You need time off for surgery? You're fired! [Archive]

brazil84

04-11-2009, 12:12 PM

Star saleswoman, facing health crisis, axed (http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090409/BIZ/904090314)

And here:
Zales Fires Top Earning Saleswoman Because She Needs Surgery (http://consumerist.com/5207364/zales-fires-top-earning-saleswoman-because-she-needs-surgery)

Can they DO that? Wouldn't they be opening themselves up to a MAJOR lawsuit? And either way, what kind of assholes would do such a thing in the first place, then FIGHT her over the insurance?

What kind of fucking cuntmaggot would even do something like this?

I wouldn't judge it until I heard the employer's side of the story. There's a pretty good chance this woman's job ended for reasons completely unrelated to he request for medical leave.

Boyo Jim

04-11-2009, 01:53 PM

I wouldn't judge it until I heard the employer's side of the story. There's a pretty good chance this woman's job ended for reasons completely unrelated to he request for medical leave.

There's an even better chance the manager was a total horse's ass just trying to cut costs by firing an employee whose health care expenses might raise their insurance rates.

runner pat

04-11-2009, 02:10 PM

I wouldn't judge it until I heard the employer's side of the story. There's a pretty good chance this woman's job ended for reasons completely unrelated to he request for medical leave.

Bull.

From the linked articles.
A saleswoman for Zales who had earned 5 diamonds and almost a dozen commendations over the past 4 1/2 years—she's the area's first employee to earn a million dollars in sales in one year—was terminated last month, one week after she requested time off to have surgery for a life-threatening aortic aneurysm.
I agree with Boyo Jim. Taking so long to start her COBRA coverage is inexcusable, in this day of high speed communications and computerized everything, it shouldn't take so long. As it didn't when one of the papers contacted Zales corporate office and it was done that afternoon.

Frank

04-11-2009, 02:14 PM

I wouldn't judge it until I heard the employer's side of the story. There's a pretty good chance this woman's job ended for reasons completely unrelated to he request for medical leave.
Perhaps "an unlikely chance" would be a better phrasing. This article (http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090409/BIZ/904090314) in the Middlebury, NY Times Record-Herald appears to be the source for this story. You'll note that Zales refused to comment.

I suppose it's possible that Zales habitually fires high earners so that they can replace them with minimum wage drones, a la Circuit City, or perhaps they were tired of rewarding her with diamonds, but I find either unlikely. Given that she had $1,000,000 in sales in 2008 and was terminated one week after asking for time off for surgery, I know what my judgement is.

Sorry, Guin, I didn't noticed you'd already linked to the original article. In that case brazil84 has even less excuse for not excercising his common sense.

Really Not All That Bright

04-11-2009, 02:22 PM

There are a couple of reasons she might not be covered by FMLA. One would be if she didn't work enough hours in the past year--1,250. The other would be if Zales doesn't have 50 employees within a 75-mile radius. With 50 stores in NY, that doesn't seem too likely, though.

Some states extend FMLA-like requirements to smaller employers.

Since the health condition, it sounds like, is expected to be cured by the surgery, the ADA is unlikely to apply.

Hmm. On its face, it does seem like a potential FMLA case. I wonder if we're missing some information, or if the manager was just a complete idiot about this?
It's also possible that she had already exhausted her FMLA leave for the year, or that she failed to provide documentation of her medical condition when requested, or somesuch.

I doubt brazil84 is right- chances are that Zales are just being dicks- but I wouldn't condemn them on the basis of one or two badly-written articles.

Anyway, Zales is closing a buttload of stores this year, so it's possible that she wouldn't have had a job to come back to in any case.

tumbleddown

04-11-2009, 02:32 PM

I wouldn't judge it until I heard the employer's side of the story. There's a pretty good chance this woman's job ended for reasons completely unrelated to he request for medical leave.
A pretty good chance?

I don't believe too much in coincidences. Especially when it comes to an American corporation attempting to save money.

Guinastasia

04-11-2009, 02:41 PM

Sorry, Guin, I didn't noticed you'd already linked to the original article. In that case brazil84 has even less excuse for not excercising his common sense.

If you're familiar with brazil84, then you perhaps forgot that he really doesn't have much common sense to exercise.

brazil84

04-11-2009, 03:03 PM

Bull.

My job puts me into contact with a lot of unemployed people. I can assure you I have heard dozens of stories like this and usually they turn out to be false or wildly exaggerated.

And by the way, I'm not saying it's uncommon for large employers to break the law, for example by firing employees who assert FMLA rights. It happens all the time, but big employers are typically more subtle about it when they do it. For example, they could wait until the employee has been back on the job for a few months and watch her register records until she gives her employee discount to her brother-in-law. Then, bam, she's fired with essentially no legal recourse.

I realize that you have no reason to trust what some random dude is saying over the internet, but there it is. Anyway, you have no reason to trust what this woman is saying about her job and how it ended.

brazil84

04-11-2009, 03:12 PM

Perhaps "an unlikely chance" would be a better phrasing. This article (http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090409/BIZ/904090314) in the Middlebury, NY Times Record-Herald appears to be the source for this story.

And the ultimate source appears to be this woman and her son. If you simply accept the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of some random person without any skepticism, then you are an idiot.

You'll note that Zales refused to comment.

Of course they didn't comment. It's very common for big employers to decline comment on personnel matters.

. In that case brazil84 has even less excuse for not excercising his common sense.

It seems to me that common sense requires skepticism in this situation.

Captain Carrot

04-11-2009, 03:17 PM

It seems to me that common sense requires skepticism in this situation.So naturally, you trust the corporation over the person who was fired.

brazil84

04-11-2009, 03:23 PM

So naturally, you trust the corporation over the person who was fired.

Not at all. The employer hasn't said anything at all, as far as I can tell. However, if the employer stated -- for example -- that this woman was fired because of a poor sales record, I would be skeptical of that too.

Crafter_Man

04-11-2009, 04:18 PM

I learned long ago that there are two sides to every story.

Really Not All That Bright

04-11-2009, 05:47 PM

It happens all the time, but big employers are typically more subtle about it when they do it. For example, they could wait until the employee has been back on the job for a few months and watch her register records until she gives her employee discount to her brother-in-law. Then, bam, she's fired with essentially no legal recourse.
In this case, there's no point in the employer doing what you suggest. The point of firing her would be to avoid having to hold her job open for 12 weeks.

brazil84

04-11-2009, 05:55 PM

In this case, there's no point in the employer doing what you suggest. The point of firing her would be to avoid having to hold her job open for 12 weeks.

Not necessarily. For example, the employer might anticipate that she will have more absences in the future. Or that she will be more of a burden on company health insurance. Or they could (in effect) replace her immediately after she leaves but wait to actually fire her. From a cost/benefit point of view, paying a couple months' extra wages is probably worth it to defeat an FMLA claim.

Long Time First Time

04-11-2009, 06:00 PM

Really Not All That Bright

04-11-2009, 06:03 PM

Not necessarily. For example, the employer might anticipate that she will have more absences in the future. Or that she will be more of a burden on company health insurance. Or they could (in effect) replace her immediately after she leaves but wait to actually fire her. From a cost/benefit point of view, paying a couple months' extra wages is probably worth it to defeat an FMLA claim.
Now you're just making guesses. It's an aortic aneurysm. There's not much risk of a recurrence.

Zales has over 2,000 stores, and at least 10,000 employees in their retail operations alone. One insurance claim is going to make zero difference to their insurance costs.

From a cost/benefit point of view, it would make much more sense to hire some minimum-wage kid to fill in for her and then fire or transfer the replacement.

GIGObuster

04-11-2009, 06:21 PM

It's a good illustration of how America's completely screwed up health care industry affects lots of other things.

The real scandal here is that the women's ability to have life saving surgery is so completely tied to her employment.
This is why I always say that the current health care in America would make perfect sense only to a medieval feudal lord.

brazil84

04-11-2009, 06:25 PM

Now you're just making guesses.

And so are you, in effect.

Zales has over 2,000 stores, and at least 10,000 employees in their retail operations alone. One insurance claim is going to make zero difference to their insurance costs.

