View Full Version : Is This LEGAL in America?
Straight Shooter
05-01-16, 23:35
PLEASE NOTE: Im asking for a specific answer..NOT opinions, not "o man that's f'd-up".."screw that Id quit" type stuff.
Im trying to find a specific law or laws that either allows or dis-allows the following situation.
Im aware of a large employer in my city of residence who as of 1MAY16..no longer has ANY form of sick leave other than Short/Long Term Disability & FMLA.
I mean, if you get sick for a day or two or three, you cannot call in without getting an "occurance", which after 3 in a year you are written up for, & 5 you are fired. So, lets say you get a 48-72 hour bug. That's 2-3 occurances right there. Later in the year, your kid is sick, or you are again.
So, in other words, there is NO provision for sick time w/o penalty. Is this legal? How would one go about finding out and is there an agency one could call to voice a complaint to?
Again, just facts, no hyperbole please.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
05-01-16, 23:55
I work for a certain county government that can terminate/discipline after 5 sick occurences. Dont know if legal, but I'm sure it's been vetted somewhere along the line.
https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/sickleave
Sadly, yes.
Especially in a Right to Work state. You can literally be fired for any reason other than "race, creed, color, etc" which includes simply "no longer desires employee services"
It's easier and cheaper to fire you and get someone cheaper or part time. Especially with all the Obamacare, minimum wage crusade, etc.
Yes, it's legal from a federal perspective (some states and cities may have laws saying otherwise). No, it's not sad. The federal government has no role in employment contracts between private parties.
MountainRaven
05-02-16, 00:27
Welcome to America!
Straight Shooter
05-02-16, 01:23
https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/sickleave
Sadly, yes.
Especially in a Right to Work state. You can literally be fired for any reason other than "race, creed, color, etc" which includes simply "no longer desires employee services"
It's easier and cheaper to fire you and get someone cheaper or part time. Especially with all the Obamacare, minimum wage crusade, etc.
THANK YOU FIREFLY for the link. It does say "paid sick leave". Im not even asking that...just asking if no provision for even unpaid is legal.
Thank for all answers thus far!
If you live in an "at will" employment state you can be let go for pretty much anything. That is the way my state works.
Yep, I've seen a guy get fired for calling in sick a single time.
Yeah, that's probably legal and while I'm glad my job doesn't do that it's probably not quite as bad as it seems.
One thing to note is that most of the time when an employer has a policy like that, an "occurrence" is just that and not the individual days. So, for example, if you get the flu and you call in sick five days in a row, that would be counted as one occurrence. On the other hand, if you're sick one day and call in for that day then go back to work for a while and have to call in sick again for one day, that counts as two occurrences even thought you've used less time.
I know a few people who work at jobs that have similar policies. From what I gather, the end result of these "occurrence" policies is that people will never use just one sick day because they're afraid they may not be totally better and don't want to have to call in the next day and create two occurrences for one illness.
All the above is good info. Especially the "at will" states. You need to find out what is outlined in your state however.
As mentioned, most policies outline an occurrence as the totality of a period of absence, not individual days. That doesn't mean your situation is that way.
But yes, the scenario you present is in most places totally legal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Straight Shooter
05-02-16, 05:15
THANKS Gents- I now consider the questioned ASKED & ANSWERED.
I appreciate the responses.
Eurodriver
05-02-16, 06:44
It goes both ways in that It is legal to not work for companies that don't give sick time.
I work for a company with unlimited PTO/Vacation. Big boy rules.
Why would anyone work for a place that doesn't value you?
If you live in an "at will" employment state you can be let go for pretty much anything. That is the way my state works.
Yes. This. Unless you have an employment contract, or belong to a union that has negotiated an employment contract that covers you.
Yes, it's legal from a federal perspective (some states and cities may have laws saying otherwise). No, it's not sad. The federal government has no role in employment contracts between private parties.
Sensei,
Sorry sir, but, damn that is pretty dogmatic.
In a perfect world, yes, but our world isn't perfect.
