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  
•       •       •

8443 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2014 at 8:20 PM (29 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
 
2014-04-05 01:46:40 AM  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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



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

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

She should be fired for making up a degree.

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

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

Who takes FLA 3 weeks into a pregnancy btw?


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

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

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

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


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

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

She should be fired for making up a degree.

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

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

Who takes FLA 3 weeks into a pregnancy btw?


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

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

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

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

She won't win.

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

Leave is very different from vacation.

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


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

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

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

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

She should be fired for making up a degree.

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

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

Who takes FLA 3 weeks into a pregnancy btw?

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

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

Words to the wise...


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

SOX applies to publicly traded companies.

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


That is a legitimate argument.
 
Displayed 30 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 »






Report