Are you saying that large employers never discriminate against employees who may raise insurance rates?

From a cost/benefit point of view, it would make much more sense to hire some minimum-wage kid to fill in for her and then fire or transfer the replacement.

More sense than what?

GIGObuster

04-11-2009, 06:32 PM

I learned long ago that there are two sides to every story.

What I have learned is that the side that is often wrong does not want to reveal right away their side of the story.

Contacted by the Record, Zales would not comment. Charles Camilleri called Zales' human resources, explaining it was a life-or-death matter, and he simply needed a fax from Zales to start the COBRA process. He was floored by the employee's response.

"She said, "Well, if the surgery was rescheduled, then it's probably not a life-or-death situation," Charles Camilleri recalled. "I absolutely was blown away

Once again, the Record contacted Zales' corporate office, stressing that Rose Camilleri's condition could be fatal.

That afternoon, Charles got good news from Zales.

"They're turning my mother's health coverage back on today and expediting the COBRA information," he said.

After paying the first premium of $830, Rose had surgery last week and was back home on Sunday. "I don't think we would have had the surgery so soon if it weren't for your e-mail," Charles Camilleri said. "They probably would have kept us hanging."

Perhaps.

Coming to terms

Under the law, an employer has up to 60 days to inform a terminated employee of their right to continue coverage under COBRA, says Troy Oechsner, deputy superintendent of health at the New York Insurance Department.

But in an urgent case, such as Camilleri's, Oechsner said the insurance department will intervene. "We'd put pressure on the relevant parties to do the right thing," he said.

Camilleri, who is looking forward to a full recovery, still cries over losing her job. "Every day, I think about it," she said. "I try to think what I did wrong. I still can't get over why the company did this when they heard I was sick."
Better news, but so far it is clear that she lost her job anyhow.

Frank

04-11-2009, 06:38 PM

More sense than what?
Well, more sense than firing someone who sold $1,000,000 of jewelry in one year, allegedly for the first time ever in the company's Northeast District. The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. If it were I running a business, I'd certainly hold a job open for someone with that kind of ability. And - I'll add, before you reiterate that it must be some other reason - I'd put up with an awful lot of prima donna from someone with that kind of ability.

This is why I always say that the current health care in America would make perfect sense only to a medieval feudal lord.
That's really an excellent way to phrase it.

brazil84

04-11-2009, 06:54 PM

before you reiterate that it must be some other reason

Please either (1) show me where I claimed that it must be some other reason; or (2) apologize and admit that I made no such claim.

Your choice. Thank you.

mhendo

04-11-2009, 07:04 PM

Please either (1) show me where I claimed that it must be some other reason; or (2) apologize and admit that I made no such claim.

Your choice. Thank you.Your first post in this thread said, precisely:There's a pretty good chance this woman's job ended for reasons completely unrelated to he request for medical leave. That qualifies as "some other reason," as far as i can tell.

For some reason, i was under the impression that your stupidity and lack of reasoning ability was largely confined to the issue of AGW. Guess i was wrong.

Polycarp

04-11-2009, 07:07 PM

Please either (1) show me where I claimed that it must be some other reason; or (2) apologize and admit that I made no such claim.

Your choice. Thank you.

Interesting point. If you had merely suggested that we reserve judgment until we heard Zales' side of the story, you wouldn't be getting any grief. But you've loaded your posts with either outright statements or innuendos that they probably had another reason, or were looking for good reasons to downsize staff generally, etc. And while you're right that we haven't heard the employer's side of the story, if any, such evidence as we do have suggests that it was done purely to avoid having someone on the roster who would be out for surgery on the company health insurance's tab. In short, you've taken on yourself to blacken this woman's reputation for no evident reason except that you hear lies from unemployed people at your job. (If YOU can be believed....)

If you want balance, be balanced. If you denigrate and slander, expect to be denigrated and slandered.

brazil84

04-11-2009, 07:14 PM

Your first post in this thread said, precisely:That qualifies as "some other reason," as far as i can tell.

Do you understand that there is a difference between "there's a pretty good chance of X" and "X must be so"?

Seriously, do you understand that there is a difference?

For some reason, i was under the impression that your stupidity and lack of reasoning ability was largely confined to the issue of AGW. Guess i was wrong.

I'll assume that you did not read my post carefully before I conclude that you are stupid.

brazil84

04-11-2009, 07:21 PM

Interesting point. If you had merely suggested that we reserve judgment until we heard Zales' side of the story, you wouldn't be getting any grief. But you've loaded your posts with either outright statements or innuendos that they probably had another reason, or were looking for good reasons to downsize staff generally, etc.

Do you admit that I never claimed that there "must" be another reason?

And while you're right that we haven't heard the employer's side of the story, if any, such evidence as we do have suggests that it was done purely to avoid having someone on the roster who would be out for surgery on the company health insurance's tab.

:shrug: I'm skeptical of self-serving and uncorroborated claims. With respect to the particular claim in question, I have heard many claims of a similar nature and they have usually turned out to be false or wildly exaggerated.

By analogy, if somebody told a story of being abducted by extraterrestrial aliens, we could also say that the only evidence we have suggests that the abduction did in fact take place. But it would still be smart to be skeptical.

ETA: By the way, I'm not claiming that this woman's story is as non-credible as an alien abduction story. Although I imagine the strawmanners will try to pretend this.

GIGObuster

04-11-2009, 07:29 PM

Interesting point. If you had merely suggested that we reserve judgment until we heard Zales' side of the story, you wouldn't be getting any grief. But you've loaded your posts with either outright statements or innuendos that they probably had another reason, or were looking for good reasons to downsize staff generally, etc. And while you're right that we haven't heard the employer's side of the story, if any, such evidence as we do have suggests that it was done purely to avoid having someone on the roster who would be out for surgery on the company health insurance's tab. In short, you've taken on yourself to blacken this woman's reputation for no evident reason except that you hear lies from unemployed people at your job. (If YOU can be believed....)

If you want balance, be balanced. If you denigrate and slander, expect to be denigrated and slandered.
Whoa, Polycarp don't hold up, tell us how you really feel about brazil84. :)

And to me it is clear that brazil84 is just demonstrating his idiocy here (In the sense that he wants all to ignore the context and that he resorts to Ad nauseam arguments when he does not have anything else to say in the defense of his sorry points), there is no need to say that brazil84 is an idiot mhendo, the evidence just accumulates.

An example here: Already others have confirmed what the lady said, brazil84 just expects that dopers will miss that other confirmation (the OP posted 2 cites) of what she is saying does not exist.

Fear Itself

04-11-2009, 07:48 PM

Do you understand that there is a difference between "there's a pretty good chance of X" and "X must be so"?

Seriously, do you understand that there is a difference?There is not enough difference between the two to conclude you meant anything other than her firing was probably justified. Perhaps you should work on clarity if you are misunderstood so often.

GIGObuster

04-11-2009, 08:02 PM

There is not enough difference between the two to conclude you meant anything other than her firing was probably justified. Perhaps you should work on clarity if you are misunderstood so often.
I noticed that too coming from brasil84, but I did not want to jump on his bullshit explanation until others confirmed my assessment without pointing that out.

When it happens to me I can blame the fact that English is my second language, but the fact that even I can spot the BS of other posters that are supposed to be born with English as the original language should make those posters die of the embarrassment.

I still wonder what in hell is his excuse for not understanding or expressing points in a proper way.

brazil84

04-11-2009, 08:05 PM

There is not enough difference between the two to conclude you meant anything other than her firing was probably justified.

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that "her firing was probably justified" means basically the same thing as "her firing must have been justified"?

Simple yes or no question.

Perhaps you should work on clarity if you are misunderstood so often.

And perhaps people should respond to the point I actually make, as opposed to the point they wish I had made.

Fear Itself

04-11-2009, 08:10 PM

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that "her firing was probably justified" means basically the same thing as "her firing must have been justified"?For the purpose of messageboard debate, yes.

Miller

04-11-2009, 08:14 PM

Do you admit that I never claimed that there "must" be another reason?

Holy fuck, you're pathetic.

