Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Eugene Weekly)   Woman on maternity leave fired for checking and deleting email from home, "which the company considered destruction of company property"   (eugeneweekly.com) divider line 180
    More: Scary, hard news  
•       •       •

8464 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2014 at 8:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-04-04 04:23:08 PM  
If the company is this stupid. She is better of unemployed than working for doofuses like this.
 
2014-04-04 04:26:41 PM  
Sue the sh*t out of those idiots.
 
2014-04-04 04:38:36 PM  
Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit, which can fill up quickly with various attachments. Could they now fire me for clearing out old e-mails under the guise of "destroying company property?"

Granted working in an at-will state means I could be fired for just showing up wearing an ugly tie, but this seems like a bad idea.
 
FNG [TotalFark]
2014-04-04 06:16:01 PM  
What Blues_X  said.  Probably wouldn't win but getting the paper negative exposure and enough bad PR, always helps in a situation like this.
 
2014-04-04 07:41:45 PM  

Blues_X: Sue the sh*t out of those idiots.


This. Seems pretty clear this was just a flimsy pretext to fire her for being pregnant.
 
2014-04-04 07:49:36 PM  

fusillade762: Blues_X: Sue the sh*t out of those idiots.

This. Seems pretty clear this was just a flimsy pretext to fire her for being pregnant.


seems reasonable
 
2014-04-04 08:18:54 PM  

Bucky Katt: fusillade762: Blues_X: Sue the sh*t out of those idiots.

This. Seems pretty clear this was just a flimsy pretext to fire her for being pregnant.

seems reasonable


Yep, anyone on jury familiar with email will see it that way.
 
2014-04-04 08:23:26 PM  
My mom the HR director would call this "creative dismissal". And if she's out on Family Leave Act, she litterally has a federal case.
 
2014-04-04 08:25:03 PM  
Hint to Employer:  Check the Trash email.
 
2014-04-04 08:26:45 PM  
Well I must admit, hacking the mail server and deleting the messages might deserve termination. Wait she only deleted the from her mailbox so the messages aren't actually gone. Well that is an easy lawsuit.
 
2014-04-04 08:27:23 PM  
Yeah, this totally isn't a firing to get around maternity leave obligations. *wink*
 
2014-04-04 08:32:08 PM  
It sounds like they're trying to avoid paying unemployment.
 
2014-04-04 08:34:43 PM  

Delawheredad: If the company is this stupid. She is better of unemployed than working for doofuses like this.


They are trying to sack her without any compensation. Likely to fail. So stupid on that account.
 
2014-04-04 08:35:32 PM  
Sounds to me like there's a lot more to this story.  A sample of her writing would be helpful, considering she was covering "entertainment" it may well be horrific.
 
2014-04-04 08:36:04 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit,


I work for an automotive manufacturer in the Fortune 500--and we still only get 100MB for our inboxes, including Outlook calendar bullshiat.

This is a very very obvious example of "we want to fire you, woman. for being pregnant, so we're going to make some shiat up."
 
2014-04-04 08:40:29 PM  
First" Markstrom Nugent, whose degree is in magazine writing, "

She should be fired for making up a degree.

Second there were also bad write-ups on her performance. My guess is she became pregnant in conjunction with downsizing as the article infers.

Third. Check with HR on what you can and can not do while on leave. I know I cant check email on leave at my company, written policy.

Who takes FLA 3 weeks into a pregnancy btw?
 
2014-04-04 08:41:23 PM  
Kid's gonna have a nice college fund.

/ and collect around graduation time.
 
2014-04-04 08:41:48 PM  

ReverendJasen: scottydoesntknow: Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit,

I work for an automotive manufacturer in the Fortune 500--and we still only get 100MB for our inboxes, including Outlook calendar bullshiat.

This is a very very obvious example of "we want to fire you, woman. for being pregnant, so we're going to make some shiat up."


Not even the article states that. The article heavily infers they were in motion to fire her through downsizing. Hence the move to a new beat even prior to her announcement. Note the article saying this was common practice to fire more experienced writers.
 
SH
2014-04-04 08:43:46 PM  
"Markstrom Nugent, whose degree is in magazine writing"


In other news,

Oh, nevermind.
 
2014-04-04 08:44:11 PM  
FTFA: "It felt like getting punched in the stomach," Markstrom Nugent says.

Just way too late, amirite?
 
2014-04-04 08:46:17 PM  
Oh good, I was wondering what the usual defenders were going to say.
 
2014-04-04 08:46:52 PM  
Leaving all the other issues here aside.  Any halfway decent lawyer could crush them by simply proving they had inadequate archival of their own emails.  If it was that important they should be saving them all on the server as it is.
 
2014-04-04 08:48:24 PM  
would they have fired her if she deleted an email while she was in the office?

hope she comes out of the lawsuit owning that company.
 
2014-04-04 08:48:33 PM  

ReverendJasen: scottydoesntknow: Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit,

I work for an automotive manufacturer in the Fortune 500--and we still only get 100MB for our inboxes, including Outlook calendar bullshiat.

This is a very very obvious example of "we want to fire you, woman. for being pregnant, so we're going to make some shiat up."


I work for a larger, more evil company with the same mailbox size. We're encouraged to delete paper trails emails to foil courts save hard drive space.
 
2014-04-04 08:49:55 PM  

MyRandomName: First" Markstrom Nugent, whose degree is in magazine writing, "

She should be fired for making up a degree.


That's probably just the writer of the news article trying to translate a more complex degree title into something the readers can understand. I bet it's either an English or Journalism degree with some sort of technical sounding specialization.
 
2014-04-04 08:50:17 PM  
People have talked before about workplace discrimination against women due to the likelihood that they will become pregnant and thus less productive to the company. Most analysis of it just boils down to: "they shouldn't do that." Well guess what, companies don't care about fairness, they care about the bottom line.
How about this solution: Family leave. When someone has a new baby in their family, mother or father, they get a certain amount of paid leave for childcare. This would not only offer fathers more time with their babies, it would shift the employment burden from having a child from solely on the mother to being shared by both sexes. Thus there would be no particular reason to discriminate against women in hiring out of the worry about her taking pregnancy leave.
 
2014-04-04 08:51:21 PM  

The Gentleman Caller: Oh good, I was wondering what the usual defenders were going to say.


Yes. So much simpler to live in ignorance and think every corporate action is an immoral act designed to inflict maximum pain on the innocent.
 
2014-04-04 08:51:50 PM  

ReverendJasen: scottydoesntknow: Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit,

I work for an automotive manufacturer in the Fortune 500--and we still only get 100MB for our inboxes, including Outlook calendar bullshiat.

This is a very very obvious example of "we want to fire you, woman. for being pregnant, so we're going to make some shiat up."


They're looking at the latest court rulings and political environment and rolling the dice. Heck, if the Voters Rights Act can be gutted, they could get the FMLA trashed.
 
2014-04-04 08:52:15 PM  

Need_MindBleach: People have talked before about workplace discrimination against women due to the likelihood that they will become pregnant and thus less productive to the company. Most analysis of it just boils down to: "they shouldn't do that." Well guess what, companies don't care about fairness, they care about the bottom line.
How about this solution: Family leave. When someone has a new baby in their family, mother or father, they get a certain amount of paid leave for childcare. This would not only offer fathers more time with their babies, it would shift the employment burden from having a child from solely on the mother to being shared by both sexes. Thus there would be no particular reason to discriminate against women in hiring out of the worry about her taking pregnancy leave.


I thought FML was accessible to men already, they just feel less inclined to take it.
 
2014-04-04 08:53:28 PM  

Need_MindBleach: How about this solution: Family leave. When someone has a new baby in their family, mother or father, they get a certain amount of paid leave for childcare. This would not only offer fathers more time with their babies, it would shift the employment burden from having a child from solely on the mother to being shared by both sexes. Thus there would be no particular reason to discriminate against women in hiring out of the worry about her taking pregnancy leave.


There could be some unintended consequences here, but what the heck. I'm for it.
 
2014-04-04 08:55:40 PM  
According to Randi Bjornstad, an R-G employee and co-president of the union, the Eugene Newspaper Guild, "The unofficial reason the guild was given for her termination was that she had checked her email while on leave and had deleted one or more emails, which the company considered destruction of company property."

/Ah, another example of corporate retardation at its finest. She's on maternity leave, and costing them money, not MAKING them money, and i would have to believe that for this, she was fired. They just went with some bullshiat excuse to get rid of her in my opinion. You can't destroy something that physically doesn't exist. And, I'm sure whoever sent the email has copies of the email, and so do others. What a crock of shiat. She should sue their asses off, ill be on the jury.
 
2014-04-04 08:57:14 PM  

MyRandomName: The Gentleman Caller: Oh good, I was wondering what the usual defenders were going to say.

Yes. So much simpler to live in ignorance and think every corporate action is an immoral act designed to inflict maximum pain on the innocent.


Not like anyone could easily switch that around the other way to cast aspersions on someone else in this thread, right? Heaven forbid that such a thing might be happening.
 
2014-04-04 08:57:55 PM  
Sounds like clear discrimination as a result of her pregnancy to me.  If she hadn't worked there for 13 years, I might be more skeptic... but come on, within 3 weeks of her announcing pregnancy they began the paperwork trail for making a case for firing her?

Time to lawyer up.
 
2014-04-04 08:59:17 PM  

FNG: What Blues_X  said.  Probably wouldn't win but getting the paper negative exposure and enough bad PR, always helps in a situation like this.


Not really.  If the paper gets screwed more people get laid off.  But, then again, there obviously are thousands of open, well paying positions at newspapers and magazines all over this country.  The hard cold reality is
that all news outlets have been getting rid of experienced and higher paid reporters and replacing them with cheap grunts, which is reflected in all of the news coverage of all the major news sources.
 
2014-04-04 08:59:53 PM  

Alonjar: Sounds like clear discrimination as a result of her pregnancy to me.  If she hadn't worked there for 13 years, I might be more skeptic... but come on, within 3 weeks of her announcing pregnancy they began the paperwork trail for making a case for firing her?

Time to lawyer up.


Many working women wait until they absolutely have to tell their employers that they're pregnant for just this reason - less time for the employer to suddenly want to focus one very little interaction.
 
2014-04-04 09:01:18 PM  
This is why I always print out my email.
 
2014-04-04 09:02:32 PM  

Blues_X: Sue the sh*t out of those idiots.


She won't win.

She was on leave and when you're on leave like that you cannot do any work. If the company lets you do work while on leave it opens them to a lawsuit because "they made you work while on leave."

Leave is very different from vacation.

I think it's asinine but they're protecting themselves. And she was probably a coont anyhow.
 
2014-04-04 09:02:46 PM  

gadian: Need_MindBleach: People have talked before about workplace discrimination against women due to the likelihood that they will become pregnant and thus less productive to the company. Most analysis of it just boils down to: "they shouldn't do that." Well guess what, companies don't care about fairness, they care about the bottom line.
How about this solution: Family leave. When someone has a new baby in their family, mother or father, they get a certain amount of paid leave for childcare. This would not only offer fathers more time with their babies, it would shift the employment burden from having a child from solely on the mother to being shared by both sexes. Thus there would be no particular reason to discriminate against women in hiring out of the worry about her taking pregnancy leave.

I thought FML was accessible to men already, they just feel less inclined to take it.


I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born.  I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA.  I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.
 
2014-04-04 09:03:27 PM  
They might as well fire someone for destroying company property by flushing toilet paper. Even Lionel Hutz could make a slam dunk out of her case.
 
2014-04-04 09:06:46 PM  

DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.


This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.
 
2014-04-04 09:10:19 PM  

FNG: What Blues_X  said.  Probably wouldn't win but getting the paper negative exposure and enough bad PR, always helps in a situation like this.


You'd have to go back a generation or two to find a Baker who treated the R-G employee pool well. With the sharp decline of profitability in local news, these tactics aren't surprising. Note: they dismissed a freelancer (semi-retired award-winning former full-timer) who coincidentally helped with the farewell meetup for the fired reporter. Sad, the R-G was once a respectable outfit.
 
2014-04-04 09:10:42 PM  
I suspect there's another side to this story.  The company tried to put her on a Performance Improvement Program.  That's a sign that there are issues of some sort.  The bit about the union having no knowledge of said issues is a canard, in general, the company doesn't contact the union with that sort of stuff so there's no reason that the union would know she was having difficulties.

As for deleting emails, she was on leave which means that someone else would have been monitoring what had been her inbox.  Deleting stuff out from under the person who's trying to do your job isn't generally a good plan.
 
2014-04-04 09:16:36 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: I suspect there's another side to this story.  The company tried to put her on a Performance Improvement Program.  That's a sign that there are issues of some sort.  The bit about the union having no knowledge of said issues is a canard, in general, the company doesn't contact the union with that sort of stuff so there's no reason that the union would know she was having difficulties.

As for deleting emails, she was on leave which means that someone else would have been monitoring what had been her inbox.  Deleting stuff out from under the person who's trying to do your job isn't generally a good plan.


/with all due respect to your opinion, i have to disagree on both points.

1. Performance improvement programs are often given just to sqeeze one more spreadsheet or file out of you every day. Training doesn't automatically assume bad job performance

2. I know of no business who allow fill in workers to access a person's email who is on leave. The fill in would have their own email address to do their job.
 
2014-04-04 09:17:19 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: I suspect there's another side to this story.  The company tried to put her on a Performance Improvement Program.  That's a sign that there are issues of some sort.  The bit about the union having no knowledge of said issues is a canard, in general, the company doesn't contact the union with that sort of stuff so there's no reason that the union would know she was having difficulties.