If you are saying it is a state's right issue, then I tend to agree, but I also note that the so called 'right to work' states so more appropriately be called 'right to fire' states.
Obviously there has to be a balance, but, at some point someone, somewhere has to look out for the worker, seems the business owners already have enough folks looking out for them.
One size doesn't fit all in this regard, there needs to be some regard to business size, etc.
It goes both ways in that It is legal to not work for companies that don't give sick time.
I work for a company with unlimited PTO/Vacation. Big boy rules.
Why would anyone work for a place that doesn't value you?
Euro -
I'd be willing to bet, from what I've read on here, that your company has metrics in place to measure your effectiveness, and if you go too many quarters without meeting those metrics you'd be gone.
That is big boy rules, and that is cool, what ain't cool is someone letting you go because, say, you got bedbugs. :rolleyes:
Let's not discuss the notion that 'everyone can grow up to be President' and 'you can achieve whatever you want to achieve.' Instead let's look at reality.
Many folks work for companies that don't value them because that is the only game in town, for them.
As I've noted earlier, from my perspective, you are the brightest fellow in Florida. That means there are a helluva lot of working Joe's in Florida who don't have your options.
Several years ago we had a motor re-manufacturing facility tell over 200 workers at the end of shift on a Friday, hey no need to come to work on Monday, we are closing. Suddenly you've got 200+ folks scrambling for jobs in an area where there aren't many jobs available. A lot of those folks had been making a good, honest living and had house payments, car payments, and other debts. They couldn't just up and leave the area, they had debt.
Point is, they were at the mercy of the job market. Many of them ended up working for places that didn't value them out of necessity.
Not arguing with you, but there are some valid reasons why folks work for assholes.
JackFanToM
05-02-16, 09:02
As previously answered, yes in at will work states it is incredibly difficult to sue for wrongful termination, and in the US, employment is an agreement between the employee and employer (there are some very simple government mandates like the I9, W4 and minimum wage requirements). Some states impose stricter regulations that "protect" employee rights, but those on this forum SHOULD BE very against that type of state imposition. In a capitalist society, we should allow the employee and employer to come to any agreement that THEY deem mutually beneficial, and then have a written contract based upon those terms. The time for an employee to negotiate is during the hiring process, and then at any time when a review/raise has been agreed upon, during the HIRING process. As an employer I hear the terms "not fair", and "you can't fire me" by employees that fail to uphold their end of that agreement. It is apparent that someone told people that fair is basically anything that is good for them all the time. In the event you are a rock star employee, and bring a lot to the table, you will find a company that affords you more than another company.
Personally, I'm sick to death with the attitude that the company owes something to the staff. That is a 2 way street, and had it truly been fair, then companies would set the standard based upon the performance and loyalty they wish to evoke, and the good employees would then simply gravitate to those companies that take care of those that take care of them. I tell my employees I will pay them the agreed upon wage, and provide a safe environment to work in. I will work hard for them, and do my best to supply all the tools and supplies they require to do their jobs. I will actively remove anyone that does not work as a TEAM MEMBER. I will provide both training and advancement opportunities, and as a team we will make our company better than the competition, gain more market share, and thereby I will able to provide more opportunity. I ask that they give me a 100% effort each day, for the 100% pay that I provide. I don't say BS like I want 110%, and I recognize that today's 100% is not always the same as yesterday's or the tomorrow's, people have off days, but effort is effort. That is the unwritten contract.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-02-16, 09:11
So, just to clarify- there is no sanctuary for calling in ahead of time, right? The use of 'occurrence' versus 'days' is a little odd, unless that is meant to catch people 'coming down with something' when the tasks suck.
Are they being paid for the sick time, it sounds like no?
So it isn't that there is no sick time. You get two sick days and the third one you get written up. You get up to four sick days.
That isn't exactly like not having 'ANY form of sick leave' as you say in the OP. It is a pretty crappy policy, and I don't know what level of people that would apply to. A large proportion of our hourly guys seem to burn thru all their 'sick' days by April. Either they have really odd health problems, or they are just burning days to make sure that they don't leave anything on the table.
