What do you think of an employer that does this?

[Spare_change]

Spare has made no logical response other than some muumbling, so we will leave it at that until something of worth is posted.

In keeping with your penchant to point out the shortfalls of posts, rather than addressing the issues under discussion:

1) 'muumbling' is spelled with only one 'u'.

2) It is logically inconsistent to claim that my 'muumbling' was a logical response (thus, your use of the phrase '..other than ...', and then complain that the post had no logical response.

3) the use of 'we' is presumptuous, and some would say egotistical, to assume that you speak for anyone other than yourself.

See? Two can play the game --- you tried to deflect the criticisms of others by complaining about the quality of their posts, but when the tables are turned, you whine and complain.

Get back on subject ... or get gone.

Maybe we should take a vote.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Spare and HWGA continue mumbling and offering nothing worthwhile about the OP. Please focus on the subject.

 

[Darkwind]

My niece has developed problems with her gall bladder, and has missed days at her new job (she has been in very bad shape). The place where she has been working has a policy of no missed days for the first six months (a common probationary period). A couple of days ago she was in such bad shape that she was admitted to the hospital for further testing. She was released after a day, but her doctor had scheduled her to have surgery. He also wrote her a note for her work. She called her manager to tell him that she had a note from her doctor but that she would try to come in if it meant keeping her job. He told her that HR had already fired her. She called HR and they said the manager had fired her. Now she not only doesn't have a job, she has no insurance and is facing an expensive operation and convalescence, and still has a family with three children to raise.

I think that any employer that does this to its employees, particularly one like her that they admitted was a good worker, is dastardly and not worth working for. So my question is should employers be allowed to do this to new employees?

this is what happens in non-union places....sorry to say Oro,but if the company has a policy about attendance,than thats the policy,its fucked up of them since this is somewhat different than just calling in saying you dont feel good.....but 90% of the companies out there can care less about the welfare of its employees,something happens to you,tough shit.....they expect loyalty from you but they dont feel they need to return any....i delivered mail for 33 years and have heard this story hundreds of times over the years from people on the route....

What a load of horseshit.
If you're any good at what you do they arent going to fire you.

They can and do. In many states, an employer doesn't need a reason to can your arse. They just can't openly violate your civil rights when they do. But there are always ways to get around that, unfortunately.

you have no civil right to a job.

We have a right to our humanity, though.

Humanity is something you carry inside of you. It is not something you force upon others.

 

[Politico]

My niece has developed problems with her gall bladder, and has missed days at her new job (she has been in very bad shape). The place where she has been working has a policy of no missed days for the first six months (a common probationary period). A couple of days ago she was in such bad shape that she was admitted to the hospital for further testing. She was released after a day, but her doctor had scheduled her to have surgery. He also wrote her a note for her work. She called her manager to tell him that she had a note from her doctor but that she would try to come in if it meant keeping her job. He told her that HR had already fired her. She called HR and they said the manager had fired her. Now she not only doesn't have a job, she has no insurance and is facing an expensive operation and convalescence, and still has a family with three children to raise.

I think that any employer that does this to its employees, particularly one like her that they admitted was a good worker, is dastardly and not worth working for. So my question is should employers be allowed to do this to new employees?

Yes.

 

[MarathonMike]

Is your niece not responsible for her life decisions that led to this point? No one has to have kids, that is a choice and if you are poor and have multiple kids you are asking for trouble. And if you are poor with multiple kids with poor health and opt out of Obamacare, how does that make her employer the bad guy?

 

[orogenicman]

Is your niece not responsible for her life decisions that led to this point? No one has to have kids, that is a choice and if you are poor and have multiple kids you are asking for trouble. And if you are poor with multiple kids with poor health and opt out of Obamacare, how does that make her employer the bad guy?

WTF???