John DiFool

04-11-2009, 08:23 PM

Better news, but so far it is clear that she lost her job anyhow.

Given the resulting publicity, I'd imagine several area jewelers will be lining up at her hospital room door on Monday morning to try to hire her, and likely for a healthy signing bonus too.

ivylass

04-11-2009, 08:31 PM

That's what I hope too. She has a proven track record of being great at sales, and hell, she may even try her hand at selling something else...advertising, maybe.

brazil84

04-11-2009, 08:50 PM

For the purpose of messageboard debate, yes.

For me it's different. However, from now on, whenever you claim that there is a "pretty good chance" of something or that something is "probably" true, I will interpret it to mean you are saying that the thing "must be" true. Ok?

Fear Itself

04-11-2009, 08:53 PM

For me it's different. However, from now on, whenever you claim that there is a "pretty good chance" of something or that something is "probably" true, I will interpret it to mean you are saying that the thing "must be" true. Ok?OK.

Paul in Qatar

04-11-2009, 09:17 PM

Nothing obvious on the corporate website; perhaps if they ignore it, it will go away.

Guinastasia

04-11-2009, 09:21 PM

For me it's different.

Key words being, "for me". Unfortunately, you don't get to decide how debates work around here, kiddo.

Bricker

04-11-2009, 09:24 PM

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that "her firing was probably justified" means basically the same thing as "her firing must have been justified"?

For the purpose of messageboard debate, yes.

So if, in a messageboard debate, I wanted to communicate that her firing was probably justified, but NOT that her firing must have been justified, what words should I use?

Frank

04-11-2009, 09:27 PM

Please either (1) show me where I claimed that it must be some other reason; or (2) apologize and admit that I made no such claim.

Your choice. Thank you.
I've read your posts a time or two, and followed arguments and/or debates resulting therefrom. I've no doubt that I am interpreting your post #5 correctly.

Fear Itself

04-11-2009, 09:28 PM

So if, in a messageboard debate, I wanted to communicate that her firing was probably justified, but NOT that her firing must have been justified, what words should I use?You're the lawyer; you tell me. All i know is when somebody says, "it is probably is justified", they are not interested in the facts. brazil84 position was clear; yours, less so.

Boyo Jim

04-11-2009, 09:36 PM

And the ultimate source appears to be this woman and her son. If you simply accept the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of some random person without any skepticism, then you are an idiot.

Of course they didn't comment. It's very common for big employers to decline comment on personnel matters.

It seems to me that common sense requires skepticism in this situation.

It's not as if this woman has simply journaled the story over the internet. There was at least one reporter who presumably attempted some form of fact checking, and attempted to get an countering story from Zales. There was a photo of the woman with her numerous awards, and again the reporter presumably looked at closely enough to assure that they weren't photocopies of her highschool diplomas or other totally bogus crap.

Still you say it is more likely the woman is simply making this up to cover up some legitimate reason for her firing. I'm curious as to why she would go to the media if her employer could disprove the story.

I still think it's considerably more likely some jerk idiot manager simply treated her like a disposable drone and fired her to cut costs.

I do recognize that "likely" != "must". But since I would say there is more evidence supporting her story than not, I would argue that your bias is showing.

Guinastasia

04-11-2009, 09:44 PM

So if, in a messageboard debate, I wanted to communicate that her firing was probably justified, but NOT that her firing must have been justified, what words should I use?

To be fair though, Bricker, brazil84 has a history of being a moron. You're much more eloquent and capable of putting together a more persuasive argument, that actually makes SENSE.

It may sound biased against him, but I guess what I mean is, well, you're more intelligent, and able to get your point across. He is not.

Really Not All That Bright

04-11-2009, 10:27 PM

Nothing obvious on the corporate website; perhaps if they ignore it, it will go away.
It was already (the sole entry) in the "controversy" section on the Zales Wikipedia page when I looked up how many stores they had this afternoon.
Are you saying that large employers never discriminate against employees who may raise insurance rates?
I didn't say anything of the sort. However, in a company with 10,000 covered lives, you'd need to offer an employee health plan with an unrealistically high maximum annual/lifetime benefit before a single employee's non-chronic health condition could possibly impact the cost of the plan.

By unrealistically high, I mean "previously unheard of".

Snnipe 70E

04-11-2009, 10:29 PM

There is not enough difference between the two to conclude you meant anything other than her firing was probably justified. Perhaps you should work on clarity if you are misunderstood so often.

Notice he leads in one way and when called his responce is I did not really say for a fact that it happen the way I implied it.

Words and writting are my weak suite, so often I do not post. I would suggest that old 84 sharpen his writting skills or expect to be questioned about what he has posted.

Snnipe 70E

04-11-2009, 10:36 PM

In my working life I have seen large companies make stupid mistakes that were hard to believe. This sounds like it could be one. Me I think it was, but I may be wrong.

runner pat

04-11-2009, 10:39 PM

Notice he leads in one way and when called his responce is I did not really say for a fact that it happen the way I implied it.

Words and writting are my weak suite, so often I do not post. I would suggest that old 84 sharpen his writting skills or expect to be questioned about what he has posted.

I think his writing skills are just fine. He hints, he implies ,he dances around what he's really thinking, we can all see what he's getting at but he leaves himself some wiggle room to claim he was misunderstood.

Frank

04-11-2009, 10:49 PM

I think his writing skills are just fine. He hints, he implies ,he dances around what he's really thinking, we can all see what he's getting at but he leaves himself some wiggle room to claim he was misunderstood.
Yes, absolutely. brazil84's writing skills are excellent. He knows exactly what pin he is dancing on the point of. His learning skills are another point entirely.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 05:06 AM

Key words being, "for me". Unfortunately, you don't get to decide how debates work around here, kiddo.

:shrug: I get to decide how I will use and interpret the English language. If you wish to invent non-standard interpretations so that you can pretend I said something different from what I actually said (and meant), I can't stop you. However, I call that "strawmanning" and I do not engage with people who do that.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 05:12 AM

I've read your posts a time or two, and followed arguments and/or debates resulting therefrom. I've no doubt that I am interpreting your post #5 correctly.

Here is my post #5:

I wouldn't judge it until I heard the employer's side of the story. There's a pretty good chance this woman's job ended for reasons completely unrelated to he request for medical leave.

There is nothing in there where I say that it must be some other reason.

I don't engage with people who misrepresent my position, i.e. strawman me. Goodbye.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 05:17 AM

You're the lawyer; you tell me. All i know is when somebody says, "it is probably is justified", they are not interested in the facts.

Actually that's not exactly what I said. But in any event, the irony here is that a couple morons essentially concluded that the employer is in the wrong (whereas I stayed open to the possibility of either side being in the wrong). So it's not me who is "not interested in the facts."

brazil84

04-12-2009, 05:41 AM

It's not as if this woman has simply journaled the story over the internet. There was at least one reporter who presumably attempted some form of fact checking, and attempted to get an countering story from Zales. There was a photo of the woman with her numerous awards, and again the reporter presumably looked at closely enough to assure that they weren't photocopies of her highschool diplomas or other totally bogus crap.

Still you say it is more likely the woman is simply making this up to cover up some legitimate reason for her firing. I'm curious as to why she would go to the media if her employer could disprove the story.

People fool themselves all the time in these types of situations. Employees and employers both. Besides, if her discharge is unrelated to her (alleged) request for time off, it might not be the case that the employer can prove it.

I still think it's considerably more likely some jerk idiot manager simply treated her like a disposable drone and fired her to cut costs.

So basically you are saying that this employer went completely against its financial interests by letting go a star salesperson AND opening itself to a possible lawsuit AND potentially generating bad publicity. It's definitely possible, but there's also a very good chance that that's NOT the case.

I do recognize that "likely" != "must".

Thank you.

But since I would say there is more evidence supporting her story than not, I would argue that your bias is showing.

I am "biased" in the sense that I am assessing the situation through the filter of life experience. Over the years, I have learned that most people are not capable of telling a story like this in an objective way. Most people lie and exaggerate and paint the other fellow out to be much more of a villain than he or she deserves.