So you really have 2-3 sick days a year, but frankly if you are taking that many sick days every year, I'd say that you are doing something wrong. You also didn't mention the number of vacation days. I'm guessing that it isn't great.
The issue is that a lot of people take advantage of sick day policies or for supratentorial illnesses. This employer decided to come down hard on it. Maybe they are heavily impacted by people sicking out and needed this to curb it.
Sensei,
Sorry sir, but, damn that is pretty dogmatic.
In a perfect world, yes, but our world isn't perfect.
If you are saying it is a state's right issue, then I tend to agree, but I also note that the so called 'right to work' states so more appropriately be called 'right to fire' states.
Obviously there has to be a balance, but, at some point someone, somewhere has to look out for the worker, seems the business owners already have enough folks looking out for them.
One size doesn't fit all in this regard, there needs to be some regard to business size, etc.
Yes, my friend - I was noting that the federal government has no role but states and municipalities are free to play in those waters. My personal experience has been the more they play, the more the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head.
Having said that, I firmly believe that the vast majority of employers in America are not going to fire an employee who adds value to their organization for a few days of missed work due to illnesses or family emergencies. If my employer would do this, then I might take a careful look to see if the organization was an adequate representation of my values.
JackFanToM
05-02-16, 10:09
Yes, my friend - I was noting that the federal government has no role but states and municipalities are free to play in those waters. My personal experience has been the more they play, the more the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head.
Having said that, I firmly believe that the vast majority of employers in America are not going to fire an employee who adds value to their organization for a few days of missed work due to illnesses or family emergencies. If my employer would do this, then I might take a careful look to see if the organization was an adequate representation of my values.
Well said Sensei
As previously answered, yes in at will work states it is incredibly difficult to sue for wrongful termination, and in the US, employment is an agreement between the employee and employer (there are some very simple government mandates like the I9, W4 and minimum wage requirements). Some states impose stricter regulations that "protect" employee rights, but those on this forum SHOULD BE very against that type of state imposition. In a capitalist society, we should allow the employee and employer to come to any agreement that THEY deem mutually beneficial, and then have a written contract based upon those terms. The time for an employee to negotiate is during the hiring process, and then at any time when a review/raise has been agreed upon, during the HIRING process. As an employer I hear the terms "not fair", and "you can't fire me" by employees that fail to uphold their end of that agreement. It is apparent that someone told people that fair is basically anything that is good for them all the time. In the event you are a rock star employee, and bring a lot to the table, you will find a company that affords you more than another company.
Personally, I'm sick to death with the attitude that the company owes something to the staff. That is a 2 way street, and had it truly been fair, then companies would set the standard based upon the performance and loyalty they wish to evoke, and the good employees would then simply gravitate to those companies that take care of those that take care of them. I tell my employees I will pay them the agreed upon wage, and provide a safe environment to work in. I will work hard for them, and do my best to supply all the tools and supplies they require to do their jobs. I will actively remove anyone that does not work as a TEAM MEMBER. I will provide both training and advancement opportunities, and as a team we will make our company better than the competition, gain more market share, and thereby I will able to provide more opportunity. I ask that they give me a 100% effort each day, for the 100% pay that I provide. I don't say BS like I want 110%, and I recognize that today's 100% is not always the same as yesterday's or the tomorrow's, people have off days, but effort is effort. That is the unwritten contract.
Very, very well written. Thank you.
Yes. This. Unless you have an employment contract, or belong to a union that has negotiated an employment contract that covers you.
Of course.
Obviously there has to be a balance, but, at some point someone, somewhere has to look out for the worker, seems the business owners already have enough folks looking out for them.
Tell me again who is looking out for my business?
Now that your question is answered are you willing to entertain some questions?
Is it a skilled job? What is the pay rate?
As a business owner I'd say it certainly sounds like the company does not value their employee's.
As a contrast I offer my employee's 10 paid days a year, and unlimited unpaid days a year. I don't differentiate between vacation and sick days, they tell me if they want to be paid for the day or save it for another time. Now if they are gone all the time they are getting fired because I need an employee, not some one who feels like working when ever. There is a balance here. So far I've never had any issues, and my employee's are very happy with the situation and the freedom it gives them to take long weekends and they please and the like.