 

[orogenicman]

this is what happens in non-union places....sorry to say Oro,but if the company has a policy about attendance,than thats the policy,its fucked up of them since this is somewhat different than just calling in saying you dont feel good.....but 90% of the companies out there can care less about the welfare of its employees,something happens to you,tough shit.....they expect loyalty from you but they dont feel they need to return any....i delivered mail for 33 years and have heard this story hundreds of times over the years from people on the route....

What a load of horseshit.
If you're any good at what you do they arent going to fire you.

They can and do. In many states, an employer doesn't need a reason to can your arse. They just can't openly violate your civil rights when they do. But there are always ways to get around that, unfortunately.

you have no civil right to a job.

We have a right to our humanity, though.

Humanity is something you carry inside of you. It is not something you force upon others.

Actually, that is not true. Ever hear of the civil rights laws? Ever hear of the wage and hour laws?

 

[MarathonMike]

The OP was vilifying an employer for not taking care of his niece's problems and not keeping her hired on staff. Businesses are not social services. She is very dangerously raising 3 kids with no insurance and health problems to boot. There are social services and charities that can help your niece. That is what she needs because she is in a bad situation but that is not the fault or responsibility of an employer, especially considering she hasn't even gotten through the probationary period.

 

[orogenicman]

The OP was vilifying an employer for not taking care of his niece's problems and not keeping her hired on staff. Businesses are not social services. She is very dangerously raising 3 kids with no insurance and health problems to boot. There are social services and charities that can help your niece. That is what she needs because she is in a bad situation but that is not the fault or responsibility of an employer, especially considering she hasn't even gotten through the probationary period.

And here we see the face of the new "conservatism". Not only is it blatantly uncaring about people's problems, particularly those of families, but doesn't even care to get their facts straight. My niece is married. Her husband works. Both have/had insurance. her health issues are recent, as in she just developed this gall bladder problem. It came on suddenly, without warning, as I've pointed out several times. But because she was fired from her job, she no longer has health insurance. Going on her husband's insurance plan will more than double their costs. And yes, I do blame the employer, because I know for a fact that many other employers would not have done what they did. Believe it or not, some employers do, in fact, care about their employees.

 

[Spare_change]

The OP was vilifying an employer for not taking care of his niece's problems and not keeping her hired on staff. Businesses are not social services. She is very dangerously raising 3 kids with no insurance and health problems to boot. There are social services and charities that can help your niece. That is what she needs because she is in a bad situation but that is not the fault or responsibility of an employer, especially considering she hasn't even gotten through the probationary period.

And here we see the face of the new "conservatism". Not only is it blatantly uncaring about people's problems, particularly those of families, but doesn't even care to get their facts straight. My niece is married. Her husband works. Both have/had insurance. her health issues are recent, as in she just developed this gall bladder problem. It came on suddenly, without warning, as I've pointed out several times. But because she was fired from her job, she no longer has health insurance. Going on her husband's insurance plan will more than double their costs. And yes, I do blame the employer, because I know for a fact that many other employers would not have done what they did. Believe it or not, some employers do, in fact, care about their employees.

Ridiculous.

Your fiction doesn't support your agenda (yes, we notice how your scenario keeps changing).

 

[MarathonMike]

The OP was vilifying an employer for not taking care of his niece's problems and not keeping her hired on staff. Businesses are not social services. She is very dangerously raising 3 kids with no insurance and health problems to boot. There are social services and charities that can help your niece. That is what she needs because she is in a bad situation but that is not the fault or responsibility of an employer, especially considering she hasn't even gotten through the probationary period.

And here we see the face of the new "conservatism". Not only is it blatantly uncaring about people's problems, particularly those of families, but doesn't even care to get their facts straight. My niece is married. Her husband works. Both have/had insurance. her health issues are recent, as in she just developed this gall bladder problem. It came on suddenly, without warning, as I've pointed out several times. But because she was fired from her job, she no longer has health insurance. Going on her husband's insurance plan will more than double their costs. And yes, I do blame the employer, because I know for a fact that many other employers would not have done what they did. Believe it or not, some employers do, in fact, care about their employees.