Just look at this thread -- Frank clearly twisted my words and yet he cannot admit it to himself or to others. Instead, he casts me as the bad guy. That's human nature. Most people cannot think critically or assess their own behavior objectively.

Here's an experiment for you: Interview 100 people who were in car accidents and ask each one "who was more at fault - you or the other guy?" I feel confident in predicting that a lot more than 50% of the people will state that the other person was more at fault.

The other experience which informs my "bias," such as it is, is that through my job I have personally witnessed many claims very similar to that of this woman.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 05:47 AM

It was already (the sole entry) in the "controversy" section on the Zales Wikipedia page when I looked up how many stores they had this afternoon.

I didn't say anything of the sort. However, in a company with 10,000 covered lives, you'd need to offer an employee health plan with an unrealistically high maximum annual/lifetime benefit before a single employee's non-chronic health condition could possibly impact the cost of the plan.

I don't understand your point at all. Assuming that large employers sometimes discriminate on the basis of possible health insurance claims, would you agree that the victims of such a practice are individual identifiable people?

brazil84

04-12-2009, 05:51 AM

expect to be questioned about what he has posted.

I am happy to answer reasonable questions about what I have posted. But that's not what happened here with Frank. He clearly twisted my words and it would appear that his little mind has fallen victim to Emerson's hobgoblin.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 05:57 AM

I think his writing skills are just fine. He hints, he implies ,he dances around what he's really thinking,

That's nonsense. I am happy to state what I am really thinking, which is that there's a pretty good chance this woman's job ended for reasons completely unrelated to he request for medical leave.

That's my position, nothing more and nothing less.

I've been burned enough times in my life that I know better than to come to a more definite conclusion based on the limited evidence available.

On the other hand, morons like guinistasia are (apparently) quick to conclude that one party is a "cuntmaggot."

he leaves himself some wiggle room to claim he was misunderstood.

No, I leave myself wiggle room because I am smart enough to see that there is not enough evidence here to come to a definite conclusion.

runner pat

04-12-2009, 09:44 AM

That's nonsense. I am happy to state what I am really thinking, which is that there's a pretty good chance this woman's job ended for reasons completely unrelated to he request for medical leave.

That's my position, nothing more and nothing less.

I've been burned enough times in my life that I know better than to come to a more definite conclusion based on the limited evidence available.

On the other hand, morons like guinistasia are (apparently) quick to conclude that one party is a "cuntmaggot."

No, I leave myself wiggle room because I am smart enough to see that there is not enough evidence here to come to a definite conclusion.

Lets go through the evidence.

1. She's a top performer-5 diamonds, 1 for every 1 million in sales
2. 12 commendations
3. All this in 4 1/2 years
4. Needs surgery for aneurysm
5. Fired within 1 week of revealing need for surgery and time off
6. Zales drags their feet on COBRA coverage, does not inform her of her rights under COBRA
7. Zales gives her coverage in 1 day after being contacted by the newspaper.
8. Termination for gross misconduct is the only reason an otherwise eligible employee can be denied coverage. COBRA FAQs (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_cobra.HTML)

The timing of her firing is extremely suspect.

I'll say it right out. I think Zales is engaging in the usual short sighted corporate idiocy that's far too prevalent these days.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 10:00 AM

Lets go through the evidence.

1. She's a top performer-5 diamonds, 1 for every 1 million in sales
2. 12 commendations
3. All this in 4 1/2 years
4. Needs surgery for aneurysm

(Essentially) her claims. Moreover, the dates of the commendations have not been revealed.

5. Fired within 1 week of revealing need for surgery and time off

Her claim.

6. Zales drags their feet on COBRA coverage, does not inform her of her rights under COBRA

Her claim. Besides, employers have 60 days to fulfill their COBRA obligations. As far as anyone knows, this woman was discharged a few weeks ago. So the employer would apparently not be in default even if the COBRA notification were sent today.

7. Zales gives her coverage in 1 day after being contacted by the newspaper.

I have no problem believing that an employer would go above and beyond its legal obligations after being contacted by a newspaper or insurance commission. But so what?

8. Termination for gross misconduct is the only reason an otherwise eligible employee can be denied coverage.

There's no evidence that the employee was denied. So what does it matter?

The timing of her firing is extremely suspect.

If you accept everything the employee is saying, sure.

I'll say it right out. I think Zales is engaging in the usual short sighted corporate idiocy that's far too prevalent these days.

And I think you are being an idiot for accepting this woman's version of events with little or no skepticism.

runner pat

04-12-2009, 10:18 AM

All the awards can be verified, if she was lying, Zales could easily show what's true.

The timing of her firing can be verified as can the date of her doctors visit and when she informed Zales. Again, if untrue, Zales could have said something.

Zales could have easily given her all the info about COBRA in a timely manner, there was no reason to delay.

Zales proved that by doing so under the threat of media exposure.

You said there was a pretty good chance she was fired for other reasons. The only reason I can think of for firing a stellar employee is doing something very wrong=gross misconduct which would have made her ineligible for COBRA.

I never insulted you, why the personal attack?

I'm stating why I think Zales is in the wrong, there are points they could have refuted yet failed to do so leading me to think the points are true.

Dangerosa

04-12-2009, 10:22 AM

And when publishing the story, a newspaper has a responsibility to confirm facts as much as possible. Newspapers get contacted by people who think they were wronged every day. And the vast majority of them don't pan out enough to put into print. This one made it into print. It isn't certain something is there, but if the basic facts of the story can't be confirmed (by talking to other store employees off the record for instance), they shouldn't publish.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 10:38 AM

All the awards can be verified, if she was lying, Zales could easily show what's true.

The timing of her firing can be verified as can the date of her doctors visit and when she informed Zales.

Sure, and if this woman files a complaint, for example, with the New York State Division of Human Rights, I would be happy to review Zale's response and re-evaluate my position.

Zales could have easily given her all the info about COBRA in a timely manner, .

Legally, "timely" means within 60 days. Do you deny that this was done?

there was no reason to delay

Of course there was a reason to delay -- simple beaurocratic inefficiency.

You said there was a pretty good chance she was fired for other reasons. The only reason I can think of for firing a stellar employee is doing something very wrong

You are accepting this woman's claim that she was a stellar employee. She could have had problems in other areas, even assuming that she recently received all of these sales awards.

Here's an experiment for you: Go down to the administrative court where they hold unemployment insurance hearings in your area. Start talking to employees who have been denied benefits on grounds of misconduct and ask if they were excellent employees or not.

=gross misconduct which would have made her ineligible for COBRA.

There is plenty of misconduct which does not qualify as gross misconduct. For example, coming to work late with no good reason after a warning.

I never insulted you, why the personal attack?

You insulted me by claiming falsely and without any support that I "dance[] around what [I'm] really thinking,"

I'm stating why I think Zales is in the wrong, there are points they could have refuted yet failed to do so leading me to think the points are true.

As noted above, it's common practice for large employers to decline comment on personnel matters. I wouldn't read anything into that at all.

Q.E.D.

04-12-2009, 10:41 AM

I found this blog (http://www.correntewire.com/another_reason_universal_health_care_you_wont_get_fired_needing_surgery) of someone who sent the following email to Zales:

I was greatly disturbed by the April 9, 2009 article in the Times-Herald Record that detailed the termination of one of your star salespeople, Rose Camilleri from the Woodbury Common Outlets. It appears that she was fired in a discriminatory manner due to taking time off for needed surgery. Could you please explain why a million dollar performer would be fired? I've never worked in any industry where extraordinary salespeople were fired for anything less than a true and documented cause. So is life saving surgery now considered egregious cause at Zales?

It is beyond stunning that your company's Human Resources department not only took an exceptional amount of time to provide Ms. Camilleri with the appropriate COBRA paperwork, but went beyond that and felt the need to provide a supposed medical diagnosis. If they are so confident in their diagnostic abilities, perhaps they could make some money as a side line for your company. No, right, practicing medicine without a license is illegal and any semi-professional HR department would realize this fact.

Suffice it to say, I will never do business with your company or any of your subsidiaries ever again. I will also be forwarding this email to family, friends, and coworkers, none of whom will choose to do business with such an unethical company.