Now getting back to the pay rate and type of labor. Maybe the company does not value its employees because they are not valuable. Some employee's are not. It is simple economics, supply and demand. If there is a surplus of people who can do the job, then they are not very valuable. One who is chronically out of the work place would be beneficial to replace with one who is not.
My suggestion is not working for a company that clearly does not value you, or more so, that you are not valuable to. Now if you just don't have much to offer the world as an employee then thats not a choice you have, but at least working at this place you have a job for now which is better than nothing.
So, just to clarify- there is no sanctuary for calling in ahead of time, right? The use of 'occurrence' versus 'days' is a little odd, unless that is meant to catch people 'coming down with something' when the tasks suck.
Are they being paid for the sick time, it sounds like no?
So it isn't that there is no sick time. You get two sick days and the third one you get written up. You get up to four sick days.
That isn't exactly like not having 'ANY form of sick leave' as you say in the OP. It is a pretty crappy policy, and I don't know what level of people that would apply to. A large proportion of our hourly guys seem to burn thru all their 'sick' days by April. Either they have really odd health problems, or they are just burning days to make sure that they don't leave anything on the table.
So you really have 2-3 sick days a year, but frankly if you are taking that many sick days every year, I'd say that you are doing something wrong. You also didn't mention the number of vacation days. I'm guessing that it isn't great.
The issue is that a lot of people take advantage of sick day policies or for supratentorial illnesses. This employer decided to come down hard on it. Maybe they are heavily impacted by people sicking out and needed this to curb it.
At our company, an occurrence is multiple days. So if you missed say three days, you would only be assessed for one.
We have a threshold of 64 hours, each occurrence is 8 hours. This includes paid sick time and is only for hourly employees. Any unused sick time may be sold at 100% value at the EOY.
And you are correct about the cost of absenteeism. The stark reality is that absenteeism costs employers a lot of money, in lost productivity, or overtime to make it up, or both.
I have people every year at review time that are unhappy with their review/raises. To a man, I can show them where their poor attendance costs the company, and therefore them, because I have to pay someone extra to pick up their slack. Yet their first reaction is that I need to pay them more. Never mind the money they leave on the table by staying at the house.
We schedule production based on available planned manpower. So if somebody misses, it is made up with OT. My department last year alone spent over $200k in OT. Over $300k the year before that. That does not include things like fringe and taxes related to labor costs.
We are allowed discretion, however. I never assign occurrences for sick kids, spouses, etc. even though I am supposed to.
MountainRaven
05-02-16, 12:02
those on this forum SHOULD BE very against that type of state imposition.
The only thing people on this forum should be is unabashedly pro-2A.
I know many people who favor liberal economic programs, who are pro-BLM, &c. but also have concealed weapons permits, black guns, and are in favor of Joe Blow being able to acquire them without government imposition. While some of them are proponents of UBCs and may not be fond of the idea of being able to buy SBRs and machine guns OTC, they generally get and support things like taking silencers off the NFA and don't support either AWBs or magazine capacity restrictions.
Point being, if you're on this forum, all you should be is someone who likes ARs and doesn't want the government to take them, ban them, or implement other restrictions on the types of firearms people can acquire.
Because this is m4carbine.net, not suckdrumpfskochbrothers.net.
As previously answered, yes in at will work states it is incredibly difficult to sue for wrongful termination, and in the US, employment is an agreement between the employee and employer (there are some very simple government mandates like the I9, W4 and minimum wage requirements). Some states impose stricter regulations that "protect" employee rights, but those on this forum SHOULD BE very against that type of state imposition. In a capitalist society, we should allow the employee and employer to come to any agreement that THEY deem mutually beneficial, and then have a written contract based upon those terms. The time for an employee to negotiate is during the hiring process, and then at any time when a review/raise has been agreed upon, during the HIRING process. As an employer I hear the terms "not fair", and "you can't fire me" by employees that fail to uphold their end of that agreement. It is apparent that someone told people that fair is basically anything that is good for them all the time. In the event you are a rock star employee, and bring a lot to the table, you will find a company that affords you more than another company.
