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  
•       •       •

8459 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2014 at 8:20 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 180 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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