The current insured value of my jewelry is over $XX,XXX. You will never see one red cent when that value increases.

And received the typical corporate talking-head response:

Thank you for contacting us regarding Rose Camilleri. Our customers and our employees are of the utmost importance to us.

As in all businesses, we do, from time to time, have to make some difficult personnel decisions. When faced with these situations, rest assured that we make those decisions in light of all applicable facts and circumstances. As I am sure you can understand, we do not share with the media the specific facts and circumstances of these individual personnel decisions.

We truly appreciate your input. We value your trust and patronage and hope that you will continue to provide us with the opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,

Zales Customer Service

runner pat

04-12-2009, 10:58 AM

brazil84

04-12-2009, 11:11 AM

She has the awards, given to her by Zales that indicate she is a stellar employee.

You don't know when she received those awards.

If there were other problems why wait until she needs surgery to fire her?

You don't know that they waited like that. Heck, you don't even know that she was fired.

Apart from her self-serving claims, of course.

Just because Zales has 60 days on COBRA doesn't mean they have to take it, the right thing to do is to expedite matters in all cases.

Assuming that's true, it doesn't mean anything whatsoever the reasons for the woman's separation from employment.

Again, if any of what she claims were untrue I have no doubt Zales would say so with appropriate documentation.

And again, you are an idiot. Do you deny it's common for large employers to have policies against making that sort of response?

You do dance around, why not just come out and say she was wrong and Zales was right?

Because I don't freaking know. Duh.

That's what you keep inferring.

No it isn't.

I didn't insult you nor did Guin yet you felt the need for name calling.

Serious question:

Is it an insult to state that a poster has a history of being a moron?

Simple yes or no question.

jsgoddess

04-12-2009, 11:16 AM

Taking 60 days on COBRA doesn't mean that she wasn't covered in the meantime. She has the right to coverage through COBRA. The paperwork is basically a formality. (Not that most people can even afford COBRA.) In other words, the "delay" by Zales is a non-event. We have had employees take the maximum time to sign up, we've had COBRA notices go astray (they need to go out certified and we've had employees that never picked them up, for example) and they have never EVER had a lapse in coverage. Insurance companies know how to do things retroactively. It's simply not a big deal.

We had an employee a couple of years ago who had no previous warnings, written or verbal, no disciplinary actions, etc. who would have been fired had she taken time off to have surgery. Why? It was plastic surgery, she scheduled it during the holidays, she was reception, and she had taken a couple of months off earlier in the year for bariatric surgery. So yes, there are times when a surgery is pretty much the last straw. (She chose to quit.)

My mother has an aortic aneurysm that they aren't planning on doing surgery on. There may be a lot of variation in the severity of the problem which might make getting at the truth of the "life or death" rhetoric a little harder.

Rick

04-12-2009, 11:26 AM

She has the awards, given to her by Zales that indicate she is a stellar employee. If there were other problems why wait until she needs surgery to fire her?

You don't know when she received those awards.You really don't read for detail do you? From the first link in the OP (bolded to assist the reading comprehension impaired)By Christine Young
Times Herald-Record
Posted: April 09, 2009 - 2:00 AM

WASHINGTONVILLE — Five months ago, Rose Camilleri was a superstar at the Zales outlet at Woodbury Common Premium Outlets.

In November, the diminutive grandmother with an Italian accent was flown to Dallas, home of Zales' headquarters, where she was honored with a 1-carat diamond necklace for making $1 million in sales last year.
OK, now count on your fingers with me.
Starting with April 9 count back 5 months.
March
February
January
December
November.
It is pretty obvious that Ms Camilleri was given her award in November of 2008.
:rolleyes:

runner pat

04-12-2009, 11:34 AM

After my accident, when I quit the job I would not return to, they went over my COBRA coverage that day, did the paperwork and had the process completed by the next day. Until I was told, I was unaware that the coverage was retroactive if needed. Maybe the woman was unaware she was still covered.

Serious question:

Is it an insult to state that a poster has a history of being a moron?

Simple yes or no question.

You called her a moron and me an idiot. Nothing about past history, just a direct attack.
As for what I bolded: Don't ask a question you don't want answered. You may not like the answer.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 12:07 PM

You really don't read for detail do you?

Sure I do. But since you know the case so well, please state the month and year of each of the woman's awards. And please tell me if you have any evidence to back up your claim besides this woman's statements.

Seems to me that at the very best, we know the date of one award. And even that would appear to be uncorroborated. But I must have not read very carefully. So please fill me in. Thank you.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 12:09 PM

You called her a moron and me an idiot. Nothing about past history, just a direct attack.
As for what I bolded: Don't ask a question you don't want answered. You may not like the answer.

I would like the answer, please. Extremely simple yes or no question:

Is it an insult to state that a poster has a history of being a moron?

Simple yes or no question.

Polycarp

04-12-2009, 12:10 PM

She has the awards, given to her by Zales that indicate she is a stellar employee. If there were other problems why wait until she needs surgery to fire her?

Just because Zales has 60 days on COBRA doesn't mean they have to take it, the right thing to do is to expedite matters in all cases. Sadly, doing the right thing is rare in the world of Big Business.

Again, if any of what she claims were untrue I have no doubt Zales would say so with appropriate documentation.

You do dance around, why not just come out and say she was wrong and Zales was right? That's what you keep inferring. I didn't insult you nor did Guin yet you felt the need for name calling.

And even if it could be argued that a hypothetically overworked Human Resources department (which I have as much right to hypothecate as does Sergio Mendez's brother-in-law to suppose that there are other, more sinister reasons behind a firing) might take the sixty days to produce COBRA paperwork for the average terminated employee, would it not make sense to expedite the process when the circumstances surrounding her termination indicate that she is due for elective surgery to correct a potentilally fatal problem?

Actually, as I've noted, Brazil84 does have a point of sorts -- we only know one side of the story, and obviously someone in the midst of filing legal grievance is not going to produce any negatives regarding their own position. However, to suggest that one person might have been rightfully terminated without any evidence backing that suggestion other than that the suggestor works with unemployed people who often falsify their own cases, is to engage in stereotyping of the most blatant sort. We know that some "global warming skeptics" hold their view because they are being paid by Big Oil to do so. Applying the same logic, we would need to presume that our friend who so avidly holds to the position that Ms. Camilleri must have been terminated for cause holds his views on AGW owing to payments from Big Oil. If this is not true, as I assume it is not, it disproves his contention here.

runner pat

04-12-2009, 12:20 PM

I would like the answer, please. Extremely simple yes or no question:

Is it an insult to state that a poster has a history of being a moron?

Simple yes or no question.

Yes.

It's your opinion(or others) that the person is a moron. It's not a statement of fact. Others may feel the person has made an intelligent argument.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 12:25 PM

However, to suggest that one person might have been rightfully terminated without any evidence backing that suggestion other than that the suggestor works with unemployed people who often falsify their own cases, is to engage in stereotyping of the most blatant sort.

I'm not sure I would call it "stereotyping of the most blatant sort," but whatever you want to call it, it's not an unreasonable inference. Let me ask you this:

Suppose Jane Smith (a total stranger to you) claimed "X" to you without any sort of proof. Suppose further that 100 people had claimed "X" to you in the past, and upon investigation, you learned that 85 of those people were lying. If you had to guess, would you guess that Jane's story is true or false? And if you guessed it were false, would you be engaged in blatant stereotyping?

We know that some "global warming skeptics" hold their view because they are being paid by Big Oil to do so.

Would you mind providing a few examples of this? Thank you.

Applying the same logic, we would need to presume that our friend who so avidly holds to the position that Ms. Camilleri must have been terminated for cause

Same question I asked Frank:

Please either show me where I claimed that Ms.Camilleri must have been terminated for cause or admit that I made no such claim and apologize.

Your choice.

If this is not true, as I assume it is not, it disproves his contention here.

I don't understand your point here.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 12:26 PM

Yes.

Thank you. Next simple yes or no question:

Do you agree that in this thread, guinistasia made such a statement about me?

