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.
how hard would it be to find something else these employees have done wrong?
Bringing up a previously undocumented issue would be a serious mistake. It simply makes employers look foolish and incompetent. Why was it not addressed when it occurred? If it wasn't, it never happened.
Termination for a first offense is not going to be upheld. If the past record of sick time use was reasonable and within the lines of the average worker's use, the case will be lost making management look foolish. Using such an issue for a political statement will further reinforce the worker's lack of trust in management. Think about it...termination for using as benefit not only was the worker entitled to but recently encouraged to use. Does the employer have a restriction on the use of the benefit? If not, they have little reason to terminate without recourse down the line in a court of law.
There are limitations on putting such a policy in place.
i'm just saying...it'd not a crazy lawsuit if i get fired for taking a sick day, and can prove that's why i was fired. my wife's company has a process that they follow to avoid such lawsuits. 1st is a verbal coaching. 2nd is a written coaching. 3rd is a written coaching, which can then be followed by termination per review supervisors. yes, it's an at-will state...but why expose yourself to a lawsuit. do the proper steps, and you limit exposure to those.
how hard would it be to find something else these employees have done wrong?
if the senator never mentioned this publicly, and they fired some of them to make examples out of them...no one would probably ever notice.
I think he wanted everyone to notice. And even if they did do what you say, the Union would make sure everyone knew about it.
doc- I am sure the employer has a sense if there was an illness going around so from the outside it is impossible to know whether to but it or not. The employer has every right to demand doctors notes for any sick day. They should institute that policy.
Now here is my question do we want sick people coming to work so they can infect seniors and the disabled?
Bringing up a previously undocumented issue would be a serious mistake. It simply makes employers look foolish and incompetent. Why was it not addressed when it occurred? If it wasn't, it never happened.
Termination for a first offense is not going to be upheld. If the past record of sick time use was reasonable and within the lines of the average worker's use, the case will be lost making management look foolish. Using such an issue for a political statement will further reinforce the worker's lack of trust in management. Think about it...termination for using as benefit not only was the worker entitled to but recently encouraged to use. Does the employer have a restriction on the use of the benefit? If not, they have little reason to terminate without recourse down the line in a court of law.
There are limitations on putting such a policy in place.
not really. for instance, at my old job, if they really wanted to get rid of you, they could decide to conduct a review on people's expense reports, and find something wrong somewhere probably. or, review your email account and find violation of security policies. etc etc.
i agree with you about termination for sick day. but the point is, if an employer needs to find a legitimate reason, they could dig through and likely find something.
but i think it would be stupid. it's obvious what they did, but it's not worth the battle. they could easily watch them with a close eye going forward and wait for someone to do something wrong.
they dont even need one unless they dont want you to get unemployment or they want to have something solid in case they come back at you with some kind of discrimination suit.
they dont even need one unless they dont want you to get unemployment or they want to have something solid in case they come back at you with some kind of discrimination suit.
i know. i acknowledged that already. thanks for the reminder though.
i know. i acknowledged that already. thanks for the reminder though.
it seems like people still dont get it. all this talk about building cases against employees and catching them doing something wrong, i get the feeling some people think that an employer needs to build some kind of rock solid case in order to fire someone.
conduct a review on people's expense reports, and find something wrong somewhere probably. or, review your email account and find violation of security policies. etc etc.
These are bus drivers. Doubt that is going to be possible. In any case, the policies must be in place prior to any actions to be upheld in a court of law. Ex Post Facto cases are rarely upheld. As the light has been shown on these individuals, looking elsewhere for a reason to terminate will only bolster their case of an improper termination. Both sides will look to make an issue of it and unlike a unrelated case, this one will be pushed. Not having any facts on ones side is not to the way to build a successful termination.
Unless the company regulations requires a doctor's note for a singular absence, it make little sense to demand one after the fact. HEPA rules limits what can be required when calling out sick/ill. What physician can determine the validity of a migraine or gastric distress days later? Not to mention the fact that the employer picks up the costs for the doctor's visits.
Basic principal of management. Poor morale breeds increased unexpected absences.
it seems like people still dont get it. all this talk about building cases against employees and catching them doing something wrong, i get the feeling some people think that an employer needs to build some kind of rock solid case in order to fire someone.
they don't. they do it though often to avoid being sued. sure...fire anyone you want. but if you want to CYA....you do the proper steps leading up to it. most large companies i've dealt with have procedures like this whether it's "required" or not....
they don't. they do it though often to avoid being sued. sure...fire anyone you want. but if you want to CYA....you do the proper steps leading up to it. most large companies i've dealt with have procedures like this whether it's "required" or not....
yes, thats especially true with large companies who have lots of underlings and middle management so they need to establish some kind of uniformity. but thats separate from people seem to be arguing on the basis that these companies really need to prove things or they will have to pay out settlements.
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.