As for deleting emails, she was on leave which means that someone else would have been monitoring what had been her inbox.  Deleting stuff out from under the person who's trying to do your job isn't generally a good plan.


Yup. The article goes to great lengths to avoid disclosing what emails she deleted. There's a chance she was deleting emails that were relevant to a litigation hold and would have proved wrongdoing by her or someone else against the company. I'm sure copies of whatever she was deleting will surface in the inevitable lawsuit.
 
2014-04-04 09:18:39 PM  

Boojum2k: Need_MindBleach: How about this solution: Family leave. When someone has a new baby in their family, mother or father, they get a certain amount of paid leave for childcare. This would not only offer fathers more time with their babies, it would shift the employment burden from having a child from solely on the mother to being shared by both sexes. Thus there would be no particular reason to discriminate against women in hiring out of the worry about her taking pregnancy leave.

There could be some unintended consequences here, but what the heck. I'm for it.


Such a policy would also be non-discriminatory towards gay couples adopting or taking custody of infants since it would apply equally to mothers and fathers. Of course as another poster has pointed out, it would need to be paid leave or it wouldn't work. But the United States is already way behind the rest of the first world on that issue, most of which make a period of paid maternity leave mandatory for companies. So that part of it would be breaking no new ground.
 
2014-04-04 09:22:12 PM  

ReverendJasen: scottydoesntknow: Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit,

I work for an automotive manufacturer in the Fortune 500--and we still only get 100MB for our inboxes, including Outlook calendar bullshiat.

This is a very very obvious example of "we want to fire you, woman. for being pregnant, so we're going to make some shiat up."


I don't even know how much room I have in my inbox.  I have to autoarchive at 2 weeks or I get annoying messages saying it's almost full.  Makes it fun having to search through two places for old emails.
 
2014-04-04 09:25:58 PM  

gadian: Need_MindBleach: People have talked before about workplace discrimination against women due to the likelihood that they will become pregnant and thus less productive to the company. Most analysis of it just boils down to: "they shouldn't do that." Well guess what, companies don't care about fairness, they care about the bottom line.
How about this solution: Family leave. When someone has a new baby in their family, mother or father, they get a certain amount of paid leave for childcare. This would not only offer fathers more time with their babies, it would shift the employment burden from having a child from solely on the mother to being shared by both sexes. Thus there would be no particular reason to discriminate against women in hiring out of the worry about her taking pregnancy leave.

I thought FML was accessible to men already, they just feel less inclined to take it.


True. Men in my company get Paternity leave along with FMLA, however I've never heard of more than a week used at a time. For women, if you can't sit comfortably for hours why torture yourself? Let your body heal while baby bonding.
 
2014-04-04 09:27:29 PM  

wildcardjack: My mom the HR director would call this "creative dismissal". And if she's out on Family Leave Act, she litterally has a federal case.


Depends on the Corporate Email Policy. My former employer had a ridiculous (but completely legal) policy on email. This was especially true when it came to retaining certain types of email for archive purposes. Part of it was their own legal burden, most in fact, but some was CYA stuff.
 
2014-04-04 09:29:58 PM  
Having RTFA, it sounds more like she didn't appreciate being switched from entertainment to politics and her work was suffering for it. They followed company policy by giving her write up for poor performance. She even admits that she was working hard to improve. If she sues, she'll lose.
 
2014-04-04 09:31:17 PM  

Need_MindBleach: When someone has a new baby in their family, mother or father, they get a certain amount of paid leave for childcare. This would not only offer fathers more time with their babies, it would shift the employment burden from having a child from solely on the mother to being shared by both sexes. Thus there would be no particular reason to discriminate against women in hiring out of the worry about her taking pregnancy leave.


This is what they do in Europe. It also opens the door to just simply firing parents, but that's why "lazy fairy" capitalism doesn't work. A baby is a giant time sink. You need all your faculties to deal with one for months. Forcing companies to pay for mothers is essential, because given the choice, they're not going to keep giving money to someone for months on end like they were at work when they can't or won't come into the office if they can avoid it.

And that's really the big problem with capitalism. It encourages using people.
 
2014-04-04 09:32:03 PM  

fusillade762: Blues_X: Sue the sh*t out of those idiots.

This. Seems pretty clear this was just a flimsy pretext to fire her for being pregnant.


Yup.
 
2014-04-04 09:32:04 PM  

KidneyStone: She won't win.

She was on leave and when you're on leave like that you cannot do any work. If the company lets you do work while on leave it opens them to a lawsuit because "they made you work while on leave."

Leave is very different from vacation.

I think it's asinine but they're protecting themselves. And she was probably a coont anyhow.


This is pretty much a jackpot form an employment lawyers perspective. Defense as a weak case, Federal law on your side, Sympathetic Plaintiff. Long history of employment. THe insurance companies lawyers will simply settle out of court if given a reasonable offer. Reasonable being anything less than 100k.
 
2014-04-04 09:43:16 PM  

MyRandomName: First" Markstrom Nugent, whose degree is in magazine writing, "

She should be fired for making up a degree.

Second there were also bad write-ups on her performance. My guess is she became pregnant in conjunction with downsizing as the article infers.

Third. Check with HR on what you can and can not do while on leave. I know I cant check email on leave at my company, written policy.

Who takes FLA 3 weeks into a pregnancy btw?


For all we know she's incredibly useless and used to spend all day buying shoes, clothes, and baby shiat on the company internets all day long.   Going on leave 3 weeks into it though suggests to me that she's lazy and/or is unable to properly mitigate stress.  Can't say that's a trait of a good parent.

Most pregnant women I've worked with generally still show up every day until the things damn near drop into the rice paddy.

Regardless of if they've got actual dirt on her or not, I would assume pregnant lady typically wins no matter what.  Considering how much I hate greedy farkholes vs. possibly lazy biatches, I hope that they get assigned a female judge (who just happens to be a mother as well) to preside over the case.
 
2014-04-04 09:44:26 PM  

Need_MindBleach: People have talked before about workplace discrimination against women due to the likelihood that they will become pregnant and thus less productive to the company. Most analysis of it just boils down to: "they shouldn't do that." Well guess what, companies don't care about fairness, they care about the bottom line.
How about this solution: Family leave. When someone has a new baby in their family, mother or father, they get a certain amount of paid leave for childcare. This would not only offer fathers more time with their babies, it would shift the employment burden from having a child from solely on the mother to being shared by both sexes. Thus there would be no particular reason to discriminate against women in hiring out of the worry about her taking pregnancy leave.


Women and men already have the same options for leave for the birth of a child - three months of unpaid leave.  And yes, it applies equally to child birth, adoption, or taking a foster child. A lot of new parents where I work take the time in shifts - the mother taking the first three months off and the father the next three.
 
2014-04-04 09:49:58 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: three months of unpaid leave


Technically, every job offers unlimited amounts of unpaid leave. I've take 10 years from a fast food joint already.
 
2014-04-04 09:51:19 PM  

gadian: Many working women wait until they absolutely have to tell their employers that they're pregnant for just this reason - less time for the employer to suddenly want to focus one very little interaction.



I know I did.  I didn't say a single word to anyone until I just couldn't physically hide my belly anymore.  Fortunately for me, I never got morning sickness or any other tell-tale signs or pregnancy so it was relatively easy to hide it for 4-5 months.
 
2014-04-04 09:56:32 PM  

doglover: Technically, every job offers unlimited amounts of unpaid leave. I've take 10 years from a fast food joint already.


This is three months where you are still considered an employee and thus can come back to work at any time without being re-hired.

There's a big difference between unpaid leave and unemployment.
 
2014-04-04 09:59:23 PM  
Several things come to mind:

(1) What is their Sarbanes-Oxley compliance like if by her deleting e-mail it truly is destroyed (disclaimer, I am not an expert on "SOX" compliance)?

(2) Back during the downturn, we had to do a few months of 1 unpaid day each month. We had to explain, in no uncertain terms, that on their day off, they were unavailable to the organization. Don't check e-mail (even web mail) and don't show your face around work. We were trying to avoid FLSA issues, and actually had to discipline (warning letters) a couple of people who tried to game the system by claiming they were called in due to an "emergency."

This case sounds very much like an old-line media company trying to cut costs, or some other personality issues involved. But yeah, a "degree in magazine writing?" One local college used to offer a "general studies" degree. "I got a degree in piddling around."
 
2014-04-04 10:05:47 PM  
Oh, yeah, 225 MB server e-mail limit at my workplace. Previous employer (above post-like entry) had a 2 GB limit.
 
2014-04-04 10:12:14 PM  

CruJones: Sounds to me like there's a lot more to this story.  A sample of her writing would be helpful, considering she was covering "entertainment" it may well be horrific.


My thought too.
 
2014-04-04 10:13:46 PM  

MyRandomName: ReverendJasen: scottydoesntknow: Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit,

I work for an automotive manufacturer in the Fortune 500--and we still only get 100MB for our inboxes, including Outlook calendar bullshiat.

This is a very very obvious example of "we want to fire you, woman. for being pregnant, so we're going to make some shiat up."

Not even the article states that. The article heavily infers they were in motion to fire her through downsizing. Hence the move to a new beat even prior to her announcement. Note the article saying this was common practice to fire more experienced writers.


Take what the article says with a grain of salt. It was bias in favor of the the journalist
 
2014-04-04 10:15:28 PM  

Alonjar: Sounds like clear discrimination as a result of her pregnancy to me.  If she hadn't worked there for 13 years, I might be more skeptic... but come on, within 3 weeks of her announcing pregnancy they began the paperwork trail for making a case for firing her?

Time to lawyer up.


Seems like they were working towards removing her before the pregnancy. That just speed up the time table.
 
2014-04-04 10:17:28 PM  

gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.


And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?
 
2014-04-04 10:21:52 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: I suspect there's another side to this story.  The company tried to put her on a Performance Improvement Program.  That's a sign that there are issues of some sort.  The bit about the union having no knowledge of said issues is a canard, in general, the company doesn't contact the union with that sort of stuff so there's no reason that the union would know she was having difficulties.


Huh. Someone who actually believes "Performance Improvement Programs" are totally legitimate.

shtychkn: CruJones: Sounds to me like there's a lot more to this story.  A sample of her writing would be helpful, considering she was covering "entertainment" it may well be horrific.

My thought too.


I bet the quotes in the article citing her good rep as an entertainment writer were most likely bogus. Right?
 
2014-04-04 10:22:07 PM  
Sounds like she got the shaft... twice
 
2014-04-04 10:30:51 PM  

shtychkn: MyRandomName: ReverendJasen: scottydoesntknow: Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit,

I work for an automotive manufacturer in the Fortune 500--and we still only get 100MB for our inboxes, including Outlook calendar bullshiat.

This is a very very obvious example of "we want to fire you, woman. for being pregnant, so we're going to make some shiat up."

Not even the article states that. The article heavily infers they were in motion to fire her through downsizing. Hence the move to a new beat even prior to her announcement. Note the article saying this was common practice to fire more experienced writers.

Take what the article says with a grain of salt. It was bias in favor of the the journalist


All of which fails to acknowledge or address the fact that "deleting emails from your inbox = destruction of company property" is complete and utter bullshiat. Either the guild representative is lying when they said they were told that, or what she actually did was totally different from hitting Delete in Outlook (and the union rep wasn't technical enough to understand the explanation), or the company is spewing bullshiat as a pretext to cover an impermissible reason for termination.
 
2014-04-04 10:37:16 PM  

shtychkn: And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?


A newborn or an adoption isn't a vacation by any stretch of the imagination.  Even if it were, no, you don't, just because you like to whine about workers with children.
 
2014-04-04 10:38:29 PM  

wildcardjack: My mom the HR director would call this "creative dismissal". And if she's out on Family Leave Act, she litterally has a federal case.


I believe all pregnancy leave is considered FMLA by federal statute.  At the very least it's hard for it NOT to be considered covered by the provisions of FMLA.

This company is going to get sued into oblivion.

Savage Belief: Having RTFA, it sounds more like she didn't appreciate being switched from entertainment to politics and her work was suffering for it. They followed company policy by giving her write up for poor performance. She even admits that she was working hard to improve. If she sues, she'll lose.


Unless she makes the claim that the move from entertainment to politics was done simply to establish a pretext for firing her, which was quite possible.  I'd be curious why you would take a reporter with 13 years experience covering entertainment topics and think "clearly what we need to do is throw her into a topic she's never covered before without giving her a choice."  Hell the article even points out that this is widely seen as a strategy to get rid of experienced workers.

Any lawsuit against the company isn't quite so clear-cut. The alleged justification for firing her due to her poor performance just means the lawsuit will take longer, and if it does succeed will result in a much more severe penalty.
 
2014-04-04 10:45:25 PM  
Cases like these are why the internet is so awesome.  The TFA will be there every time someone wants to check them out before submitting an application for a job opening.  Anyone talented enough to have other opportunities and smart enough to do a targeted google on the R-G will quickly find out that they have some thinking to do about working there.  They'll only get candidates who have no other option or are too lazy/dumb to research a prospective employer.
 
2014-04-04 10:45:25 PM  

DrBenway: Mr. Eugenides: I suspect there's another side to this story.  The company tried to put her on a Performance Improvement Program.  That's a sign that there are issues of some sort.  The bit about the union having no knowledge of said issues is a canard, in general, the company doesn't contact the union with that sort of stuff so there's no reason that the union would know she was having difficulties.