Personally, I'm sick to death with the attitude that the company owes something to the staff. That is a 2 way street, and had it truly been fair, then companies would set the standard based upon the performance and loyalty they wish to evoke, and the good employees would then simply gravitate to those companies that take care of those that take care of them. I tell my employees I will pay them the agreed upon wage, and provide a safe environment to work in. I will work hard for them, and do my best to supply all the tools and supplies they require to do their jobs. I will actively remove anyone that does not work as a TEAM MEMBER. I will provide both training and advancement opportunities, and as a team we will make our company better than the competition, gain more market share, and thereby I will able to provide more opportunity. I ask that they give me a 100% effort each day, for the 100% pay that I provide. I don't say BS like I want 110%, and I recognize that today's 100% is not always the same as yesterday's or the tomorrow's, people have off days, but effort is effort. That is the unwritten contract.
Jack -
That is the way it SHOULD be and you are obviously a class act. Unfortunately there are unscrupulous employers out there, just as there are bad employees. I think one of the problems in discussions like this is that we assume that everyone treats folks decently, because that is the way we treat folks.
I look at the work compact as first and foremost both parties owing loyalty to each other, that is not a common thought in today's world.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-02-16, 12:23
Because this is m4carbine.net, not suckdrumpfskochbrothers.net.
I belong there too and all they talk about in the GD forum is ARs. Crazy.
JackFanToM
05-02-16, 12:57
Jack -
That is the way it SHOULD be and you are obviously a class act. Unfortunately there are unscrupulous employers out there, just as there are bad employees. I think one of the problems in discussions like this is that we assume that everyone treats folks decently, because that is the way we treat folks.
I look at the work compact as first and foremost both parties owing loyalty to each other, that is not a common thought in today's world.
The problem employers have, in most cases, is they are "penny wise, but dollar foolish". Turnover and labor are the 2 easiest to control and biggest impacts on P&L. Companies, in many cases fail to look at this from a rational standpoint, and to look at the employee/employer relationship as symbiotic. I use the military in my orientation for new hires, and the way I do so is as follows: If you have a career military enlisted person, and they are currently a Sgt with 6 years active duty, and their service is suddenly cut short (death, disability, dishonorable or honorable discharge, etc.), how long will it take the military to replace them? They cannot, you cannot replace that experience. You can get someone with SIMILAR experience, but never the same, and if it takes 6 years to gain another Sgt with SIMILAR experience, then the original Sgt would be on year 12. Turnover is a loss for both sides. The employee loses time in, benefits, veteran/senior status, and some or all of the knowledge gained will be useless at the next job (assuming it wasn't a loss due to new opportunity/promotion). The employer loses knowledge and labor dollars (new hires cost money as well as training doubles, at minimum, the labor dollars spent).
When both sides make a concerted effort to work through issues, set goals for both the individual and the team, and strive make a profit increase, then BOTH sides win. All too often we find that the either one side or both sides simply do not care. I consider my competition, that has that mentality, low hanging fruit. When you remove money from the equation, 9 out of 10 people will consider the next most important work priority to be making a difference. The companies that get their managers and teams to buy in, are apparent whenever you do business with them. Those businesses thrive in an economic down turn, as well as when there is plenty to go around.
Like everything else, if you think your employer truly does not have your best interest at heart (make sure it is them and not you just assuming they OWE you), then it is in everyone's best interest for you to find work elsewhere. I recommend keeping the current crappy job, doing your best even though they don't appreciate it (simply because you have a good moral compass and a positive outlook), and seeking the RIGHT opportunity in your off time.
Any manager that does not see their team as being their internal customers, is neither a leader nor a smart manager. Their job is to make the company more revenue and become ever increasingly efficient to stretch the profit line...turnover is counter to that, as are disgruntled team members.
JackFanToM
05-02-16, 13:00
The only thing people on this forum should be is unabashedly pro-2A.