Simple yes or no question.

regginbrow

04-12-2009, 12:33 PM

The thing with COBRA coverage is that you don't need to wait until you're fully signed up with it before seeking out medical services. The coverage is retroactively applied to the date of your terminated employment as long as you sign up within a certain time frame (63 days or something like that), and you can get reimbursed for any covered services you received. So in this case, the woman in the OP could have still had her surgery on schedule, signed up for COBRA, and gotten reimbursed in accordance with her insurance coverage.

Of course, it's very likely that she didn't have that amount of cash on hand to front for the surgery while waiting for Zales to get around to sending the COBRA paperwork. However, Zales would end up paying for this surgery either way under this scenario, so if she was in fact fired for the cost of her surgery (which is illegal, btw), that makes this decision even more retarded.

Also FWIW, a company the size of Zales is almost certainly self-insured, so Zales would be paying for the full cost of the surgery, not an insurance company.

runner pat

04-12-2009, 12:41 PM

Thank you. Next simple yes or no question:

Do you agree that in this thread, guinistasia made such a statement about me?

Simple yes or no question.

Yes, I failed to notice the statement.

However you called me an idiot and I had made no such statement about you.

You do have a history of being a moron as is amply demonstrated in this thread and backed up by others.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 01:15 PM

Yes, I failed to notice the statement.

God forbid you should apologize for falsely claiming that Guinistasia did not insult me.

However you called me an idiot and I had made no such statement about you.

Since you are in hair-splitting mode, I will point out that what I said was that you were being an idiot. But I'm not going to play games. I admit that I insulted you. But only after you insulted me.

You do have a history of being a moron

If you define "moron" as someone who argues aggressively in favor of unpopular views, then sure.

But let's do this: How about you quote me at my most moronic?

runner pat

04-12-2009, 01:37 PM

Let's take this back to the topic of the thread, we'll get nowhere going back and forth, it's not about us anyway.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 01:43 PM

Let's take this back to the topic of the thread, we'll get nowhere going back and forth, it's not about us anyway.

Fine, feel free to go back to my question from before:

Do you deny it's common for large employers to have policies against making the sort of response you described earlier?

And another question:

Do you agree that when one party to a dispute describes the facts of that dispute, it's common for that person to spin, exaggerate, or even lie about what happened?

runner pat

04-12-2009, 02:13 PM

Fine, feel free to go back to my question from before:

Do you deny it's common for large employers to have policies against making the sort of response you described earlier?

And another question:

Do you agree that when one party to a dispute describes the facts of that dispute, it's common for that person to spin, exaggerate, or even lie about what happened?

You're asking the questions in the wrong way. We're not talking generalities, we're talking the specifics of this case. Even if others lie, that doesn't mean this woman is. The facts of her employment, awards, firing and surgery are not in dispute. They are proven. If any of those facts were wrong then Zales should say so. I see no spin or exaggeration in her story.

I would like to hear Zales side, they refuse comment. It's been long enough to get their story together. It's already out in public, they gain nothing by keeping quiet.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 02:23 PM

You're asking the questions in the wrong way. We're not talking generalities, we're talking the specifics of this case. Even if others lie, that doesn't mean this woman is.

That's ridiculous. It's not like that woman is your mother or something. You don't know her from Adam, and the assumption should be that she's a typical human being who is prone to spinning, exaggerating, or even lying about the facts of a dispute to which she is a party.

Let me ask you this: Why do you think this woman is different from a typical human being?

The facts of her employment, awards, firing and surgery are not in dispute. They are proven.

That's even more ridiculous. Essentially all you have is her word to go by.

I would like to hear Zales side, they refuse comment. It's been long enough to get their story together. It's already out in public, they gain nothing by keeping quiet.

That's incorrect. There's a lot of potential downside to making a detailed public rebuttal.

Anyway, it's a simple, reasonable question:

Do you or do you not deny that it's common for large employers to have policies against making the sort of response you describe?

runner pat

04-12-2009, 02:40 PM

So you think she made up working at Zales and everything else? That really strains credibility.
All the facts that are not in dispute point toward Zales being in the wrong.

Yeah, it's common to have such policies. So what?
It has no bearing on the fact that this woman's story can't be made up, too many facts that are too easily verified.

jsgoddess

04-12-2009, 02:49 PM

I can't even figure out what brazil is arguing. I don't think I care much, though.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 03:06 PM

So you think she made up working at Zales and everything else?

Probably not. I would guess that she probably did work at Zales. That's not the sort of thing people spin, exaggerate, or lie about in situations like this.

All the facts that are not in dispute point toward Zales being in the wrong.

Not in dispute by whom?

Yeah, it's common to have such policies. So what?

So you can't infer anything from Zale's failure to respond. You earlier claimed to have "no doubt" that Zale's would respond with documentation if this woman's story were untrue. However, if they have a policy against making such responses, then your claim was false.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 03:07 PM

I can't even figure out what brazil is arguing. I don't think I care much, though.

If you change your mind about caring, you might check Post #5. I think it's clear enough. As is Post #12.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 03:21 PM

runner pat

04-12-2009, 04:21 PM

Oh, and by the way runner, I still would like to know what is special about this woman, i.e. why is she exempt from the general principle that most people tend to spin, exaggerate, and/or lie when they discuss facts about a dispute to which they are a party.

Because too much of her story is too easy to verify. Do you think she did not work at Zales? Didn't make millions in sales? Didn't get fired? Didn't get surgery?

You tell me what parts are false.

brazil84

04-12-2009, 07:22 PM

Because too much of her story is too easy to verify.

It seems to me that would apply to just about any story regarding the facts surrounding a dispute. For example, if somebody describes a car accident they were involved in, there are basic facts which are probably true. e.g. that both parties were driving cars; that the crash took place at a certain location; and so on.

You tell me what parts are false.

Obviously I can't say which parts are definitely true or definitely false. Nor can I say whether the woman is omitting some important piece of information.

For example, when employees such as this person are discharged, the employer normally tells them a reason. That's a good starting place to start learning the employer's side of the story. And deciding whether the offered reason is pretextual. Here, that information is omitted.

bengangmo

04-12-2009, 11:35 PM

The story, as posted seems to fail the logic test. Corporations with 10,000 employees (tend to) have pretty good procedures in place to make sure that they don't break laws, and so that people that make them money aren't fired unneccessarily. Assuming the lady in the story is a star performer, why would they want to fire her?

This is not to say that it didn't happen, the basic motivation may well be the medical care required, perhaps somebody in the regional office screwed up her medical coverage and firing her was a way of hiding it, maybe her supervisor has been given certain targets to hit, and firing her (even if unjustified) helps to hit those targets, so s /he oversteps the bounds of what he is supposed to do (no difference in actions, but difference in how we should perceive the company).

The upshot is what has alreay been posted, we have only heard one side of the story, we should reserve judgement until we know the full story, and nobody should be condemned until such time.

Dangerosa

04-13-2009, 06:36 AM

The story, as posted seems to fail the logic test. Corporations with 10,000 employees (tend to) have pretty good procedures in place to make sure that they don't break laws, and so that people that make them money aren't fired unneccessarily.

I don't know about that - WalMart has gotten stung on many occasions because individual store managers make individual actions (class action lawsuits for gender discrimination, hiring illegal workers to clean the stores, not paying overtime).

The problem with retail - and in particular this sort of 'small store' retail is that the managers are often .... terribly mediocre. They come in and run their store, keep inventory, keep a schedule up. They really don't read every procedure manual update coming through - and the district manager stops in every few weeks. For the most part there aren't issues - keep your store open and staffed and keep track of your inventory.

The bigger the footprint, the more likely the store manager has taken a course on business law and maybe even carries an MBA. But a person running a Zale's probably hasn't taken a business law course.

I went to college with some people who were working on their B.A. and doing very similar jobs - they were already managing small footprint retail locations without any college behind them.

IvoryTowerDenizen

04-13-2009, 06:51 AM

My SIL works for Zales and I printed out the article for her to read. She is in a different region and is one her stores top sellers. She was diagnosed with gout and had her doctor send a note that she needed to spend a few days off her feet. Her manager kept "losing" the FAX, wouldn't accept a doctors call to verify and kept calling her at home to come to work.