Huh. Someone who actually believes "Performance Improvement Programs" are totally legitimate.

shtychkn: CruJones: Sounds to me like there's a lot more to this story.  A sample of her writing would be helpful, considering she was covering "entertainment" it may well be horrific.

My thought too.

I bet the quotes in the article citing her good rep as an entertainment writer were most likely bogus. Right?


Not sure if a good entertainment writer would actually be a good journalist.
 
2014-04-04 10:45:55 PM  
I think the company will win. She was receiving disability (which likely is covered by the employer's insurer) which means she can't work during that time. Checking email = doing work.

They probably wanted to downsize anyway, and now they have clear proof she was not following the rules = case for termination.
 
2014-04-04 10:46:26 PM  

Mithiwithi: shtychkn: MyRandomName: ReverendJasen: scottydoesntknow: Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit,

I work for an automotive manufacturer in the Fortune 500--and we still only get 100MB for our inboxes, including Outlook calendar bullshiat.

This is a very very obvious example of "we want to fire you, woman. for being pregnant, so we're going to make some shiat up."

Not even the article states that. The article heavily infers they were in motion to fire her through downsizing. Hence the move to a new beat even prior to her announcement. Note the article saying this was common practice to fire more experienced writers.

Take what the article says with a grain of salt. It was bias in favor of the the journalist

All of which fails to acknowledge or address the fact that "deleting emails from your inbox = destruction of company property" is complete and utter bullshiat. Either the guild representative is lying when they said they were told that, or what she actually did was totally different from hitting Delete in Outlook (and the union rep wasn't technical enough to understand the explanation), or the company is spewing bullshiat as a pretext to cover an impermissible reason for termination.


I do agree the email excuse was bull.
 
2014-04-04 10:47:45 PM  

gadian: shtychkn: And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

A newborn or an adoption isn't a vacation by any stretch of the imagination.  Even if it were, no, you don't, just because you like to whine about workers with children.


I just don't see why others need to subsidize your life choices.

And paid leave is money that could be used for raises or general leave for all employees.
 
2014-04-04 10:52:29 PM  

gibbon1: KidneyStone: She won't win.

She was on leave and when you're on leave like that you cannot do any work. If the company lets you do work while on leave it opens them to a lawsuit because "they made you work while on leave."

Leave is very different from vacation.

I think it's asinine but they're protecting themselves. And she was probably a coont anyhow.

This is pretty much a jackpot form an employment lawyers perspective. Defense as a weak case, Federal law on your side, Sympathetic Plaintiff. Long history of employment. THe insurance companies lawyers will simply settle out of court if given a reasonable offer. Reasonable being anything less than 100k.


You're going to be talking considerably more than 100k.  She's already worked for the company for 13 years.  It's not inconceivable that she would have stayed and retired with this job.  Her attorney can easily go for those lost wages.  Damages will rack it up even more.
 
2014-04-04 10:52:55 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Granted working in an at-will state means I could be fired for just showing up wearing an ugly tie, but this seems like a bad idea.

At-will doesn't mean employers can actually fire you for whatever they want, it means they can fire you  without stated cause.  They're still subject to employment law, meaning that if they give a reason for the firing like this that is clearly a pretext for firing her due to the pregnancy/time off (which they're legally obligated to give her) they're still on the hook.

This is why in at-will states any sane company will direct managers with firing authority to  not list a cause at all when firing people even if it seems innocuous.  In some ways lawsuits have  more traction in at-will states than normally, in states with clear laws the court will just look at the cause, see that it's on the list, and drop the case, where in an at-will state they'll actually look at a larger body of secondary evidence and draw their own conclusions, frequently even not believing the stated reason for termination because there's no standard for what constitutes "sufficient documentation".

yukichigai: I believe all pregnancy leave is considered FMLA by federal statute.  At the very least it's hard for it NOT to be considered covered by the provisions of FMLA.


I know a lot of companies provide additional pregnancy benefits in the form of extended maternity leave and paternity leave, is that enforceable under the law or would it be a separate breach of contract suit?  I've never actually had to deal with a pregnancy issue acting for an employer.
 
2014-04-04 10:57:07 PM  

ameeriklane: I think the company will win. She was receiving disability (which likely is covered by the employer's insurer) which means she can't work during that time. Checking email = doing work.

They probably wanted to downsize anyway, and now they have clear proof she was not following the rules = case for termination.


She was recieving disability?
 
2014-04-04 10:58:31 PM  

shtychkn: gadian: shtychkn: And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

A newborn or an adoption isn't a vacation by any stretch of the imagination.  Even if it were, no, you don't, just because you like to whine about workers with children.

I just don't see why others need to subsidize your life choices.

And paid leave is money that could be used for raises or general leave for all employees.


Companies that provide childcare, they're really the worst, aren't they? Right there, another sweet, sweet benefit that you're not getting a piece of.
 
2014-04-04 11:00:24 PM  

DrBenway: shtychkn: gadian: shtychkn: And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

A newborn or an adoption isn't a vacation by any stretch of the imagination.  Even if it were, no, you don't, just because you like to whine about workers with children.

I just don't see why others need to subsidize your life choices.

And paid leave is money that could be used for raises or general leave for all employees.

Companies that provide childcare, they're really the worst, aren't they? Right there, another sweet, sweet benefit that you're not getting a piece of.


Depends on how much.

3 to 6 months paid leave like the op mentioned is too much.
2 to 3 weeks, reasonable.
 
2014-04-04 11:03:36 PM  

MyRandomName: First" Markstrom Nugent, whose degree is in magazine writing, "

She should be fired for making up a degree.

Second there were also bad write-ups on her performance. My guess is she became pregnant in conjunction with downsizing as the article infers.

Third. Check with HR on what you can and can not do while on leave. I know I cant check email on leave at my company, written policy.

Who takes FLA 3 weeks into a pregnancy btw?


Expecting mothers, that is who. Now shut your cock holster.
 
2014-04-04 11:03:56 PM  

fusillade762: Blues_X: Sue the sh*t out of those idiots.

This. Seems pretty clear this was just a flimsy pretext to fire her for being pregnant.


One of many, if you read the article. It seems like the moment she became pregnant, they started throwning reasons to fire her against the wall, hoping one of them would stick. She's just lucky she was smart enough to contact her union rep instead of signing that "performance improvement plan."
 
2014-04-04 11:07:52 PM  

doglover: Need_MindBleach: When someone has a new baby in their family, mother or father, they get a certain amount of paid leave for childcare. This would not only offer fathers more time with their babies, it would shift the employment burden from having a child from solely on the mother to being shared by both sexes. Thus there would be no particular reason to discriminate against women in hiring out of the worry about her taking pregnancy leave.

This is what they do in Europe. It also opens the door to just simply firing parents, but that's why "lazy fairy" capitalism doesn't work. A baby is a giant time sink. You need all your faculties to deal with one for months. Forcing companies to pay for mothers is essential, because given the choice, they're not going to keep giving money to someone for months on end like they were at work when they can't or won't come into the office if they can avoid it.

And that's really the big problem with capitalism. It encourages using people.


I don't see why a company should be forced to pay someone who's not doing any work for them. Paid childcare can be something you ask for in your contract, but to just force all companies to do it for all workers, no matter how trivial, seems unfair. Like you said, there's no reason why they should be giving money to someone for months on end when they're not coming to work.
 
2014-04-04 11:08:03 PM  

Rozinante: ReverendJasen: scottydoesntknow: Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit,

I work for an automotive manufacturer in the Fortune 500--and we still only get 100MB for our inboxes, including Outlook calendar bullshiat.

This is a very very obvious example of "we want to fire you, woman. for being pregnant, so we're going to make some shiat up."

I work for a larger, more evil company with the same mailbox size. We're encouraged to delete paper trails emails to foil courts save hard drive space.


That's not how email works :(
 
2014-04-04 11:09:51 PM  

doglover: Sum Dum Gai: three months of unpaid leave

Technically, every job offers unlimited amounts of unpaid leave. I've take 10 years from a fast food joint already.


This is not true, when you are on leave from a company you still receive benefits such as medical insurance.
 
2014-04-04 11:11:23 PM  

shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?


Take a medical leave then. If you think of that as a vacation you must have an extremely sad life however.
 
2014-04-04 11:12:20 PM  

Rozotorical: If you think of that as a vacation you must have an extremely sad life however.


Ya think?
 
2014-04-04 11:14:22 PM  

shtychkn: gadian: shtychkn: And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

A newborn or an adoption isn't a vacation by any stretch of the imagination.  Even if it were, no, you don't, just because you like to whine about workers with children.

I just don't see why others need to subsidize your life choices.

And paid leave is money that could be used for raises or general leave for all employees.


Move to Somalia then, it is your kind of place. Good luck
 
2014-04-04 11:19:12 PM  

ignacio: doglover: Need_MindBleach: When someone has a new baby in their family, mother or father, they get a certain amount of paid leave for childcare. This would not only offer fathers more time with their babies, it would shift the employment burden from having a child from solely on the mother to being shared by both sexes. Thus there would be no particular reason to discriminate against women in hiring out of the worry about her taking pregnancy leave.

This is what they do in Europe. It also opens the door to just simply firing parents, but that's why "lazy fairy" capitalism doesn't work. A baby is a giant time sink. You need all your faculties to deal with one for months. Forcing companies to pay for mothers is essential, because given the choice, they're not going to keep giving money to someone for months on end like they were at work when they can't or won't come into the office if they can avoid it.

And that's really the big problem with capitalism. It encourages using people.

I don't see why a company should be forced to pay someone who's not doing any work for them. Paid childcare can be something you ask for in your contract, but to just force all companies to do it for all workers, no matter how trivial, seems unfair. Like you said, there's no reason why they should be giving money to someone for months on end when they're not coming to work.


We are required to work in order to survive in America and not live in extreme poverty. What you are suggesting would lead to an even larger shiat hole of country then we have already created. Get over yourself you are not special. Stop trying to argue for going back to some of the worse ideas of the 19th century. They were a bad idea 100 years ago. They are a worse idea now. People died for those rights, try to act grateful.
 
2014-04-04 11:22:58 PM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: shtychkn: And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

A newborn or an adoption isn't a vacation by any stretch of the imagination.  Even if it were, no, you don't, just because you like to whine about workers with children.

I just don't see why others need to subsidize your life choices.

And paid leave is money that could be used for raises or general leave for all employees.

Move to Somalia then, it is your kind of place. Good luck



No don't! Even in Somalia, those filthy commies,they have paid maternity leave.  14 weeks of it (at 50% of what you were making)! The United States is one of five countries that doesn't have a federally mandated paid parental leave law.The other four - Liberia, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea,and most likely Best Korea but we don't really know.  Looks like we're in some good company huh?

U-S-A!
 
2014-04-04 11:24:53 PM  

Pin Fiften Clob: Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: shtychkn: And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

A newborn or an adoption isn't a vacation by any stretch of the imagination.  Even if it were, no, you don't, just because you like to whine about workers with children.

I just don't see why others need to subsidize your life choices.

And paid leave is money that could be used for raises or general leave for all employees.

Move to Somalia then, it is your kind of place. Good luck


No don't! Even in Somalia, those filthy commies,they have paid maternity leave.  14 weeks of it (at 50% of what you were making)! The United States is one of five countries that doesn't have a federally mandated paid parental leave law.The other four - Liberia, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea,and most likely Best Korea but we don't really know.  Looks like we're in some good company huh?

U-S-A!


Damn. You are right. Huh how about that.
 
2014-04-04 11:27:09 PM  

wildcardjack: My mom the HR director would call this "creative dismissal". And if she's out on Family Leave Act, she litterally has a federal case.



She's out in August to get married, comes back, two months later "has symptoms of pregnancy", two months after that they had the nerve to tell their employee to do her job better?  Pre-wedding and post-knocked up, is it likely she might have been rushing stories/deadlines and not spending as much time on her work, leading to poorer quality?  Possibly.  But she seems to think it was all sort of personal because they weren't very nice about it?

Really though, if she's on leave because she can't work, then she violated that by not not working. If the company didn't fire her, they would have been negligent.
 Hell, I worked a pregnant chick once at an Arby's back in 2004.  She was about 7 months along, had a weight limit via her doctor - well okay, she was not supposed to lift heavy stuff.  Sure as dookie, one morning I'm counting the registers pre-open and she doesn't wait for me to carry out the large tray (i think it was a baking sheet) with all the prepped bins of veggies/sauces/cheeses etc for our sandwich board.  It was all i could do to not point out how stupid she was to not grab each bin individually after she slipped on her arse in the walk in fridge and everything spilled all over.  if I had the authority I would have fired her right there for trying to lift the whole thing when she knew she wasn't supposed to.  She informed us her doctor gave her a carry limit, she violated that on the job of her own accord, endangering herself and her uterus parasite on company time and property.  
Of course somehow I got blamed for it.
 
2014-04-04 11:27:09 PM  

shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?


You're already getting a vacation, it's called "not having kids". Seriously. Kids suck and are a lot of hard work.
 
2014-04-04 11:28:54 PM  

ReverendJasen: scottydoesntknow: Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit,

I work for an automotive manufacturer in the Fortune 500--and we still only get 100MB for our inboxes, including Outlook calendar bullshiat.

This is a very very obvious example of "we want to fire you, woman. for being pregnant, so we're going to make some shiat up."


