
I made it to draw a comparison between these two situations. The point is, very few people are going to feel much sympathy for a family whose father/primary bread winner overextended himself with debt. The morality of that issue is not what I'm interested in debating. Rather, it was made to illustrate how people make bad mistakes that impact a larger group all the time. The owner or manager here made an unwise PR decision (notice I didn't say business decision). I think most people who read the article are going to agree with that. All you have to do is read the reader comments to see the frustration. I don't know how the move impacted Haynes' business situation. Nonetheless, if the PR fallout has major repercussions in terms of lost jobs, I'm going to feel the same way I feel about that father who can't put bread on the table because he spent all his money on the decked-out Escalade: I'm going to feel sorry for them, but that's about it.
The conservative/libertarian mindset is that people must live with the decisions they make, good or bad. And since NJBest, you, manderly6, and kodaka serve as the more conservative-minded faction on this board, I drew that comparison to hopefully make you understand where at least I am coming from.
In terms of this privately owned company owing anybody anything, I agree. They owe nobody an explanation. At the same time, they risk their reputation with the public and the community in which they reside because, as I already mentioned above, most people seem to be pretty upset about this incident. If they want to play Russian Roulette with their reputation, that is their prerogative.
I guess it is not the first time someone has referred to me in retort as some member of canis lupus familiaris and I suppose it wont be the last.
I made the connection based on the entire dialogue about the guy's debt, bills, expense of a catastrophic medical diagnosis.
My response was more in line with the statement you made about should a family suffer because a father overextended himself in credit card debt-- now if you were just pulling that out as rhetorical and not in context of this particular couple-- my apologies-- you are right I definitely did not get that leap in context.
No doubt on a macro scale did the company make a bad PR decision. It seems that way at least. But quite frankly, no one knows the true reason behind the decision. And at this point ANYTHING the company says (because the mob has made up their collective minds regardless) will be taken as "damage control" or intention to place blame on the husband. They really can't say anything at this point-- no one will listen to them because the mob has already judged.
As a society, we are ready to place immediate blame on the business that what they did was immoral, despicable and other assorted words. Most people tend to not realize (nor care to be truthful) that the company is not some mega corporation and rather they place immediate condemnation on the company as if this MA organization was Enron or any other sordid tale in corporate history. The reality that perhaps the company could not truly afford to allow the guy to work whenever he could will make no difference. Who knows-- maybe they could. Maybe they were truly heartless jackasses.
My stance this entire time has been none of us really know the reality. The article was meant to be provoking and emotional. I am neither for the company nor for the couple. Both of them find themselves in a bad situation. I don't view this as a conservative viewpoint-- but rather pragmatic and rational.
A good chunk of people on this forum do not appear to be actual business owners-- and will more than likely never be faced with having to make a decision such as the one made here. Or if they did-- like me in my present role- it wont impact my bottom line or even my company's bottom line to a massive extent because of the sheer size of my employer. Not every business is making hands over fist money-- and just because people have experience with working remotely in their roles have no concept if this particular person could or could not remain effective as leader of his department when working whatever hours he could or would.
If this makes me "conservative" and preferring to not judge based on sheer emotion and not knowing what really transpired-- I still would rather be labeled with that adjective versus others.
Rather, it was made to illustrate how people make bad mistakes that impact a larger group all the time. The owner or manager here made an unwise PR decision (notice I didn't say business decision). I think most people who read the article are going to agree with that. All you have to do is read the reader comments to see the frustration. I don't know how the move impacted Haynes' business situation.
{snip}
In terms of this privately owned company owing anybody anything, I agree. They owe nobody an explanation. At the same time, they risk their reputation with the public and the community in which they reside because, as I already mentioned above, most people seem to be pretty upset about this incident. If they want to play Russian Roulette with their reputation, that is their prerogative.
I think the frustration in the readers' comments come from a middle class that is sick of being treated like garbage by their employers. I will bet the rent that things like this happened before to other people. This is just the first time in recent memory that it has garnered national attention. I would be surprised if we don't hear more stories like this.
It's tapping into a vein filled with anger--and I'm glad of it. Let other employers see what can happen. Let the less scrupulous among small business owners see how fast it can spin out of their control. Maybe they'll think twice about trying something like that with their own employees.
Welcome to the GOP Pathway to Poverty, Third World here we come!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