She also only gave her 1 day off to come to my son's Bar Mitzvah (1000 miles away) even though she requested the time off two months in advance. The manager gave in a gave her extra time- the day before the ceremony when it was too late to get a ticket or drive.

Zales may be a great corporation, but individual managers may do a lousy job. FWIW my SIL documented and reported to corporate and the manager got a smack down, but ultimately it didn't change much.

brazil84

04-13-2009, 09:34 AM

I don't know about that

I can tell you from personal experience that it's very unusual for a large employer to flagrantly retaliate against someone who, for example, requests FMLA leave. It does happen but it's quite unusual. What is more common is retaliation which is concealed. I've seen that happen many times, where a person comes back from medical leave; things just aren't the same; and the employer takes a few months to set up a good case for a discharge.

I've also seen a few cases where an employee who sensed that he or she was about to get fired put in a request for medical leave in order to set up a retaliation claim. That's unusual too, but it does happen.

I realize that you don't have any reason to accept the words of a stranger over the internet; and that you don't have any reason to put weight on what I am saying, but you should keep that same principle in mind when you evaluate the claims of this employee.

- WalMart has gotten stung on many occasions because individual store managers make individual actions (class action lawsuits for gender discrimination, hiring illegal workers to clean the stores, not paying overtime).

Overtime violations have become pretty unusual among large employers in the last 5 or 10 years. Gender (and other) discrimination is rampant among employers large and small but it's usually concealed and difficult to prove. I don't know about hiring of illegal workers among large employers. It's pretty common among small employers in some industries (food service and computer consulting come to mind).

The problem with retail - and in particular this sort of 'small store' retail is that the managers are often .... terribly mediocre. They come in and run their store, keep inventory, keep a schedule up. They really don't read every procedure manual update coming through - and the district manager stops in every few weeks. For the most part there aren't issues - keep your store open and staffed and keep track of your inventory.

That's true, which is why it's very common for big employers to require that discharges be approved through HR and/or a district manager. In this case, it was apparently a district manager who made the decision to discharge the employee.

Dangerosa

04-13-2009, 08:57 PM

I can tell you from personal experience that it's very unusual for a large employer to flagrantly retaliate against someone who, for example, requests FMLA leave. It does happen but it's quite unusual. What is more common is retaliation which is concealed. I've seen that happen many times, where a person comes back from medical leave; things just aren't the same; and the employer takes a few months to set up a good case for a discharge.

My personal experience does not match yours.

billfish678

04-13-2009, 09:05 PM

So if, in a messageboard debate, I wanted to communicate that her firing was probably justified, but NOT that her firing must have been justified, what words should I use?

The answer comes from within grasshopper :)

Euphonious Polemic

04-13-2009, 09:23 PM

brazil84, do you think this woman comes from the "underclass"? Is that your problem? Or are you simply a dick?

Rand Rover

04-13-2009, 10:08 PM

Brazil, why do you do this to yourself? I got tired of it after the 10th go-round or so.

The idiots are just going to be idiots. They will pounce on anyone who doesn't come in to a thread like this with 110% support for the RO object of pity du jour. Not only do they not care about reason and logic, they absolutely oppose it and vilify anyone with the temerity to use it.

jsgoddess

04-13-2009, 10:55 PM

Euphonious Polemic

04-13-2009, 11:30 PM

Support from Rand Rover = proof positive that you're a dick.

brazil84

04-14-2009, 02:01 AM

brazil84, do you think this woman comes from the "underclass"?

I don't know. I do know that she's human. Most people -- underclass or not -- have a tendency to spin, exaggerate, or even lie when they are discussing the facts of a dispute to which they are a party. This same principle applies to corporations.

Do you agree with this or not?

Or are you simply a dick?

If "dick" = someone who is frequently skeptical of peoples' self-serving claims, then yes.

brazil84

04-14-2009, 02:07 AM

Brazil, why do you do this to yourself?

I enjoy arguing in favor of unpopular positions.

The idiots are just going to be idiots. They will pounce on anyone who doesn't come in to a thread like this with 110% support for the RO object of pity du jour. Not only do they not care about reason and logic, they absolutely oppose it and vilify anyone with the temerity to use it.

I would say that's a bit of an overstatement, but I am impressed with how idiotic people like Frank have been acting. I've lost count of the number of people in this thread have felt the need to attack a strawman rather than respond to the actual position I have taken.

brazil84

04-14-2009, 02:11 AM

My personal experience does not match yours.

Without revealing anything you consider private, how many situations like this one have you personally seen?

Dante

04-14-2009, 10:08 AM

I enjoy arguing in favor of unpopular positions.I would think you'd argue positions in which you believe. Arguing a position simply because it's unpopular, that's kinda like, trolling...no?

LonesomePolecat

04-14-2009, 10:30 AM

Do you or do you not deny that it's common for large employers to have policies against making the sort of response you describe?
Well, I don't deny it. But many employers have official policies only for window dressing, when their actual behavior is quite different. Not long ago, I watched a video of a lawyer conducting a seminar that taught employers how to avoid hiring American citizens, so they could lie to the government about the necessity of hiring much cheaper immigrants. I'll bet every one of those employers had an official policy against discrimination on the basis of national origin.

Inasmuch as Zale's has not yet explained why she was dismissed, the whole affair stinks to the heavens.

LonesomePolecat

04-14-2009, 10:35 AM

I can't even figure out what brazil is arguing. I don't think I care much, though.
It's a debating technique called doubt casting, i.e. trying to make an opponent's facts look doubtful or uncertain without producing any substantial reason for doubting them.

Malthus

04-14-2009, 10:35 AM

Heh, I've seen in a professional capacity very moving stories that turned out, on investigation, to be not what they appeared at first.

The example I'm thinking about is a case I was involved in many years ago as an articling student. The client was a lady who had taken mat leave (much more generous here in Canada than in the US) and was fired the day she came back - she had been with the company many years and was by all written accounts a stellar employee. Her claim was that her employer fired her because her mat leave was disrupting the business and the employer learned she planned on having further children, and so would prefer to have an employee who male or past having children - firing for this reason is not legal under Ontario law.

The timing of the firing ("welcome back - you're fired") certainly looked bad. She seemed to have an excellent case. The employer made some sort of lame argument in their Statement of Defence that the firing was for "cause" - unspecified misconduct - which just looked, without details, like insult heaped on injury.

It was the day before cross-examinations were to begin, the client dropped the bombshell - she was very nervous about being examined. Finally she confessed to her lawyers that she had, in fact, been skimming small amounts money from the business for years (she was their accountant), but was sufficiently clever at doing so that the boss had no proof - but when she went on mat leave, the replacement guy had gotten suspicious and the boss had believed him, even though the proof wasn't really forthcomming ... problem for the lawyer I was working for was what to do with the case? Can't counsel perjury. He basically was forced to suddenly settle the case.

It was a big blow to me at the time, having worked on the case and finding the lady's plight very sympathetic and the corporation unfeelingly callous - but it certainly taught me the lesson: never trust to first appearences. There may be more to the story.

Sauron

04-14-2009, 10:58 AM

Guinastasia

04-14-2009, 11:03 AM

Without revealing anything you consider private, how many situations like this one have you personally seen?

Let's see your's:

The other experience which informs my "bias," such as it is, is that through my job I have personally witnessed many claims very similar to that of this woman.

:dubious:

Sauron and Malthus, that may be, but so far, we have no evidence of such. And Zales has not provided any, nor have they even commented.

Sauron

04-14-2009, 11:13 AM

Sauron and Malthus, that may be, but so far, we have no evidence of such. And Zales has not provided any, nor have they even commented.

Yeah, I know, but that's kinda my point. Large companies tend to have teams of lawyers that will tell them to say absolutely nothing publicly in the early stages. Sometimes that's because the company screwed up, and they want to keep the damage as minimal as possible. Sometimes, though, it's because there's no reason for them to say anything. They know they'll be proven right.

brazil84

04-14-2009, 11:34 AM

Let's see your's:

:dubious:

I'm not sure what your point is. I've seen many situations similar to the one described here.