The "because you're pregnant" part seems presumptive. She could have just been performing poorly.
Where I work, the PIP means they've already decided to fire you, but it's not entirely surprising when somebody who gets the PIP thinks they were doing a good job and didn't see any previous indicators. Turns out incompetent people also tend to be bad at seeing things like that.
That she was 3 months pregnant when they PIPped her is probably a coincidence. It takes a few months of back and forth with HR before you can even put somebody on the PIP.
 
2014-04-04 11:30:42 PM  

wildcardjack: My mom the HR director would call this "creative dismissal". And if she's out on Family Leave Act, she litterally has a federal case.


"litterally"

I see what you did there.
 
2014-04-04 11:32:00 PM  

Semantic Warrior: wildcardjack: My mom the HR director would call this "creative dismissal". And if she's out on Family Leave Act, she litterally has a federal case.


She's out in August to get married, comes back, two months later "has symptoms of pregnancy", two months after that they had the nerve to tell their employee to do her job better?  Pre-wedding and post-knocked up, is it likely she might have been rushing stories/deadlines and not spending as much time on her work, leading to poorer quality?  Possibly.  But she seems to think it was all sort of personal because they weren't very nice about it?

Really though, if she's on leave because she can't work, then she violated that by not not working. If the company didn't fire her, they would have been negligent.
 Hell, I worked a pregnant chick once at an Arby's back in 2004.  She was about 7 months along, had a weight limit via her doctor - well okay, she was not supposed to lift heavy stuff.  Sure as dookie, one morning I'm counting the registers pre-open and she doesn't wait for me to carry out the large tray (i think it was a baking sheet) with all the prepped bins of veggies/sauces/cheeses etc for our sandwich board.  It was all i could do to not point out how stupid she was to not grab each bin individually after she slipped on her arse in the walk in fridge and everything spilled all over.  if I had the authority I would have fired her right there for trying to lift the whole thing when she knew she wasn't supposed to.  She informed us her doctor gave her a carry limit, she violated that on the job of her own accord, endangering herself and her uterus parasite on company time and property.  
Of course somehow I got blamed for it.


I am glad you got blamed for it.  I bet you are surprised so often how you get blamed for so many things that are not even your own fault.
 
2014-04-04 11:32:59 PM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

Take a medical leave then. If you think of that as a vacation you must have an extremely sad life however.


I think 3 to 6 months paid leave like the op said it paid leave. Just because you choose to spend it with an infant is your life choice. Not how I'd choose to spend the time.
 
2014-04-04 11:33:06 PM  
Semantic Warrior:
 Hell, I worked a pregnant chick once at an Arby's back in 2004.  She was about 7 months along, had a weight limit

WITH!  I worked WITH a pregnant chick...

Also, anyone have any links to any stories this fired reporter wrote?  Let's see how crappy her writing is in the time frame she got her PIP.
 
2014-04-04 11:33:34 PM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: shtychkn: And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

A newborn or an adoption isn't a vacation by any stretch of the imagination.  Even if it were, no, you don't, just because you like to whine about workers with children.

I just don't see why others need to subsidize your life choices.

And paid leave is money that could be used for raises or general leave for all employees.

Move to Somalia then, it is your kind of place. Good luck


Move to France, sound line your type of place.
 
2014-04-04 11:34:57 PM  

serial_crusher: ReverendJasen: scottydoesntknow: Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit,

I work for an automotive manufacturer in the Fortune 500--and we still only get 100MB for our inboxes, including Outlook calendar bullshiat.

This is a very very obvious example of "we want to fire you, woman. for being pregnant, so we're going to make some shiat up."

The "because you're pregnant" part seems presumptive. She could have just been performing poorly.
Where I work, the PIP means they've already decided to fire you, but it's not entirely surprising when somebody who gets the PIP thinks they were doing a good job and didn't see any previous indicators. Turns out incompetent people also tend to be bad at seeing things like that.
That she was 3 months pregnant when they PIPped her is probably a coincidence. It takes a few months of back and forth with HR before you can even put somebody on the PIP.


You generally speaking can be put on a PIP at any time for any reason. Back and forth with HR? Maybe if you are lucky enough to work for a company that treats its employees as people and understands what employment means for an individual. That is a rare thing these days.  Then again in at will stats few companies even bother with PIPs
 
2014-04-04 11:37:04 PM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: shtychkn: And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

A newborn or an adoption isn't a vacation by any stretch of the imagination.  Even if it were, no, you don't, just because you like to whine about workers with children.

I just don't see why others need to subsidize your life choices.

And paid leave is money that could be used for raises or general leave for all employees.

Move to Somalia then, it is your kind of place. Good luck


Soo. Just to understand.

Not supporting 3 to 6 months of paid maternity and paternity leave (like the op said) is akin to wanting to live in a war Lord run country?
 
2014-04-04 11:39:02 PM  

YoungLochinvar: shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

You're already getting a vacation, it's called "not having kids". Seriously. Kids suck and are a lot of hard work.


Yeah, that's why you don't have them. But if you do, you don't suddenly deserve 3 to 6 months paid leave like the op I originally replied to suggested.
 
2014-04-04 11:39:07 PM  
Rozotorical:
I am glad you got blamed for it.  I bet you are surprised so often how you get blamed for so many things that are not even your own fault.

Let me get this clear.  If you were in charge, and have an employee that has a work restriction.  You have no problem with that restriction and facilitate their ability to remain employed by covering all the work that they're restricted from doing.  You're in one area, they're in another, and they choose violate that restriction, that's your fault?

I bet you're the kind of person that blames others for walking into your fist all the time too.
 
2014-04-04 11:40:54 PM  

Semantic Warrior: Semantic Warrior:
 Hell, I worked a pregnant chick once at an Arby's back in 2004.  She was about 7 months along, had a weight limit

WITH!  I worked WITH a pregnant chick...

Also, anyone have any links to any stories this fired reporter wrote?  Let's see how crappy her writing is in the time frame she got her PIP.


Lol. Thanks for that.

I'd like to see her work too
 
2014-04-04 11:42:43 PM  

Semantic Warrior: Rozotorical:
I am glad you got blamed for it.  I bet you are surprised so often how you get blamed for so many things that are not even your own fault.

Let me get this clear.  If you were in charge, and have an employee that has a work restriction.  You have no problem with that restriction and facilitate their ability to remain employed by covering all the work that they're restricted from doing.  You're in one area, they're in another, and they choose violate that restriction, that's your fault?

I bet you're the kind of person that blames others for walking into your fist all the time too.


Rojo also says that you have to work in America to survive. But that employers power you 6 mo paid leave if you Have a kid.
 
2014-04-04 11:43:22 PM  

shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

Take a medical leave then. If you think of that as a vacation you must have an extremely sad life however.

I think 3 to 6 months paid leave like the op said it paid leave. Just because you choose to spend it with an infant is your life choice. Not how I'd choose to spend the time.


Yes you are choosing to spend it at work. Reality check life is not a tit for tat situation. Raising the next generation of humans is a reality of our race. If you choose not to procreate your added bonuses are a clean house, an active sex life and more money in your bank account. Get the fark over yourself and enjoy the good parts and for fark sake find a cure for your horrible case of the whines.
 
2014-04-04 11:43:56 PM  

Unobtanium: What is their Sarbanes-Oxley compliance like if by her deleting e-mail it truly is destroyed


SOX applies to publicly traded companies.

That said, if she can show that deleting email consistently happens without termination, the company is rightfully farked six ways to Sunday.
 
2014-04-04 11:46:46 PM  

Semantic Warrior: Rozotorical:
I am glad you got blamed for it.  I bet you are surprised so often how you get blamed for so many things that are not even your own fault.

Let me get this clear.  If you were in charge, and have an employee that has a work restriction.  You have no problem with that restriction and facilitate their ability to remain employed by covering all the work that they're restricted from doing.  You're in one area, they're in another, and they choose violate that restriction, that's your fault?

I bet you're the kind of person that blames others for walking into your fist all the time too.


look man. She slipped and fell pregnant. I wouldn't remember the situation 8 years later as fark that biatch for trying to work hard for a living. It would god damn that would of hurt being that pregnant and working on your feet all day to slip and hit the ground that hard.
 
2014-04-04 11:47:08 PM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

Take a medical leave then. If you think of that as a vacation you must have an extremely sad life however.

I think 3 to 6 months paid leave like the op said it paid leave. Just because you choose to spend it with an infant is your life choice. Not how I'd choose to spend the time.

Yes you are choosing to spend it at work. Reality check life is not a tit for tat situation. Raising the next generation of humans is a reality of our race. If you choose not to procreate your added bonuses are a clean house, an active sex life and more money in your bank account. Get the fark over yourself and enjoy the good parts and for fark sake find a cure for your horrible case of the whines.


I believe you were whining about not getting enough paid time off for your life choices.
 
2014-04-04 11:49:54 PM  

shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

Take a medical leave then. If you think of that as a vacation you must have an extremely sad life however.

I think 3 to 6 months paid leave like the op said it paid leave. Just because you choose to spend it with an infant is your life choice. Not how I'd choose to spend the time.

Yes you are choosing to spend it at work. Reality check life is not a tit for tat situation. Raising the next generation of humans is a reality of our race. If you choose not to procreate your added bonuses are a clean house, an active sex life and more money in your bank account. Get the fark over yourself and enjoy the good parts and for fark sake find a cure for your horrible case of the whines.

I believe you were whining about not getting enough paid time off for your life choices.


Nope, now stop being defensive. You didn't get a raw deal. Pull your head out of your ass and stop thinking only of yourself. Leave to care for a child is a necessity for a parent. Leave for you to not be at work just to not be at work is a privileged. If you can't understand that, frankly your simple.
 
2014-04-04 11:50:03 PM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

Take a medical leave then. If you think of that as a vacation you must have an extremely sad life however.

I think 3 to 6 months paid leave like the op said it paid leave. Just because you choose to spend it with an infant is your life choice. Not how I'd choose to spend the time.

Yes you are choosing to spend it at work. Reality check life is not a tit for tat situation. Raising the next generation of humans is a reality of our race. If you choose not to procreate your added bonuses are a clean house, an active sex life and more money in your bank account. Get the fark over yourself and enjoy the good parts and for fark sake find a cure for your horrible case of the whines.


Also. You do know I never said no benefits. I just said not upto 6 months.

Taxes for schools, health care, are all for the benefit of society.

Half a year paid time of is unneeded.
 
2014-04-04 11:51:33 PM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

Take a medical leave then. If you think of that as a vacation you must have an extremely sad life however.

I think 3 to 6 months paid leave like the op said it paid leave. Just because you choose to spend it with an infant is your life choice. Not how I'd choose to spend the time.

Yes you are choosing to spend it at work. Reality check life is not a tit for tat situation. Raising the next generation of humans is a reality of our race. If you choose not to procreate your added bonuses are a clean house, an active sex life and more money in your bank account. Get the fark over yourself and enjoy the good parts and for fark sake find a cure for your horrible case of the whines.

I believe you were whining about not getting enough paid time off for your life choices.

Nope, now stop being defensive. You didn't get a raw deal. Pull your head out of your ass and stop thinking only of yourself. Leave to care for a child is a necessity for a parent. Leave for you to not be at work just to not be at work is a privileged. If you can't understand that, frankly your simple.


Did you blank out on how this conversation started, or are you intentionally ignorant?
 
2014-04-04 11:52:44 PM  

Savage Belief: Having RTFA, it sounds more like she didn't appreciate being switched from entertainment to politics and her work was suffering for it. They followed company policy by giving her write up for poor performance. She even admits that she was working hard to improve. If she sues, she'll lose.


Except, as mentioned in the article, they had nine months before she became pregnant to bring up any criticism of her work during that time. The timing is remarkably curious - not a word of criticism, even after the switch (if the article is to be believed at face value), until after her pregnancy began.
 
2014-04-04 11:53:14 PM  

shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

Take a medical leave then. If you think of that as a vacation you must have an extremely sad life however.

I think 3 to 6 months paid leave like the op said it paid leave. Just because you choose to spend it with an infant is your life choice. Not how I'd choose to spend the time.

Yes you are choosing to spend it at work. Reality check life is not a tit for tat situation. Raising the next generation of humans is a reality of our race. If you choose not to procreate your added bonuses are a clean house, an active sex life and more money in your bank account. Get the fark over yourself and enjoy the good parts and for fark sake find a cure for your horrible case of the whines.

Also. You do know I never said no benefits. I just said not upto 6 months.

Taxes for schools, health care, are all for the benefit of society.

Half a year paid time of is unneeded.


Except it is needed. This is not a 1 job country any more. Both parents have to work to make it in 90% of this country. A generation ago, one parent could take an entire childhood off of work. Now missing a paycheck sets a person back in a serious way. 6 months barely puts the child old enough to healthy leave with a sitter for roughly 50-60 hours a week.
 
2014-04-04 11:55:29 PM  

shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

Take a medical leave then. If you think of that as a vacation you must have an extremely sad life however.

I think 3 to 6 months paid leave like the op said it paid leave. Just because you choose to spend it with an infant is your life choice. Not how I'd choose to spend the time.

Yes you are choosing to spend it at work. Reality check life is not a tit for tat situation. Raising the next generation of humans is a reality of our race. If you choose not to procreate your added bonuses are a clean house, an active sex life and more money in your bank account. Get the fark over yourself and enjoy the good parts and for fark sake find a cure for your horrible case of the whines.

I believe you were whining about not getting enough paid time off for your life choices.