I know many people who favor liberal economic programs, who are pro-BLM, &c. but also have concealed weapons permits, black guns, and are in favor of Joe Blow being able to acquire them without government imposition. While some of them are proponents of UBCs and may not be fond of the idea of being able to buy SBRs and machine guns OTC, they generally get and support things like taking silencers off the NFA and don't support either AWBs or magazine capacity restrictions.
Point being, if you're on this forum, all you should be is someone who likes ARs and doesn't want the government to take them, ban them, or implement other restrictions on the types of firearms people can acquire.
Because this is m4carbine.net, not suckdrumpfskochbrothers.net.
Sure in a perfect world you can have a socialistic perspective and be pro-gun, but in the US today you simply must decide what is more important to you. I prefer to be pro-gun and help those that help themselves. Again I say SHOULD and not ARE.
Eurodriver
05-02-16, 13:11
Euro -
I'd be willing to bet, from what I've read on here, that your company has metrics in place to measure your effectiveness, and if you go too many quarters without meeting those metrics you'd be gone.
That's a good bet.
That is big boy rules, and that is cool, what ain't cool is someone letting you go because, say, you got bedbugs. :rolleyes:
1. Let the record state that I have never ever had bedbugs. Ever.
2. To be totally serious, if the chick/dude/tranny I worked next to did have bed bugs I would want that shit taken care of stat. What that means, I don't know, but bed bugs are no joke and the stress and money spent eradicating them are not compensation at my place of work.
Let's not discuss the notion that 'everyone can grow up to be President' and 'you can achieve whatever you want to achieve.' Instead let's look at reality.
Do you really feel that isn't possible? I mean, really? Of course in the history of the USA less than 50 people have ever been President, but from where I'm sitting I'm certainly of the mentality that if you want to get out of the ghetto you most certainly can...
Many folks work for companies that don't value them because that is the only game in town, for them.
As I've noted earlier, from my perspective, you are the brightest fellow in Florida. That means there are a helluva lot of working Joe's in Florida who don't have your options.
This actually means a lot. It's not true, because you know...there's an organization called NASA down here, but it still means a lot ;)
Several years ago we had a motor re-manufacturing facility tell over 200 workers at the end of shift on a Friday, hey no need to come to work on Monday, we are closing. Suddenly you've got 200+ folks scrambling for jobs in an area where there aren't many jobs available. A lot of those folks had been making a good, honest living and had house payments, car payments, and other debts. They couldn't just up and leave the area, they had debt.
Point is, they were at the mercy of the job market. Many of them ended up working for places that didn't value them out of necessity.
Not arguing with you, but there are some valid reasons why folks work for assholes.
Thanks for bringing up a valid counter point. I would certainly be ok with being treated like shit if it were my only option (I volunteered for the Marines for fun) but it is difficult to put myself in that position. With my line of work and credentials I can get employed almost anywhere (or employ myself), so I can't relate to why others are so tied down. I mean, I could literally throw all my shit in a uhaul tonight and by the time I finished driving to Minnesota have a few interviews lined up. Of course, I'd never do that because Minnesota sucks balls, but the point remains.
Smartest guy in Florida... :dirol:
Outlander Systems
05-02-16, 13:25
Don't ascribe intelligence to that which can be explained by sobriety.
Every time I visit my peeps in Florida, I swear I'm the only dude in a 100-mile radius with a BAC below .08.
:alcoholic:
Smartest guy in Florida... :dirol:
You know....
No employer owes you beyond what you're due, but no employer owns you either. I knew a guy who did the start up spiel and kept riding people. He kept threatening people with being fired. He was expecting quick results and gambled his retirement fund on a business. He openly dreaded payday and acted like he was just giving people money for free after they had worked far more competently for him than one would expect given his attitude. Then he'd realize how in debt he was and take it out on people until it was down to him and his cousin. Then nobody. Because he had to sell out. Because he simply had no managerial skills.
Some employers act like they are automatically your god now and, no.