Like many Liberals you are confusing compassion at a human level with what businesses "should be doing" for the unfortunate or what the Federal government "should be doing" for the unfortunate. There may be some deep pocket corporations than can afford to be charitable but that is not the case for the vast majority of small businesses in this country. Conservatives on a personal level donate more to charities than sanctimonious Liberals, and that includes me.

 

[orogenicman]

The OP was vilifying an employer for not taking care of his niece's problems and not keeping her hired on staff. Businesses are not social services. She is very dangerously raising 3 kids with no insurance and health problems to boot. There are social services and charities that can help your niece. That is what she needs because she is in a bad situation but that is not the fault or responsibility of an employer, especially considering she hasn't even gotten through the probationary period.

And here we see the face of the new "conservatism". Not only is it blatantly uncaring about people's problems, particularly those of families, but doesn't even care to get their facts straight. My niece is married. Her husband works. Both have/had insurance. her health issues are recent, as in she just developed this gall bladder problem. It came on suddenly, without warning, as I've pointed out several times. But because she was fired from her job, she no longer has health insurance. Going on her husband's insurance plan will more than double their costs. And yes, I do blame the employer, because I know for a fact that many other employers would not have done what they did. Believe it or not, some employers do, in fact, care about their employees.

Ridiculous.

Your fiction doesn't support your agenda (yes, we notice how your scenario keeps changing).

You're calling me a liar? You just won membership on my ignore list. Congratulations, punk.

 

[orogenicman]

The OP was vilifying an employer for not taking care of his niece's problems and not keeping her hired on staff. Businesses are not social services. She is very dangerously raising 3 kids with no insurance and health problems to boot. There are social services and charities that can help your niece. That is what she needs because she is in a bad situation but that is not the fault or responsibility of an employer, especially considering she hasn't even gotten through the probationary period.

And here we see the face of the new "conservatism". Not only is it blatantly uncaring about people's problems, particularly those of families, but doesn't even care to get their facts straight. My niece is married. Her husband works. Both have/had insurance. her health issues are recent, as in she just developed this gall bladder problem. It came on suddenly, without warning, as I've pointed out several times. But because she was fired from her job, she no longer has health insurance. Going on her husband's insurance plan will more than double their costs. And yes, I do blame the employer, because I know for a fact that many other employers would not have done what they did. Believe it or not, some employers do, in fact, care about their employees.

Like many Liberals you are confusing compassion at a human level with what businesses "should be doing" for the unfortunate or what the Federal government "should be doing" for the unfortunate. There may be some deep pocket corporations than can afford to be charitable but that is not the case for the vast majority of small businesses in this country. Conservatives on a personal level donate more to charities than sanctimonious Liberals, and that includes me.

Oh please, charities have nothing to do with this. She was very sick. All she asked for was a few days off so she could have the surgery and recover from it. If she had worked there more than six months, they'd have given it to her. The ONLY reason why they didn't was because she was still under probation. And Mike, a national bank is not a small business.

 

[Slyhunter]

The OP was vilifying an employer for not taking care of his niece's problems and not keeping her hired on staff. Businesses are not social services. She is very dangerously raising 3 kids with no insurance and health problems to boot. There are social services and charities that can help your niece. That is what she needs because she is in a bad situation but that is not the fault or responsibility of an employer, especially considering she hasn't even gotten through the probationary period.

And here we see the face of the new "conservatism". Not only is it blatantly uncaring about people's problems, particularly those of families, but doesn't even care to get their facts straight. My niece is married. Her husband works. Both have/had insurance. her health issues are recent, as in she just developed this gall bladder problem. It came on suddenly, without warning, as I've pointed out several times. But because she was fired from her job, she no longer has health insurance. Going on her husband's insurance plan will more than double their costs. And yes, I do blame the employer, because I know for a fact that many other employers would not have done what they did. Believe it or not, some employers do, in fact, care about their employees.