Nope, now stop being defensive. You didn't get a raw deal. Pull your head out of your ass and stop thinking only of yourself. Leave to care for a child is a necessity for a parent. Leave for you to not be at work just to not be at work is a privileged. If you can't understand that, frankly your simple.

Did you blank out on how this conversation started, or are you intentionally ignorant?


No I'm drinking, I don't have to follow a conversation. I get to rant endlessly about any and everything.  Also after 5 beers my opinion is always right and the only one that matters. Duh
 
2014-04-04 11:59:09 PM  

ignacio: I don't see why a company should be forced to pay someone who's not doing any work for them.


Because society is more important than the bottom line.

By treating your workers as people, you do more for the world than by maximizing shareholder profits. By helping your employees actually live rewarding lives, they'll have rewarding lives, work hard for you, and everyone wins.

By maximizing profits to the nth, everyone loses.
 
2014-04-04 11:59:15 PM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

Take a medical leave then. If you think of that as a vacation you must have an extremely sad life however.

I think 3 to 6 months paid leave like the op said it paid leave. Just because you choose to spend it with an infant is your life choice. Not how I'd choose to spend the time.

Yes you are choosing to spend it at work. Reality check life is not a tit for tat situation. Raising the next generation of humans is a reality of our race. If you choose not to procreate your added bonuses are a clean house, an active sex life and more money in your bank account. Get the fark over yourself and enjoy the good parts and for fark sake find a cure for your horrible case of the whines.

Also. You do know I never said no benefits. I just said not upto 6 months.

Taxes for schools, health care, are all for the benefit of society.

Half a year paid time of is unneeded.

Except it is needed. This is not a 1 job country any more. Both parents have to work to make it in 90% of this country. A generation ago, one parent could take an entire childhood off of work. Now missing a paycheck sets a person back in a serious way. 6 months barely puts the child old enough to healthy leave with a sitter for roughly 50-60 hours a week.


To be honest, as I don't have kids I cm do have to acknowledge that I can't vertifiably talk about child care of infants.

what I can say is that people seem to be having kids pretty regularly without 6 months off.

This is where extended family helps out. Historically the single family home doesn't work.
 
2014-04-04 11:59:54 PM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

Take a medical leave then. If you think of that as a vacation you must have an extremely sad life however.

I think 3 to 6 months paid leave like the op said it paid leave. Just because you choose to spend it with an infant is your life choice. Not how I'd choose to spend the time.

Yes you are choosing to spend it at work. Reality check life is not a tit for tat situation. Raising the next generation of humans is a reality of our race. If you choose not to procreate your added bonuses are a clean house, an active sex life and more money in your bank account. Get the fark over yourself and enjoy the good parts and for fark sake find a cure for your horrible case of the whines.

I believe you were whining about not getting enough paid time off for your life choices.

Nope, now stop being defensive. You didn't get a raw deal. Pull your head out of your ass and stop thinking only of yourself. Leave to care for a child is a necessity for a parent. Leave for you to not be at work just to not be at work is a privileged. If you can't understand that, frankly your simple.

Did you blank out on how this conversation started, or are you intentionally ignorant?

No I'm drinking, I don't have to follow a conversation. I get to rant endlessly about any and everything.  Also after 5 beers my opinion is always right and the only one that matters. Duh


Can't argue with that
 
2014-04-05 12:01:01 AM  

doglover: ignacio: I don't see why a company should be forced to pay someone who's not doing any work for them.

Because society is more important than the bottom line.

By treating your workers as people, you do more for the world than by maximizing shareholder profits. By helping your employees actually live rewarding lives, they'll have rewarding lives, work hard for you, and everyone wins.

By maximizing profits to the nth, everyone loses.


Ahh. But you could maximize all employee pay!
 
2014-04-05 12:01:18 AM  

Rozotorical: serial_crusher: ReverendJasen: scottydoesntknow: Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit,

I work for an automotive manufacturer in the Fortune 500--and we still only get 100MB for our inboxes, including Outlook calendar bullshiat.

This is a very very obvious example of "we want to fire you, woman. for being pregnant, so we're going to make some shiat up."

The "because you're pregnant" part seems presumptive. She could have just been performing poorly.
Where I work, the PIP means they've already decided to fire you, but it's not entirely surprising when somebody who gets the PIP thinks they were doing a good job and didn't see any previous indicators. Turns out incompetent people also tend to be bad at seeing things like that.
That she was 3 months pregnant when they PIPped her is probably a coincidence. It takes a few months of back and forth with HR before you can even put somebody on the PIP.

You generally speaking can be put on a PIP at any time for any reason. Back and forth with HR? Maybe if you are lucky enough to work for a company that treats its employees as people and understands what employment means for an individual. That is a rare thing these days.  Then again in at will stats few companies even bother with PIPs


I think a lot of it comes from our company being based in California, and them having very protective labor laws. The concern isn't so much for the slacker's well-being as it is with covering our own asses. HR and legal slow it down because they want to make sure the manager is ready to fire the person before they even start the PIP. They also want to know in advance that the PIP will hold up in court and not look like you're intentionally making it impossibly hard (which of course you still sort of are, even though "impossibly hard" for the person you're firing is about a medium for everybody else).

Funny they don't take advantage of Texas being an at-will state when they can. Just put the same process in place everywhere.
 
2014-04-05 12:04:59 AM  

shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

Take a medical leave then. If you think of that as a vacation you must have an extremely sad life however.

I think 3 to 6 months paid leave like the op said it paid leave. Just because you choose to spend it with an infant is your life choice. Not how I'd choose to spend the time.

Yes you are choosing to spend it at work. Reality check life is not a tit for tat situation. Raising the next generation of humans is a reality of our race. If you choose not to procreate your added bonuses are a clean house, an active sex life and more money in your bank account. Get the fark over yourself and enjoy the good parts and for fark sake find a cure for your horrible case of the whines.

I believe you were whining about not getting enough paid time off for your life choices.

Nope, now stop being defensive. You didn't get a raw deal. Pull your head out of your ass and stop thinking only of yourself. Leave to care for a child is a necessity for a parent. Leave for you to not be at work just to not be at work is a privileged. If you can't understand that, frankly your simple.

Did you blank out on how this conversation started, or are you intentionally ignorant?

No I'm drinking, I don't have to follow a conversation. I get to rant endlessly about any and everything.  Also after 5 beers my opinion is always right and the only one that matters. Duh

Can't argue ...


It's like a super power realy.
 
2014-04-05 12:06:13 AM  

doglover: ignacio: I don't see why a company should be forced to pay someone who's not doing any work for them.

Because society is more important than the bottom line.

By treating your workers as people, you do more for the world than by maximizing shareholder profits. By helping your employees actually live rewarding lives, they'll have rewarding lives, work hard for you, and everyone wins.

By maximizing profits to the nth, everyone loses.


If society feels like it's getting a benefit out of paid maternity leave, society should pay for it through taxes, instead of sidling their burden on employers.
 
2014-04-05 12:06:21 AM  

serial_crusher: Rozotorical: serial_crusher: ReverendJasen: scottydoesntknow: Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit,

I work for an automotive manufacturer in the Fortune 500--and we still only get 100MB for our inboxes, including Outlook calendar bullshiat.

This is a very very obvious example of "we want to fire you, woman. for being pregnant, so we're going to make some shiat up."

The "because you're pregnant" part seems presumptive. She could have just been performing poorly.
Where I work, the PIP means they've already decided to fire you, but it's not entirely surprising when somebody who gets the PIP thinks they were doing a good job and didn't see any previous indicators. Turns out incompetent people also tend to be bad at seeing things like that.
That she was 3 months pregnant when they PIPped her is probably a coincidence. It takes a few months of back and forth with HR before you can even put somebody on the PIP.

You generally speaking can be put on a PIP at any time for any reason. Back and forth with HR? Maybe if you are lucky enough to work for a company that treats its employees as people and understands what employment means for an individual. That is a rare thing these days.  Then again in at will stats few companies even bother with PIPs

I think a lot of it comes from our company being based in California, and them having very protective labor laws. The concern isn't so much for the slacker's well-being as it is with covering our own asses. HR and legal slow it down because they want to make sure the manager is ready to fire the person before they even start the PIP. They also want to know in advance that the PIP will hold up in court and not look like you're intentionally making it impossibly hard (which of course you still sort of are, even though "impossibly hard" for the person you're firing is about a medium for everybody else).

Funny they don't take advantage of Texas being an at-will ...


Then you have lucked out in Texas and were able to land with a decent employer. My company doesn't even have PIPs. I am extremely lucky in that regard.
 
2014-04-05 12:07:25 AM  

serial_crusher: doglover: ignacio: I don't see why a company should be forced to pay someone who's not doing any work for them.

Because society is more important than the bottom line.

By treating your workers as people, you do more for the world than by maximizing shareholder profits. By helping your employees actually live rewarding lives, they'll have rewarding lives, work hard for you, and everyone wins.

By maximizing profits to the nth, everyone loses.

If society feels like it's getting a benefit out of paid maternity leave, society should pay for it through taxes, instead of sidling their burden on employers.


Agreed.
 
2014-04-05 12:10:12 AM  

serial_crusher: doglover: ignacio: I don't see why a company should be forced to pay someone who's not doing any work for them.

Because society is more important than the bottom line.

By treating your workers as people, you do more for the world than by maximizing shareholder profits. By helping your employees actually live rewarding lives, they'll have rewarding lives, work hard for you, and everyone wins.

By maximizing profits to the nth, everyone loses.

If society feels like it's getting a benefit out of paid maternity leave, society should pay for it through taxes, instead of sidling their burden on employers.


If employers want to sell their goods in my country they should be socially responsible for their employees lives as my countries system of government allows them to exist in the first place and is designed to directly benefit them.  Earth to McFly. Hello anyone home serial?
 
2014-04-05 12:12:08 AM  

shtychkn: serial_crusher: doglover: ignacio: I don't see why a company should be forced to pay someone who's not doing any work for them.

Because society is more important than the bottom line.

By treating your workers as people, you do more for the world than by maximizing shareholder profits. By helping your employees actually live rewarding lives, they'll have rewarding lives, work hard for you, and everyone wins.

By maximizing profits to the nth, everyone loses.

If society feels like it's getting a benefit out of paid maternity leave, society should pay for it through taxes, instead of sidling their burden on employers.

Agreed.


and for fark sake these are fights are ready fought and over with. The people won, get over it and fast forward 60 years. Corporations still exist and are doing better then at any time in history.
 
2014-04-05 12:18:49 AM  

serial_crusher: doglover: ignacio: I don't see why a company should be forced to pay someone who's not doing any work for them.

Because society is more important than the bottom line.

By treating your workers as people, you do more for the world than by maximizing shareholder profits. By helping your employees actually live rewarding lives, they'll have rewarding lives, work hard for you, and everyone wins.

By maximizing profits to the nth, everyone loses.

If society feels like it's getting a benefit out of paid maternity leave, society should pay for it through taxes, instead of sidling their burden on employers.


But then they'd whinge about having to pay taxes. Look at the republicans now: fat marshmallow men who never worked a day in their trust funded lives for any other reason but the abstract desire to increase the balances in ledger books that haven't seen red this side of the civil war equate taxes to highway robbery and fight tooth ($$) and nail ($$) to buy up enough votes to keep them artificially low so they can't pay for anything society needs.

If the fat cats won't play ball, we'll have to coat the floor with flypaper. It's the only way. If you want to hire reproductive employees, you will have to pay them time off for kids, or at least pay taxes for everyone's kids and a guarantee of continued employment after up to three months per sprog. Somehow, those with money will have to pay for those without. If they're dicks about it, they get their heads chopped off. So why not just do like good leaders do and act with damn humanity and do it voluntarily. When Al Capone was a nicer boss than you, you're a bad employer.
 
2014-04-05 12:23:37 AM  

Need_MindBleach: People have talked before about workplace discrimination against women due to the likelihood that they will become pregnant and thus less productive to the company. Most analysis of it just boils down to: "they shouldn't do that." Well guess what, companies don't care about fairness, they care about the bottom line.
How about this solution: Family leave. When someone has a new baby in their family, mother or father, they get a certain amount of paid leave for childcare. This would not only offer fathers more time with their babies, it would shift the employment burden from having a child from solely on the mother to being shared by both sexes. Thus there would be no particular reason to discriminate against women in hiring out of the worry about her taking pregnancy leave.


You've never been around a pregnant woman, obviously. It's not just about the leave time. It's missed work and lost productivity due to Dr visits, morning sickness, generally crappy disposition, etc. There are months of this crap that culminate in the taking of a couple months off.
If I did that without somehow being fired there would be the missed deadlines, stalled relationships. Not to mention someone has to pick up the slack all this time. And when she comes back, she expects everything to just go back to the way it was.
Lots of hurt feelings all around.
 
2014-04-05 12:23:41 AM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: serial_crusher: doglover: ignacio: I don't see why a company should be forced to pay someone who's not doing any work for them.

Because society is more important than the bottom line.

By treating your workers as people, you do more for the world than by maximizing shareholder profits. By helping your employees actually live rewarding lives, they'll have rewarding lives, work hard for you, and everyone wins.

By maximizing profits to the nth, everyone loses.

If society feels like it's getting a benefit out of paid maternity leave, society should pay for it through taxes, instead of sidling their burden on employers.

Agreed.

and for fark sake these are fights are ready fought and over with. The people won, get over it and fast forward 60 years. Corporations still exist and are doing better then at any time in history.


