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.
wutitiz, I don't stand behind your belief in that conservatives think people are guilty until proven innocent. I hope there are few that share this belief with you.
I agree with you on this. It is unfair to monetarily punish them when guilt has not been established. However, at the same time you want to remove their possible negative influence on the organization. This is definitely true when they have employees under them, especially if you may need those employees to testify.
This is common in school systems when a teacher is accused of wrong doing.
Not so sure I agree with you there. She said they targeted groups. If she didn't know this was happening, and I think she did by the way, then she should have. Being a supervisor means supervising.
There is nothing illegal about the IRS "targeting". That is what they do. They target wealthy people. They target people with home businesses. They target those who are generous to charities. It would be improper if the targeting were for political purposes but there is no evidence of that at this point in time. It looks like they were just trying to do their jobs and were not sensitive to the political repercussions of targeting these conservative groups. That may fall under incompetence. She should have known better, and she could be dismissed for that eventually.
If it's just a matter of a "mere whisper of something wrong" why take them off the job? If we placed workers on paid administrative leave over a whisper, the entire national workforce would be on paid leave. That doesn't seem like a good economic plan.
So, let's say I knew who you were. And I didn't like your post here, so I decided to call your employer, and tell them that I had evidence that you were embezzling money from them and even made up a few details to make it sound more realistic. Would you be fine if they sent you home without pay for a few weeks or months while they investigated? What if you were a more paycheck-to-paycheck employee and having your pay cut off while you were investigated for a false accusation meant that you could not afford to pay your rent, food, bills, or anything else?
I do not agree with the teacher rubber rooms, and people being on this leave for many months or years. If they can't substantiate the problem, then they need to be reinstated into their position, not just kept away. But, you shouldn't have your pay cut off based just on an accusation.
Its why you have the rubber rooms in NYC public schools full of teachers who show up everyday and do nothing. The get their full pay and benes but they cant put them in a classroom because they're rapists and you cant fire them because the hide behend their union tenure
BS RWNJ talking points. You need to pop that bubble.
Easy. If there is clear, indisputable evidence of wrongdoing, then follow through with whatever termination procedures are in place. If that evidence does not exist (hence the need for their internal investigation) then paid administrative leave is appropriate.
Ridiculously simple concept.
Yes.
Well, the private sector is the one that has by and large abandoned unionization and numerous benefits and protections that go with it, so in a sense it's a "reap what you sow" type thing.
Ideally, however, we'd see a mass resurgence in unionization so the middle class can step up and take back their share of the pie that they've been surrendering since the middle of the 20th century.
Its why you have the rubber rooms in NYC public schools full of teachers who show up everyday and do nothing. The get their full pay and benes but they cant put them in a classroom because they're rapists and you cant fire them because the hide behend their union tenure
The company I work for is heavily unionized. I am a union member. But we do not have paid "administrative leave." It's a public sector thing, not a union thing. I agree that it is "ridiculously simple:" it's called accountability.
So then what is your company/union policy on terminations in the instance someone is accused of wrong doing?
Second question, how is accountability not present here?
I don't personally like public unions, but given the onslaught of decades of neoliberalism upon worker's rights, I am more than welcome to public unions.
Plus, Lois only earns $177k which is not even middle class according to Republicans.
You people are essentially attacking a welfare recipient. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
The company I work for is heavily unionized. I am a union member. But we do not have paid "administrative leave." It's a public sector thing, not a union thing. I agree that it is "ridiculously simple:" it's called accountability.
It's not just a public sector 'thing" either...plenty of private sector executives are paid the remainder of the contract and bonuses when "poor preformance" is present.
"Executives" have nice rules.
Quote:
Among the first things to think about when reviewing a new job offer is what's going to happen when you leave the job. To be sure, termination clauses are often the most-negotiated elements of employment contracts. They can also be deal busters.
So, let's say I knew who you were. And I didn't like your post here, so I decided to call your employer, and tell them that I had evidence that you were embezzling money from them and even made up a few details to make it sound more realistic. Would you be fine if they sent you home without pay for a few weeks or months while they investigated? What if you were a more paycheck-to-paycheck employee and having your pay cut off while you were investigated for a false accusation meant that you could not afford to pay your rent, food, bills, or anything else?
I do not agree with the teacher rubber rooms, and people being on this leave for many months or years. If they can't substantiate the problem, then they need to be reinstated into their position, not just kept away. But, you shouldn't have your pay cut off based just on an accusation.
You would be asked for your evidence. You would have none, since I haven't embezzled anything, and you would be dismissed as a prank caller.
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.