These things sort themselves out after a while. On paper, it seems like getting rid of dead weight. In reality, things happen. If enough people get messed over and retention is terrible and they suffer brain/skill drain; then they will either re-evaluate or their ship will sink.
When someone gets tired of their environment, IMO the healthiest thing to do is look for a better one.
Averageman
05-02-16, 15:08
You can work for a great company and get stuck with a for crap manager.
These are usually the Middle Management Mopes who will never leave the middle and there is a good reason for that. These same guys will throw the "Right To Work State" card on the table every time there is a disagreement on how something is or should be done.
Usually in a case like that these guys need an HR Rep to come in and explain to them what a Hostile Work Environment is and put them in check.
You can do some unscrupulous stuff, but is it necessary, or right or even good for the cause?
This is why a union can be good for the working class. They are your attorneys and stand up for the worker who has been treated wrongfully. Yes some unions like the SEIU that can go way off track but there are many, many others that are "in the groove" as they say.
You know....
No employer owes you beyond what you're due, but no employer owns you either. I knew a guy who did the start up spiel and kept riding people. He kept threatening people with being fired. He was expecting quick results and gambled his retirement fund on a business. He openly dreaded payday and acted like he was just giving people money for free after they had worked far more competently for him than one would expect given his attitude. Then he'd realize how in debt he was and take it out on people until it was down to him and his cousin. Then nobody. Because he had to sell out. Because he simply had no managerial skills.
Some employers act like they are automatically your god now and, no.
These things sort themselves out after a while. On paper, it seems like getting rid of dead weight. In reality, things happen. If enough people get messed over and retention is terrible and they suffer brain/skill drain; then they will either re-evaluate or their ship will sink.
When someone gets tired of their environment, IMO the healthiest thing to do is look for a better one.
Exactly the reason that fair labor laws are unnecessary and detrimental to a capitalist, free market economy. If you don't like the way your employer treats you, find another employer. Eventually that employer will reassess and correct their behaviors, or their business will fail.
Exactly the reason that fair labor laws are unnecessary and detrimental to a capitalist, free market economy. If you don't like the way your employer treats you, find another employer. Eventually that employer will reassess and correct their behaviors, or their business will fail.
Unless the majority of employers in the area are of the same mind set then you are nothing but a tool to be thrown away when your usefulness is done. Turnkey's post shows the mindset of many businesses these days. They are in a race to the bottom, Walmart wages and the infamous "right to work state status". Sometimes it makes me think that we are starting to go back to the Coal mining company town era. No, I'm not advocating $15 per hour for fast food employees. That's just stupid as I am sure most all would agree.
The only thing people on this forum should be is unabashedly pro-2A.
I know many people who favor liberal economic programs, who are pro-BLM, &c. but also have concealed weapons permits, black guns, and are in favor of Joe Blow being able to acquire them without government imposition. While some of them are proponents of UBCs and may not be fond of the idea of being able to buy SBRs and machine guns OTC, they generally get and support things like taking silencers off the NFA and don't support either AWBs or magazine capacity restrictions.
Point being, if you're on this forum, all you should be is someone who likes ARs and doesn't want the government to take them, ban them, or implement other restrictions on the types of firearms people can acquire.
Because this is m4carbine.net, not suckdrumpfskochbrothers.net.
2A and Socialism, errrrr, "Liberalism" cannot coexist.
As for the original topic, I have no problem with employers, as in actual business owners, dictating what does and doesn't qualify as sick days, etc. BUT my problem ethically is when middle managers and what of indulge their own whims and prejudices using the authority and money of the actual owners. In most modern businesses, the actual owners are so far removed from day to day contact with front line employees, that managers have nearly total control over people without having fronted the money and risk to warrant such control.
I have seen this way too many times and it makes me sick. Front the money and risk? Fine. Make your call. But get hired on and weasel your way into some supervisory role? Not the same thing.
Damn...where are you guys working?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My question is what's it like to work someplace where the management holds their people accountable for their actions?
JackFanToM
05-02-16, 19:13
Move to Dallas by October (when my new hotel opens) and I will be happy to show you 1st hand [emoji4].
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.