Thats why companies should be required to pay a good wage to employees and taxes. Then society can choose how those tax dollars are spent and every body qualifies for them regardless of which employer they work for.
 
2014-04-05 12:25:20 AM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: serial_crusher: doglover: ignacio: I don't see why a company should be forced to pay someone who's not doing any work for them.

Because society is more important than the bottom line.

By treating your workers as people, you do more for the world than by maximizing shareholder profits. By helping your employees actually live rewarding lives, they'll have rewarding lives, work hard for you, and everyone wins.

By maximizing profits to the nth, everyone loses.

If society feels like it's getting a benefit out of paid maternity leave, society should pay for it through taxes, instead of sidling their burden on employers.

Agreed.

and for fark sake these are fights are ready fought and over with. The people won, get over it and fast forward 60 years. Corporations still exist and are doing better then at any time in history.


Doesn't feel like the people won anything.  Corporate profits are at an all time high and employee wages are not following.
 
2014-04-05 12:27:50 AM  

shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: serial_crusher: doglover: ignacio: I don't see why a company should be forced to pay someone who's not doing any work for them.

Because society is more important than the bottom line.

By treating your workers as people, you do more for the world than by maximizing shareholder profits. By helping your employees actually live rewarding lives, they'll have rewarding lives, work hard for you, and everyone wins.

By maximizing profits to the nth, everyone loses.

If society feels like it's getting a benefit out of paid maternity leave, society should pay for it through taxes, instead of sidling their burden on employers.

Agreed.

and for fark sake these are fights are ready fought and over with. The people won, get over it and fast forward 60 years. Corporations still exist and are doing better then at any time in history.

Doesn't feel like the people won anything.  Corporate profits are at an all time high and employee wages are not following.


yeah that's because the last time we (progressive labor) won something it was 40 years ago. You are open to even going back and giving away rights. These are rights people literally died for. Do you have any understanding how important these things are? How rare they are in history?
 
2014-04-05 12:32:07 AM  

Rozotorical: yeah that's because the last time we (progressive labor) won something it was 40 years ago. You are open to even going back and giving away rights. These are rights people literally died for. Do you have any understanding how important these things are? How rare they are in history?


Because I want Corporate profits and executive pay to be tied to the pay of all employees?  Or because I want tax loopholes for corporations to be closed so that they actually have to pay taxes?  BEcause I want the government to provide basic needs instead of leaving it up to random employers of which some provide great benefits and others provide crap?

YEah, living in a society where all employees get good benefits and a decent living wage would be a real hellscape!
 
2014-04-05 12:32:09 AM  
She's on leave and is expected to NOT work during said leave.Company is well within its rights. If she had some labor issues while typing an email the company would/could be liable.Trust me on this one folks.
 
2014-04-05 12:33:06 AM  

fastfxr: She's on leave and is expected to NOT work during said leave.Company is well within its rights. If she had some labor issues while typing an email the company would/could be liable.Trust me on this one folks.



Not usually how the internet or fark works.
 
2014-04-05 12:42:28 AM  

shtychkn: Rozotorical: yeah that's because the last time we (progressive labor) won something it was 40 years ago. You are open to even going back and giving away rights. These are rights people literally died for. Do you have any understanding how important these things are? How rare they are in history?

Because I want Corporate profits and executive pay to be tied to the pay of all employees?  Or because I want tax loopholes for corporations to be closed so that they actually have to pay taxes?  BEcause I want the government to provide basic needs instead of leaving it up to random employers of which some provide great benefits and others provide crap?

YEah, living in a society where all employees get good benefits and a decent living wage would be a real hellscape!



Yes, what your sugesting would require a change into a style of government akin to communism is too limiting on innovation and to easy to manipulate into a totalitarian hellscape IE Cambodia.
We need private enterprise. But we need to regulate it in order to maximize it's benefit to society. I am suggesting social progressive programs designed to assist the worker and to functionally put the breaks on companies that are either extremely profitable, or expansive. This create competition which creates innovation. This also means the combined wealth of your social majority raises at an even pace with the value of your currency.
 
2014-04-05 12:46:00 AM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: yeah that's because the last time we (progressive labor) won something it was 40 years ago. You are open to even going back and giving away rights. These are rights people literally died for. Do you have any understanding how important these things are? How rare they are in history?

Because I want Corporate profits and executive pay to be tied to the pay of all employees?  Or because I want tax loopholes for corporations to be closed so that they actually have to pay taxes?  BEcause I want the government to provide basic needs instead of leaving it up to random employers of which some provide great benefits and others provide crap?

YEah, living in a society where all employees get good benefits and a decent living wage would be a real hellscape!


Yes, what your sugesting would require a change into a style of government akin to communism is too limiting on innovation and to easy to manipulate into a totalitarian hellscape IE Cambodia.
We need private enterprise. But we need to regulate it in order to maximize it's benefit to society. I am suggesting social progressive programs designed to assist the worker and to functionally put the breaks on companies that are either extremely profitable, or expansive. This create competition which creates innovation. This also means the combined wealth of your social majority raises at an even pace with the value of your currency.


Yes, what you're talking about is government intervention in free enterprise akin to fascism IE Mussolini's Italy

Hyperbole, how does it work.
 
2014-04-05 12:48:31 AM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: yeah that's because the last time we (progressive labor) won something it was 40 years ago. You are open to even going back and giving away rights. These are rights people literally died for. Do you have any understanding how important these things are? How rare they are in history?

Because I want Corporate profits and executive pay to be tied to the pay of all employees?  Or because I want tax loopholes for corporations to be closed so that they actually have to pay taxes?  BEcause I want the government to provide basic needs instead of leaving it up to random employers of which some provide great benefits and others provide crap?

YEah, living in a society where all employees get good benefits and a decent living wage would be a real hellscape!


Yes, what your sugesting would require a change into a style of government akin to communism is too limiting on innovation and to easy to manipulate into a totalitarian hellscape IE Cambodia.
We need private enterprise. But we need to regulate it in order to maximize it's benefit to society. I am suggesting social progressive programs designed to assist the worker and to functionally put the breaks on companies that are either extremely profitable, or expansive. This create competition which creates innovation. This also means the combined wealth of your social majority raises at an even pace with the value of your currency.


We already have the infrastructure.  The government already taxes companies.  The government already provides healthcare for the poor and elderly.  If what I propose is communism, then we are already there.
 
2014-04-05 12:50:06 AM  

shtychkn: fastfxr: She's on leave and is expected to NOT work during said leave.Company is well within its rights. If she had some labor issues while typing an email the company would/could be liable.Trust me on this one folks.


Not usually how the internet or fark works.


typically the company already made the choice of firing her. News companies it is well documented for purposes of downsizing they targeted high paid senior staff with low cost freshly educated staff. It is common to hire a private firm to monitor her when on leave for any reason it could use to fire her. I knew someone who was on maternity leave and their company (AT&T) hired a private detective to follow them around.  The same day and with in about an hour that she went to a job interview they fired her papers in hand ambushed in a parking lot.
 
2014-04-05 12:55:32 AM  

shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: yeah that's because the last time we (progressive labor) won something it was 40 years ago. You are open to even going back and giving away rights. These are rights people literally died for. Do you have any understanding how important these things are? How rare they are in history?

Because I want Corporate profits and executive pay to be tied to the pay of all employees?  Or because I want tax loopholes for corporations to be closed so that they actually have to pay taxes?  BEcause I want the government to provide basic needs instead of leaving it up to random employers of which some provide great benefits and others provide crap?

YEah, living in a society where all employees get good benefits and a decent living wage would be a real hellscape!


Yes, what your sugesting would require a change into a style of government akin to communism is too limiting on innovation and to easy to manipulate into a totalitarian hellscape IE Cambodia.
We need private enterprise. But we need to regulate it in order to maximize it's benefit to society. I am suggesting social progressive programs designed to assist the worker and to functionally put the breaks on companies that are either extremely profitable, or expansive. This create competition which creates innovation. This also means the combined wealth of your social majority raises at an even pace with the value of your currency.

Yes, what you're talking about is government intervention in free enterprise akin to fascism IE Mussolini's Italy

Hyperbole, how does it work.


No, you have no farking idea what fascism is. I am proposing a progressive ideological point.

Mussolini said shiat like,

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....  "

I think that is terrifying..
 
2014-04-05 12:58:45 AM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: yeah that's because the last time we (progressive labor) won something it was 40 years ago. You are open to even going back and giving away rights. These are rights people literally died for. Do you have any understanding how important these things are? How rare they are in history?

Because I want Corporate profits and executive pay to be tied to the pay of all employees?  Or because I want tax loopholes for corporations to be closed so that they actually have to pay taxes?  BEcause I want the government to provide basic needs instead of leaving it up to random employers of which some provide great benefits and others provide crap?

YEah, living in a society where all employees get good benefits and a decent living wage would be a real hellscape!


Yes, what your sugesting would require a change into a style of government akin to communism is too limiting on innovation and to easy to manipulate into a totalitarian hellscape IE Cambodia.
We need private enterprise. But we need to regulate it in order to maximize it's benefit to society. I am suggesting social progressive programs designed to assist the worker and to functionally put the breaks on companies that are either extremely profitable, or expansive. This create competition which creates innovation. This also means the combined wealth of your social majority raises at an even pace with the value of your currency.

Yes, what you're talking about is government intervention in free enterprise akin to fascism IE Mussolini's Italy

Hyperbole, how does it work.

No, you have no farking idea what fascism is. I am proposing a progressive ideological point.

Mussolini said shiat like,

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....  " ...



Woosh as the point goes over your head

you have no idea what communism is because I was talking about continued free enterprise. Which you know, doesn't really exist in communism.  Insert Karl Marx Quote Here
 
2014-04-05 12:58:48 AM  

shtychkn: Yes, what you're talking about is government intervention in free enterprise akin to fascism IE Mussolini's Italy


Not really, it's socialist to an extent but not fascist. Fascism is when government directs the ends of corporate policies, not the means.
 
2014-04-05 01:00:18 AM  

Boojum2k: shtychkn: Yes, what you're talking about is government intervention in free enterprise akin to fascism IE Mussolini's Italy

Not really, it's socialist to an extent but not fascist. Fascism is when government directs the ends of corporate policies, not the means.


The point of my post wasn't that his idea was fascist.  But that his claim that mine were communist was about as accurate as my saying were fascist.
 
2014-04-05 01:00:49 AM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: yeah that's because the last time we (progressive labor) won something it was 40 years ago. You are open to even going back and giving away rights. These are rights people literally died for. Do you have any understanding how important these things are? How rare they are in history?

Because I want Corporate profits and executive pay to be tied to the pay of all employees?  Or because I want tax loopholes for corporations to be closed so that they actually have to pay taxes?  BEcause I want the government to provide basic needs instead of leaving it up to random employers of which some provide great benefits and others provide crap?

YEah, living in a society where all employees get good benefits and a decent living wage would be a real hellscape!


Yes, what your sugesting would require a change into a style of government akin to communism is too limiting on innovation and to easy to manipulate into a totalitarian hellscape IE Cambodia.
We need private enterprise. But we need to regulate it in order to maximize it's benefit to society. I am suggesting social progressive programs designed to assist the worker and to functionally put the breaks on companies that are either extremely profitable, or expansive. This create competition which creates innovation. This also means the combined wealth of your social majority raises at an even pace with the value of your currency.

Yes, what you're talking about is government intervention in free enterprise akin to fascism IE Mussolini's Italy

Hyperbole, how does it work.

No, you have no farking idea what fascism is. I am proposing a progressive ideological point.

Mussolini said shiat like,

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....  " ...

 
2014-04-05 01:07:21 AM  
ameeriklane,
I think the company will win. She was receiving disability (which likely is covered by the employer's insurer) which means she can't work during that time. Checking email = doing work.
They probably wanted to downsize anyway, and now they have clear proof she was not following the rules = case for termination.


Not completely disagreeing with your point. But is it a good case for termination?

Why didn't the company disable her VPN access/user id by default if that was the case?

I have seen cases where companies may have 'followed the rules' by the letter of the law but the way their carried it out was extremely flawed.
 
2014-04-05 01:08:20 AM  

Boojum2k: shtychkn: Yes, what you're talking about is government intervention in free enterprise akin to fascism IE Mussolini's Italy

Not really, it's socialist to an extent but not fascist. Fascism is when government directs the ends of corporate policies, not the means.


Yeah I believe in social works as a responsibility of economic gain. Or socialism. I would prefer in a progressive fashion. It is compatible with the belief in capitalism and widely accepted in most of the world.

What you are suggesting is a watered down version of communism where the state is a strong central governing body that directly controls industry and also means of the people to make a living.
 
2014-04-05 01:09:07 AM  

shtychkn: Boojum2k: shtychkn: Yes, what you're talking about is government intervention in free enterprise akin to fascism IE Mussolini's Italy

Not really, it's socialist to an extent but not fascist. Fascism is when government directs the ends of corporate policies, not the means.

The point of my post wasn't that his idea was fascist.  But that his claim that mine were communist was about as accurate as my saying were fascist.


Oh. Okay then.
 
2014-04-05 01:11:11 AM  

Rozotorical: What you are suggesting is a watered down version of communism where the state is a strong central governing body that directly controls industry and also means of the people to make a living.


That's pretty much what fascism is, along with overdosed levels of nationalism and violent expansionism.
 