Like many Liberals you are confusing compassion at a human level with what businesses "should be doing" for the unfortunate or what the Federal government "should be doing" for the unfortunate. There may be some deep pocket corporations than can afford to be charitable but that is not the case for the vast majority of small businesses in this country. Conservatives on a personal level donate more to charities than sanctimonious Liberals, and that includes me.

Oh please, charities have nothing to do with this. She was very sick. All she asked for was a few days off so she could have the surgery and recover from it. If she had worked there more than six months, they'd have given it to her. The ONLY reason why they didn't was because she was still under probation. And Mike, a national bank is not a small business.

If they didn't enforce their probationary rules on her they wouldn't be able to enforce them on anybody else either.

 

[orogenicman]

The OP was vilifying an employer for not taking care of his niece's problems and not keeping her hired on staff. Businesses are not social services. She is very dangerously raising 3 kids with no insurance and health problems to boot. There are social services and charities that can help your niece. That is what she needs because she is in a bad situation but that is not the fault or responsibility of an employer, especially considering she hasn't even gotten through the probationary period.

And here we see the face of the new "conservatism". Not only is it blatantly uncaring about people's problems, particularly those of families, but doesn't even care to get their facts straight. My niece is married. Her husband works. Both have/had insurance. her health issues are recent, as in she just developed this gall bladder problem. It came on suddenly, without warning, as I've pointed out several times. But because she was fired from her job, she no longer has health insurance. Going on her husband's insurance plan will more than double their costs. And yes, I do blame the employer, because I know for a fact that many other employers would not have done what they did. Believe it or not, some employers do, in fact, care about their employees.

Like many Liberals you are confusing compassion at a human level with what businesses "should be doing" for the unfortunate or what the Federal government "should be doing" for the unfortunate. There may be some deep pocket corporations than can afford to be charitable but that is not the case for the vast majority of small businesses in this country. Conservatives on a personal level donate more to charities than sanctimonious Liberals, and that includes me.

Oh please, charities have nothing to do with this. She was very sick. All she asked for was a few days off so she could have the surgery and recover from it. If she had worked there more than six months, they'd have given it to her. The ONLY reason why they didn't was because she was still under probation. And Mike, a national bank is not a small business.

If they didn't enforce their probationary rules on her they wouldn't be able to enforce them on anybody else either.

Oh please. They should make exceptions when people have major unexpected health issues. Many employers do.

 

[Slyhunter]

The OP was vilifying an employer for not taking care of his niece's problems and not keeping her hired on staff. Businesses are not social services. She is very dangerously raising 3 kids with no insurance and health problems to boot. There are social services and charities that can help your niece. That is what she needs because she is in a bad situation but that is not the fault or responsibility of an employer, especially considering she hasn't even gotten through the probationary period.

And here we see the face of the new "conservatism". Not only is it blatantly uncaring about people's problems, particularly those of families, but doesn't even care to get their facts straight. My niece is married. Her husband works. Both have/had insurance. her health issues are recent, as in she just developed this gall bladder problem. It came on suddenly, without warning, as I've pointed out several times. But because she was fired from her job, she no longer has health insurance. Going on her husband's insurance plan will more than double their costs. And yes, I do blame the employer, because I know for a fact that many other employers would not have done what they did. Believe it or not, some employers do, in fact, care about their employees.

Like many Liberals you are confusing compassion at a human level with what businesses "should be doing" for the unfortunate or what the Federal government "should be doing" for the unfortunate. There may be some deep pocket corporations than can afford to be charitable but that is not the case for the vast majority of small businesses in this country. Conservatives on a personal level donate more to charities than sanctimonious Liberals, and that includes me.

Oh please, charities have nothing to do with this. She was very sick. All she asked for was a few days off so she could have the surgery and recover from it. If she had worked there more than six months, they'd have given it to her. The ONLY reason why they didn't was because she was still under probation. And Mike, a national bank is not a small business.

If they didn't enforce their probationary rules on her they wouldn't be able to enforce them on anybody else either.

