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
    More: Scary, hard news  
•       •       •

8490 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2014 at 8:20 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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