2014-04-05 01:17:15 AM  

Rozotorical: Boojum2k: shtychkn: Yes, what you're talking about is government intervention in free enterprise akin to fascism IE Mussolini's Italy

Not really, it's socialist to an extent but not fascist. Fascism is when government directs the ends of corporate policies, not the means.

Yeah I believe in social works as a responsibility of economic gain. Or socialism. I would prefer in a progressive fashion. It is compatible with the belief in capitalism and widely accepted in most of the world.

What you are suggesting is a watered down version of communism where the state is a strong central governing body that directly controls industry and also means of the people to make a living.


Nope not what I suggested.  I suggested a central government controlling social benefits like healthcare and maternity leave, etc.  Thus freeing businesses up to pay taxes, good wages, and focus on doing what companies should be doing: providing a product or service for the purpose of making money.

You suggested a series of laws that require companies to provide benefits that would put undue hardship directly on companies, specifically start up companies that often do not have much working capitol that would stifle innovation and growth.

See start ups don't make much profit early on.  So under my system taxes on Coke or Apple employee income, etc. would cover starts up that don't pay much taxes the first few years due to poor profits.  But employees would still receive full benefits regardless of whichever company they worked for.
 
2014-04-05 01:17:28 AM  

Boojum2k: Rozotorical: What you are suggesting is a watered down version of communism where the state is a strong central governing body that directly controls industry and also means of the people to make a living.

That's pretty much what fascism is, along with overdosed levels of nationalism and violent expansionism.


well it goes about it in extremely different ways, one justify how wealth is redistributed as the equality of labor, in the real world this is manipulated in tyrany more often then equality in labor.

Now for fascism, I will leave it to everyone's favorite Italian dictator.


" Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....  "
 
2014-04-05 01:28:14 AM  

shtychkn: Rozotorical: Boojum2k: shtychkn: Yes, what you're talking about is government intervention in free enterprise akin to fascism IE Mussolini's Italy

Not really, it's socialist to an extent but not fascist. Fascism is when government directs the ends of corporate policies, not the means.

Yeah I believe in social works as a responsibility of economic gain. Or socialism. I would prefer in a progressive fashion. It is compatible with the belief in capitalism and widely accepted in most of the world.

What you are suggesting is a watered down version of communism where the state is a strong central governing body that directly controls industry and also means of the people to make a living.

Nope not what I suggested.  I suggested a central government controlling social benefits like healthcare and maternity leave, etc.  Thus freeing businesses up to pay taxes, good wages, and focus on doing what companies should be doing: providing a product or service for the purpose of making money.

You suggested a series of laws that require companies to provide benefits that would put undue hardship directly on companies, specifically start up companies that often do not have much working capitol that would stifle innovation and growth.

See start ups don't make much profit early on.  So under my system taxes on Coke or Apple employee income, etc. would cover starts up that don't pay much taxes the first few years due to poor profits.  But employees would still receive full benefits regardless of whichever company they worked for.


Yeah with your system you are also removing the direct social responsibility a company should have for it's employee.

Full time employees well being should be the number 1 responsibility for a company that operates in a public market place.

I should also point out that there has never in the history of our country, a "start-up" that was controlled by a budget solely acquired from first year profits. You are using a weak argument.
 
2014-04-05 01:32:11 AM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: Boojum2k: shtychkn: Yes, what you're talking about is government intervention in free enterprise akin to fascism IE Mussolini's Italy

Not really, it's socialist to an extent but not fascist. Fascism is when government directs the ends of corporate policies, not the means.

Yeah I believe in social works as a responsibility of economic gain. Or socialism. I would prefer in a progressive fashion. It is compatible with the belief in capitalism and widely accepted in most of the world.

What you are suggesting is a watered down version of communism where the state is a strong central governing body that directly controls industry and also means of the people to make a living.

Nope not what I suggested.  I suggested a central government controlling social benefits like healthcare and maternity leave, etc.  Thus freeing businesses up to pay taxes, good wages, and focus on doing what companies should be doing: providing a product or service for the purpose of making money.

You suggested a series of laws that require companies to provide benefits that would put undue hardship directly on companies, specifically start up companies that often do not have much working capitol that would stifle innovation and growth.

See start ups don't make much profit early on.  So under my system taxes on Coke or Apple employee income, etc. would cover starts up that don't pay much taxes the first few years due to poor profits.  But employees would still receive full benefits regardless of whichever company they worked for.

Yeah with your system you are also removing the direct social responsibility a company should have for it's employee.

Full time employees well being should be the number 1 responsibility for a company that operates in a public market place.

I should also point out that there has never in the history of our country, a "start-up" that was controlled by a budget solely acquired from first year profits. You are using a weak argument.



No, that's why they pay taxes and living wages.  The taxes then are used to provide the services in bulk for all employees regardless of individual company. .
 
2014-04-05 01:40:54 AM  
Wow. This was definitely one of those "First chance we get to fire you" cases if I ever saw one.
 
2014-04-05 01:46:40 AM  

shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: Boojum2k: shtychkn: Yes, what you're talking about is government intervention in free enterprise akin to fascism IE Mussolini's Italy

Not really, it's socialist to an extent but not fascist. Fascism is when government directs the ends of corporate policies, not the means.

Yeah I believe in social works as a responsibility of economic gain. Or socialism. I would prefer in a progressive fashion. It is compatible with the belief in capitalism and widely accepted in most of the world.

What you are suggesting is a watered down version of communism where the state is a strong central governing body that directly controls industry and also means of the people to make a living.

Nope not what I suggested.  I suggested a central government controlling social benefits like healthcare and maternity leave, etc.  Thus freeing businesses up to pay taxes, good wages, and focus on doing what companies should be doing: providing a product or service for the purpose of making money.

You suggested a series of laws that require companies to provide benefits that would put undue hardship directly on companies, specifically start up companies that often do not have much working capitol that would stifle innovation and growth.

See start ups don't make much profit early on.  So under my system taxes on Coke or Apple employee income, etc. would cover starts up that don't pay much taxes the first few years due to poor profits.  But employees would still receive full benefits regardless of whichever company they worked for.

Yeah with your system you are also removing the direct social responsibility a company should have for it's employee.

Full time employees well being should be the number 1 responsibility for a company that operates in a public market place.

I should also point out that there has never in the history of our country, a "start-up" that was controlled by a budget solely acquired from first year profits. You are using a weak argument. ...


Yeah well I think we shouldn't ban fracking.
 
2014-04-05 01:48:24 AM  

Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: shtychkn: Rozotorical: Boojum2k: shtychkn: Yes, what you're talking about is government intervention in free enterprise akin to fascism IE Mussolini's Italy

Not really, it's socialist to an extent but not fascist. Fascism is when government directs the ends of corporate policies, not the means.

Yeah I believe in social works as a responsibility of economic gain. Or socialism. I would prefer in a progressive fashion. It is compatible with the belief in capitalism and widely accepted in most of the world.

What you are suggesting is a watered down version of communism where the state is a strong central governing body that directly controls industry and also means of the people to make a living.

Nope not what I suggested.  I suggested a central government controlling social benefits like healthcare and maternity leave, etc.  Thus freeing businesses up to pay taxes, good wages, and focus on doing what companies should be doing: providing a product or service for the purpose of making money.

You suggested a series of laws that require companies to provide benefits that would put undue hardship directly on companies, specifically start up companies that often do not have much working capitol that would stifle innovation and growth.

See start ups don't make much profit early on.  So under my system taxes on Coke or Apple employee income, etc. would cover starts up that don't pay much taxes the first few years due to poor profits.  But employees would still receive full benefits regardless of whichever company they worked for.

Yeah with your system you are also removing the direct social responsibility a company should have for it's employee.

Full time employees well being should be the number 1 responsibility for a company that operates in a public market place.

I should also point out that there has never in the history of our country, a "start-up" that was controlled by a budget solely acquired from first year profits. You are using a weak ...


Mostly because then Starbuck would only have drinking left :(
 
2014-04-05 01:59:12 AM  

Rozotorical: Yeah well I think we shouldn't ban fracking.


Rozotorical: Mostly because then Starbuck would only have drinking left :(



OK.  that made me laugh more then it should have.
 
2014-04-05 02:05:32 AM  

MyRandomName: First" Markstrom Nugent, whose degree is in magazine writing, "

She should be fired for making up a degree.

Second there were also bad write-ups on her performance. My guess is she became pregnant in conjunction with downsizing as the article infers.

Third. Check with HR on what you can and can not do while on leave. I know I cant check email on leave at my company, written policy.

Who takes FLA 3 weeks into a pregnancy btw?


Morning sickness so bad it's like weeks and weeks of 24 hour a day food poisoning that responds poorly to medication can make you go for that.
 
2014-04-05 03:05:29 AM  

ReverendJasen: scottydoesntknow: Wouldn't that basically be a catch-all reason for termination then? My company gives me a paltry 250MB limit,

I work for an automotive manufacturer in the Fortune 500--and we still only get 100MB for our inboxes, including Outlook calendar bullshiat.

This is a very very obvious example of "we want to fire you, woman. for being pregnant, so we're going to make some shiat up."


I regularly work with 350MB files.  Sucks to be you
 
2014-04-05 03:45:02 AM  

MyRandomName: First" Markstrom Nugent, whose degree is in magazine writing, "

She should be fired for making up a degree.

Second there were also bad write-ups on her performance. My guess is she became pregnant in conjunction with downsizing as the article infers.

Third. Check with HR on what you can and can not do while on leave. I know I cant check email on leave at my company, written policy.

Who takes FLA 3 weeks into a pregnancy btw?


It said the doctor put her on leave. There may have been issues with the pregnancy. If the doctor says "bed rest" then any smart mom goes to bed.

However, she was a fool to delete emails from work while a hearing of any kind was pending--for her own protection if nothing else. It's not "destruction of company property" (that's a b/s claim) but it CAN come back to bite you if the disciplinary hearing ever goes to a lawsuit and discovery is requested. Suddenly you'll be in the position of having to explain why you deleted one particular email in the midst of this mess, and you will look very bad.

Words to the wise...
 
2014-04-05 03:52:05 AM  

KidneyStone: Blues_X: Sue the sh*t out of those idiots.

She won't win.

She was on leave and when you're on leave like that you cannot do any work. If the company lets you do work while on leave it opens them to a lawsuit because "they made you work while on leave."

Leave is very different from vacation.

I think it's asinine but they're protecting themselves. And she was probably a coont anyhow.


I think that's where it gets interesting. Most places I've dealt with have it as a company-culture thing not to count "looking at emails out-of-hours" as a work thing, especially in the last decade with BBs and smart-phones. Granted it's probably hard to pin down other than a few managers getting caught out in a quote.

But the other big question is that if this person is assigned a corporate email account and can check it outside the office, if they weren't supposed to keep using it during was the person told and/or shouldn't the management made the call to lock her out of the account?

Put all this in-front of a jury and they'll fall over themselves to throw money at this lady - good on her.
 
2014-04-05 04:21:01 AM  

Gyrfalcon: MyRandomName: First" Markstrom Nugent, whose degree is in magazine writing, "

She should be fired for making up a degree.

Second there were also bad write-ups on her performance. My guess is she became pregnant in conjunction with downsizing as the article infers.

Third. Check with HR on what you can and can not do while on leave. I know I cant check email on leave at my company, written policy.

Who takes FLA 3 weeks into a pregnancy btw?

It said the doctor put her on leave. There may have been issues with the pregnancy. If the doctor says "bed rest" then any smart mom goes to bed.

However, she was a fool to delete emails from work while a hearing of any kind was pending--for her own protection if nothing else. It's not "destruction of company property" (that's a b/s claim) but it CAN come back to bite you if the disciplinary hearing ever goes to a lawsuit and discovery is requested. Suddenly you'll be in the position of having to explain why you deleted one particular email in the midst of this mess, and you will look very bad.

Words to the wise...


That's why I don't remove any emails until after the project is at least 6 months past the closeout date.  You just never know if somebody will want to know why something was revised.
 
2014-04-05 04:34:42 AM  
Rosebud.....
 
2014-04-05 05:58:18 AM  

gadian: shtychkn: And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

A newborn or an adoption isn't a vacation by any stretch of the imagination.  Even if it were, no, you don't, just because you like to whine about workers with children.


We just get to do our jobs as well as yours while being paid the same. How about no paid leave for you then. Does that work for you? It works fine for me.
 
2014-04-05 06:00:56 AM  

ignacio: I don't see why a company should be forced to pay someone who's not doing any work for them. Paid childcare can be something you ask for in your contract, but to just force all companies to do it for all workers, no matter how trivial, seems unfair. Like you said, there's no reason why they should be giving money to someone for months on end when they're not coming to work.


It's called benefits, accrued or otherwise, which are part of your total compensation. Employment contracts are regulated. 200 years ago if you hired a man to keep your accounts and he pocketed some of the money you could fire him, but it wasn't illegal. So modern law has codified various rights and responsibilities each party have towards each other such that business and commerce flow smoothly. So you hire someone, they have legal obligations towards you, and have legal obligations towards them. Sometimes those can be more onerous or less so, big farking deal.
 
2014-04-05 07:06:25 AM  

umad: gadian: shtychkn: And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

A newborn or an adoption isn't a vacation by any stretch of the imagination.  Even if it were, no, you don't, just because you like to whine about workers with children.

We just get to do our jobs as well as yours while being paid the same. How about no paid leave for you then. Does that work for you? It works fine for me.



Let us not forget about taxes.  People with kids get tax credits/ have a lower tax burden than people who do not have children yet because of their children will probably use more government services.  Result is that  those without children end up carrying a share of the tax burden for those who commit parenthood.  Parents are not paying thier fair share.