Oh please. They should make exceptions when people have major unexpected health issues. Many employers do.

Then some black guy with a headache who doesn't get an exception made will claim discrimination.

 

[orogenicman]

And here we see the face of the new "conservatism". Not only is it blatantly uncaring about people's problems, particularly those of families, but doesn't even care to get their facts straight. My niece is married. Her husband works. Both have/had insurance. her health issues are recent, as in she just developed this gall bladder problem. It came on suddenly, without warning, as I've pointed out several times. But because she was fired from her job, she no longer has health insurance. Going on her husband's insurance plan will more than double their costs. And yes, I do blame the employer, because I know for a fact that many other employers would not have done what they did. Believe it or not, some employers do, in fact, care about their employees.

Like many Liberals you are confusing compassion at a human level with what businesses "should be doing" for the unfortunate or what the Federal government "should be doing" for the unfortunate. There may be some deep pocket corporations than can afford to be charitable but that is not the case for the vast majority of small businesses in this country. Conservatives on a personal level donate more to charities than sanctimonious Liberals, and that includes me.

Oh please, charities have nothing to do with this. She was very sick. All she asked for was a few days off so she could have the surgery and recover from it. If she had worked there more than six months, they'd have given it to her. The ONLY reason why they didn't was because she was still under probation. And Mike, a national bank is not a small business.

If they didn't enforce their probationary rules on her they wouldn't be able to enforce them on anybody else either.

Oh please. They should make exceptions when people have major unexpected health issues. Many employers do.

Then some black guy with a headache who doesn't get an exception made will claim discrimination.

Non-sequitur. A headache is not a major health issue. A failing gallbladder IS a major, immediate health issue.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Like many Liberals you are confusing compassion at a human level with what businesses "should be doing" for the unfortunate or what the Federal government "should be doing" for the unfortunate. There may be some deep pocket corporations than can afford to be charitable but that is not the case for the vast majority of small businesses in this country. Conservatives on a personal level donate more to charities than sanctimonious Liberals, and that includes me.

Oh please, charities have nothing to do with this. She was very sick. All she asked for was a few days off so she could have the surgery and recover from it. If she had worked there more than six months, they'd have given it to her. The ONLY reason why they didn't was because she was still under probation. And Mike, a national bank is not a small business.

If they didn't enforce their probationary rules on her they wouldn't be able to enforce them on anybody else either.

Oh please. They should make exceptions when people have major unexpected health issues. Many employers do.

Then some black guy with a headache who doesn't get an exception made will claim discrimination.

Non-sequitur. A headache is not a major health issue. A failing gallbladder IS a major, immediate health issue.

So, did she go onto her husband's insurance, or get herself some obamacare, and have her surgery? Did she go for additional opinions?

 

[Spare_change]

The OP was vilifying an employer for not taking care of his niece's problems and not keeping her hired on staff. Businesses are not social services. She is very dangerously raising 3 kids with no insurance and health problems to boot. There are social services and charities that can help your niece. That is what she needs because she is in a bad situation but that is not the fault or responsibility of an employer, especially considering she hasn't even gotten through the probationary period.

And here we see the face of the new "conservatism". Not only is it blatantly uncaring about people's problems, particularly those of families, but doesn't even care to get their facts straight. My niece is married. Her husband works. Both have/had insurance. her health issues are recent, as in she just developed this gall bladder problem. It came on suddenly, without warning, as I've pointed out several times. But because she was fired from her job, she no longer has health insurance. Going on her husband's insurance plan will more than double their costs. And yes, I do blame the employer, because I know for a fact that many other employers would not have done what they did. Believe it or not, some employers do, in fact, care about their employees.

Ridiculous.

Your fiction doesn't support your agenda (yes, we notice how your scenario keeps changing).

You're calling me a liar? You just won membership on my ignore list. Congratulations, punk.

I apologize. I guess I wasn't clear in my previous post. To remove all ambiguity ...

YES, you are a liar.