Always felt that if a business can afford to be without your services why you take off to spawn probably doesn't need you that much anyway.

In the military making yourself unavailable for deployment because you choose, in most cases, to get pregnant should result in a general discharge from the military.  A male service member who would inflict an injury on himself to avoid  deployment would face disciplinary action
 
2014-04-05 07:39:50 AM  

ko_kyi: Unobtanium: What is their Sarbanes-Oxley compliance like if by her deleting e-mail it truly is destroyed

SOX applies to publicly traded companies.

That said, if she can show that deleting email consistently happens without termination, the company is rightfully farked six ways to Sunday.


Thanks. FTA this sounds like a privately-held, family-run business.
 
2014-04-05 08:00:57 AM  
Family and Medical Leave Act paperwork so she could take intermittent leave when needed.

That's what vacation is for. Family leave isn't there for you to sign up and just use here and there when you feel like it.
 
2014-04-05 08:38:25 AM  

MyRandomName: Who takes FLA 3 weeks into a pregnancy btw?


Frosty_Icehole: For all we know she's incredibly useless and used to spend all day buying shoes, clothes, and baby shiat on the company internets all day long. Going on leave 3 weeks into it though suggests to me that she's lazy and/or is unable to properly mitigate stress. Can't say that's a trait of a good parent.


Learn to read, morons. She got pregnant at some point. In October, she announced her pregnancy -- which could have been a 4 days or 4 months along at that point. Three weeks later (November), she filed paperwork to take a leave in the future. Finally, in February, she did take a leave, on a doctor's orders.

Is following one paragraph of simple writing really that difficult for you?
 
2014-04-05 09:01:37 AM  

hasty ambush: umad: gadian: shtychkn: And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

A newborn or an adoption isn't a vacation by any stretch of the imagination.  Even if it were, no, you don't, just because you like to whine about workers with children.

We just get to do our jobs as well as yours while being paid the same. How about no paid leave for you then. Does that work for you? It works fine for me.


Let us not forget about taxes.  People with kids get tax credits/ have a lower tax burden than people who do not have children yet because of their children will probably use more government services.  Result is that  those without children end up carrying a share of the tax burden for those who commit parenthood.  Parents are not paying thier fair share.

Always felt that if a business can afford to be without your services why you take off to spawn probably doesn't need you that much anyway.

In the military making yourself unavailable for deployment because you choose, in most cases, to get pregnant should result in a general discharge from the military.  A male service member who would inflict an injury on himself to avoid  deployment would face disciplinary action


People get tax credits for kids because kids are dependants. Dependants are people who don't make money but who you spend money to support. If you have any dependants, kids or not, you will get tax credit for them. It can be anyone who lives with you that depends on you, a mom, a grandparent, an aunt, a kid, etc.

The reason you get "tax credit" is because you have less disposable income. You are spending more money on housing and food so you have less money to give to the government. The government is saying "hey, we expect you need x amount of dollars to buy food and house this person, so we won't tax that part of your income."

The government has an invested interest in doing this, because if it takes too much tax from those who need the money for things like food and housing, they're more likely to dip below the poverty line and need benefits. If the gov't doesn't do this, they run the risk of actually having to spend more money in the long run. This is the same reason that people who make very little money get taxed less as well.

The government isn't shafting you. You still have more money than someone who has kids. The amount of money those parents are "saving" on taxes is a very small percentage of their total expenditure on the kids.
 
2014-04-05 09:52:28 AM  

lepidoptera: hasty ambush: umad: gadian: shtychkn: And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

A newborn or an adoption isn't a vacation by any stretch of the imagination.  Even if it were, no, you don't, just because you like to whine about workers with children.

We just get to do our jobs as well as yours while being paid the same. How about no paid leave for you then. Does that work for you? It works fine for me.


Let us not forget about taxes.  People with kids get tax credits/ have a lower tax burden than people who do not have children yet because of their children will probably use more government services.  Result is that  those without children end up carrying a share of the tax burden for those who commit parenthood.  Parents are not paying thier fair share.

Always felt that if a business can afford to be without your services why you take off to spawn probably doesn't need you that much anyway.

In the military making yourself unavailable for deployment because you choose, in most cases, to get pregnant should result in a general discharge from the military.  A male service member who would inflict an injury on himself to avoid  deployment would face disciplinary action

People get tax credits for kids because kids are dependants. Dependants are people who don't make money but who you spend money to support. If you have any dependants, kids or not, you will get tax credit for them. It can be anyone who lives with you that depends on you, a mom, a grandparent, an aunt, a kid, etc.

The reason you get "tax credit" is because you have less disposable income. You are spending more money on housing and food so you have less money to give to the government. The government is saying "hey, we expect you need x amount of dollars to buy food and house this person, so we won't tax that part of your income."

The government has an invested interest in doing this, because if it takes too much tax from those who need the money for things lik ...


Your taxes are not based on "disposable income" but earnings. Of course pandering to different groups has allowed for tax credits, exemptions and deductions but even some of those have things like percent of  income thresholds that must be met first. But not committing parenthood for some reason.

If you have less "disposable income "  because you chose  to have children  that should not result in those who did not having to pay more taxes.  I have more money  for other  things  because I chose not to spend it on having kids and I should not have what is in effect a tax penalty for this.  If I chose to take that money instead and spend it on trips to Las Vegas why should I not get a tax credit because as a result I have less disposable income for other things?  Does not the government have an interest in making sure I have enough money for recreational activities and all the jobs it creates?

Or maybe it is an indication that our tax burdens are too high in the first place in order to be able to afford to have kids people need tax exemptions to be able to afford to have kids.

As far as the government's interests what about the whole keeping laws out of the vagina argument?  If you do not want a congressman up a woman's vagina then stop reaching int the tax payers pocket to pay for what she does with it.

Seems to me if we are going to insist on government involvement/financing it should be on keeping those  who cannot afford parenthood from committing it and  forcing the financial burden on the rest of us..  Instead we provide financial incentives /subsidies in the form of tax credits  and welfare  to those who cannot otherwise afford to have kids.

If you cannot feed them don't breed them.
 
2014-04-05 10:16:05 AM  

shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?


We do get leave.  That's why it's FAMILY medical leave.  If I need to take care of an ailing parent or sibling, I can do that.  One of my coworkers' sisters has cancer and needs care right now, and she is taking FMLA time.
 
2014-04-05 10:24:32 AM  
Really, no one else is seeing at this as a breach of information security? Company emails aren't private emails for the individual, they should exist for the position/roll, not the person; whomever covers the workload for someone out on FMLA probably needs access to the same information as the person who is on leave would need if they weren't on leave.
 
2014-04-05 01:06:06 PM  

lepidoptera: hasty ambush: umad: gadian: shtychkn: And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

A newborn or an adoption isn't a vacation by any stretch of the imagination.  Even if it were, no, you don't, just because you like to whine about workers with children.

We just get to do our jobs as well as yours while being paid the same. How about no paid leave for you then. Does that work for you? It works fine for me.


Let us not forget about taxes.  People with kids get tax credits/ have a lower tax burden than people who do not have children yet because of their children will probably use more government services.  Result is that  those without children end up carrying a share of the tax burden for those who commit parenthood.  Parents are not paying thier fair share.

Always felt that if a business can afford to be without your services why you take off to spawn probably doesn't need you that much anyway.

In the military making yourself unavailable for deployment because you choose, in most cases, to get pregnant should result in a general discharge from the military.  A male service member who would inflict an injury on himself to avoid  deployment would face disciplinary action

People get tax credits for kids because kids are dependants. Dependants are people who don't make money but who you spend money to support. If you have any dependants, kids or not, you will get tax credit for them. It can be anyone who lives with you that depends on you, a mom, a grandparent, an aunt, a kid, etc.

The reason you get "tax credit" is because you have less disposable income. You are spending more money on housing and food so you have less money to give to the government. The government is saying "hey, we expect you need x amount of dollars to buy food and house this person, so we won't tax that part of your income."

The government has an invested interest in doing this, because if it takes too much tax from those who need the money for things lik ...


KIds are not just  a tax deduction for a dependent.  You get up to a $3,500 tax credit for children under 18.  This means that you can actually get back MORE on your tax return then you paid in taxes.  Meaning that tax payers are paying you for having children.
 
2014-04-05 01:07:49 PM  

office_despot: shtychkn: gadian: DarthBart: I took 2 weeks when my daughter was born. I'd have taken more because my wife had a hard pregnancy and a c-section, but there was that whole "unpaid" part of the FMLA. I'd gotten rather used being able to pay bills and buy food.

This is why I'm in favor of a paid stipend to any new parents similar to what they (combined) would have earned while working.  Have it last 3-6 months and then unpaid leave kicks in for another 6 months.

And those that don't choose to have kids? Should we not get these vacations too?

We do get leave.  That's why it's FAMILY medical leave.  If I need to take care of an ailing parent or sibling, I can do that.  One of my coworkers' sisters has cancer and needs care right now, and she is taking FMLA time.



I wasn't talking about FMLA - which I fully support.

I was responding to the OPs suggestion of 3 to 6 months paid maternity leave.
 
2014-04-05 01:14:32 PM  
Tell me again about how we don't need unions anymore?

Oh, and everyone going on about the "unfairness" of benefits and tax credit for parents seems to overlook the fact that someday those kids are likely to be taxpayers and productive members of society and help to pay for the medical care & retirement of those of us without kids, so suck it up.
 
2014-04-05 01:21:49 PM  

angrycrank: Tell me again about how we don't need unions anymore?

Oh, and everyone going on about the "unfairness" of benefits and tax credit for parents seems to overlook the fact that someday those kids are likely to be taxpayers and productive members of society and help to pay for the medical care & retirement of those of us without kids, so suck it up.



I agree - Unions are needed more and more.  The wages wouldn't be stagnate for the last 20 years if more industries were unionized.


And because kids will eventually be tax payers parents need tax breaks?   Maybe we'd need less kids paying future taxes if we didn't give such large tax credits to parents for having kids.
 
2014-04-05 03:14:09 PM  

shtychkn: angrycrank: Tell me again about how we don't need unions anymore?

Oh, and everyone going on about the "unfairness" of benefits and tax credit for parents seems to overlook the fact that someday those kids are likely to be taxpayers and productive members of society and help to pay for the medical care & retirement of those of us without kids, so suck it up.


I agree - Unions are needed more and more.  The wages wouldn't be stagnate for the last 20 years if more industries were unionized.


And because kids will eventually be tax payers parents need tax breaks?   Maybe we'd need less kids paying future taxes if we didn't give such large tax credits to parents for having kids.


I doubt it. Consider the demographics. Someone has to be working to support retired people and kids.
 
2014-04-05 03:16:31 PM  
Oregon...

/what do you expect?
 
2014-04-05 03:25:30 PM  
Obviously just trying to not pay an employee that's not working because she's preggers. So, they are in trouble. Frankly, if I were in a hiring position, I simply wouldn't hire anyone who's female and between the ages of 18-40 unless there wasn't anyone else qualified. Sorry ladies, but if I were hiring people that would indicate that I needed someone there to actually work. Nothing personal but all life is a risk benefit analysis, and hiring a woman 18-40 simply isn't worth it when there are plenty of other qualified people. Not my fault you got the short straw when it came to reproduction.
 
2014-04-05 03:42:24 PM  

shtychkn: KIds are not just a tax deduction for a dependent. You get up to a $3,500 tax credit for children under 18. This means that you can actually get back MORE on your tax return then you paid in taxes. Meaning that tax payers are paying you for having children.


I don't like kids but you have to look at it not as paying others to have kids, but paying others to raise the next generations of people--with whom you will definitely need to coexist in society for most of your life.

Are plenty of them doing a shiatty job raising the kids? Sure, but that's a separate issue.  Would most of them have kids anyway, even without the tax break? Of course, but it's less about incentive and more about helping bring about a positive actual outcome.  When you step back and look at the big picture, it's in everyone's interest (even the childless) to support the rearing of the next generation.  The details can be adjusted but the overall concept stands.
 
2014-04-05 03:47:44 PM  

angrycrank: I doubt it. Consider the demographics. Someone has to be working to support retired people and kids.


Exactly.  Certain countries may be up to their eyeballs in kids, but America hardly has a surplus.  You may look around and see what you would consider a lot of poorly raised kids, but again--a separate issue.
 
2014-04-05 03:51:55 PM  

Yankees Team Gynecologist: shtychkn: KIds are not just a tax deduction for a dependent. You get up to a $3,500 tax credit for children under 18. This means that you can actually get back MORE on your tax return then you paid in taxes. Meaning that tax payers are paying you for having children.

I don't like kids but you have to look at it not as paying others to have kids, but paying others to raise the next generations of people--with whom you will definitely need to coexist in society for most of your life.

Are plenty of them doing a shiatty job raising the kids? Sure, but that's a separate issue.  Would most of them have kids anyway, even without the tax break? Of course, but it's less about incentive and more about helping bring about a positive actual outcome.  When you step back and look at the big picture, it's in everyone's interest (even the childless) to support the rearing of the next generation.  The details can be adjusted but the overall concept stands.


I'd rather we offer resources like daycare and school lunches for all children then cash.
 
2014-04-05 03:58:44 PM  

shtychkn: I'd rather we offer resources like daycare and school lunches for all children then cash.


That is a legitimate argument.
 
Displayed 180 of 180 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report