At the same time, I recognize that it's completely reasonable for you to be skeptical of claims made by a stranger which you see on the internet. I suggest that you should apply the same natural skepticism to the claims of this woman.

Really Not All That Bright

04-14-2009, 11:41 AM

He kinda has a point there.

GIGObuster

04-14-2009, 11:46 AM

Malthus makes a good point; frankly, so does brazil84. Zale's may be completely in the wrong here, but there also may be other circumstances we don't know yet. I know of a couple of instances where an employee was fired that seemed completely arbitrary and wrong.

In one case, the seemingly stellar ex-employee spent weeks badmouthing the company to anyone who would listen, including a media outlet. The company, on the advice of counsel, said absolutely nothing until the case was brought before a third party for adjutication. The opening statement by the company's lawyer consisted of him showing footage from several weeks' worth of security tapes. The model employee was seen clocking in and then immediately leaving the building. He'd return two or three hours later, work for a while, then leave again. He'd come back at the end of his shift to officially clock out.

He lost his case.

It was a big blow to me at the time, having worked on the case and finding the lady's plight very sympathetic and the corporation unfeelingly callous - but it certainly taught me the lesson: never trust to first appearences. There may be more to the story.
It is OK to be suspicions but here is a question, that if you guys think about it, shows where many on the thread are coming from and the point that I think you are ignoring:

Did the persons in the cases you described alert the media about their plight and did the media investigated and pointed to others that confirmed what was going on?

Incidentally the main point I'm coming from is how the company dealt with her health care rights, the issue of why she was fired is not clear.

brazil84

04-14-2009, 11:50 AM

Well, I don't deny it. But many employers have official policies only for window dressing, when their actual behavior is quite different.

That's true, but it's hard to imagine how an employer could conceal a violation of a policy against specific public comments. After all, a public comment is necessarily public.

Not long ago, I watched a video of a lawyer conducting a seminar that taught employers how to avoid hiring American citizens, so they could lie to the government about the necessity of hiring much cheaper immigrants. I'll bet every one of those employers had an official policy against discrimination on the basis of national origin.

There's no question that companies discriminate and retaliate left and right. But there are also a lot of frivolous discrimination and retaliation complaints.

Really Not All That Bright

04-14-2009, 11:52 AM

There's no question that companies discriminate and retaliate left and right. But there are also a lot of frivolous discrimination and retaliation complaints.
This is absolutely true. The majority of litigated workers' compensation claims are filed by people who've been terminated for cause and want to get back at their employers.

GIGObuster

04-14-2009, 11:55 AM

He kinda has a point there.
Of course, do not trust him. I explained why in this case (so far) I trust more the saleslady in this case than Brasil84.

Sauron

04-14-2009, 11:56 AM

Did the persons in the cases you described alert the media about their plight and did the media investigated and pointed to others that confirmed what was going on?

Well, yes ...

In one case, the seemingly stellar ex-employee spent weeks badmouthing the company to anyone who would listen, including a media outlet.

Some people refuse to believe they're in the wrong, regardless of what they've done, and they will self-righteously proclaim their innocence to all and sundry. Some media outlets will run with a story before confirming all details -- or will go with one side of the story, with the caveat "The company refused to comment."

In this (Zale's) case, if I'm remembering it properly, the media has confirmed the woman was a top salesperson, and that she got surgery, and she was fired. That doesn't mean it's the end of the story. It may be -- Zale's may be completely in the wrong here. Or it may be that she was skimming, or giving unauthorized discounts to friends and family members, or she outright stole merchandise from the company. The point is, we don't have all the data necessary to formulate an informed opinion.

lalenin

04-14-2009, 12:01 PM

There's no question that companies discriminate and retaliate left and right. But there are also a lot of frivolous discrimination and retaliation complaints.

I have absolutely no faith on corporations. For a while I did some work for a major retailer and was bothered by the data in one of the reports, it seemed that I was missing something. The numbers for unemployment claims against the company and the number of denied/under review unemployment claims were identical. I checked with the resident DBA who informed me that this major retailer's policy was to initially deny all unemployment claims, regardless of merit.

The end result of this policy was that, since unemployment can only be paid while the claimant is unemployed, a significant number of unemployment claims were never paid, since by the time the review was completed many claimants had already found other work.

I can't say if this illegal, but it certainly was disgusting.

Really Not All That Bright

04-14-2009, 12:01 PM

Of course, do not trust him. I explained why in this case (so far) I trust more the saleslady in this case than Brasil84.
That could be a logical position to take, depending on your view of b84. However, when it really comes down to it, we don't have enough information to condemn Zales right now. Sympathise with the employee, if you wish; her situation is obviously unfortunate regardless of whether her employer is screwing her.

However, as Sauron rightly notes above, we don't know anything about Zales' side of the story yet. If this woman was violating company policy, stealing, or whatever, they would be totally justified in firing her. We only have her representation of what she was told at her termination.
I checked with the resident DBA who informed me that this major retailer's policy was to initially deny all unemployment claims, regardless of merit.

The end result of this policy was that, since unemployment can only be paid while the claimant is unemployed, a significant number of unemployment claims were never paid, since by the time the review was completed many claimants had already found other work.

I can't say if this illegal, but it certainly was disgusting.
That's not an unusual policy with large employers. However, in most states, an employer has to document that the employee was terminated for cause (or was otherwise not entitled to unemployment) in order to deny an unemployment claim. They can't just issue blanket denials.

GIGObuster

04-14-2009, 12:14 PM

Well, yes ...

The issue here is that in your case you did not mention if the media that was alerted did confirm the the main points of the case or pointed to others that could confirm what was going on.
Some people refuse to believe they're in the wrong, regardless of what they've done, and they will self-righteously proclaim their innocence to all and sundry. Some media outlets will run with a story before confirming all details -- or will go with one side of the story, with the caveat "The company refused to comment."

In this (Zale's) case, if I'm remembering it properly, the media has confirmed the woman was a top salesperson, and that she got surgery, and she was fired. That doesn't mean it's the end of the story. It may be -- Zale's may be completely in the wrong here. Or it may be that she was skimming, or giving unauthorized discounts to friends and family members, or she outright stole merchandise from the company. The point is, we don't have all the data necessary to formulate an informed opinion.
What you are missing is that there are 2 issues, her firing and how she was treated regarding her health care needs, one issue is not clear. The other has not only the confirmation of the reporter but also, on context, the confirmation of the New York claims investigator.

Eva Luna

04-14-2009, 12:19 PM

This is absolutely true. The majority of litigated workers' compensation claims are filed by people who've been terminated for cause and want to get back at their employers.

Cite? I used to work for a worker's compensation law firm, and I saw quite a number of cases in which injured workers were still working for the employers.

Really Not All That Bright

04-14-2009, 12:24 PM

Cite? I used to work for a worker's compensation law firm, and I saw quite a number of cases in which injured workers were still working for the employers.
I still do.

Injured claimants usually don't bother retaining an attorney if they're happy with their employers. The number of litigated claims is vastly outnumbered by those in which the claimant goes off to a walk-in clinic, gets his stitches or whatever, and is back to work in a couple of weeks.

Actually, now that I think about it, that may only be applicable in Florida; we had legislation passed a while back limiting the amount of attorney's fees payable by the carrier, so there aren't as many WC attorneys advertising here as elsewhere.

Eva Luna

04-14-2009, 12:29 PM

I still do.

Injured claimants usually don't bother retaining an attorney if they're happy with their employers. The number of litigated claims is vastly outnumbered by those in which the claimant goes off to a walk-in clinic, gets his stitches or whatever, and is back to work in a couple of weeks.

Actually, now that I think about it, that may only be applicable in Florida; we had legislation passed a while back limiting the amount of attorney's fees payable by the carrier, so there aren't as many WC attorneys advertising here as elsewhere.

That's not exactly a cite. You said that the majority of litigated claims are those in which the employee was fired for cause and filed a WC claim as retribution. Do you really think there are so few litigated cases in which the worker is not fired at all but still has reason to file a WC claim (such as the employer refusing to pay for treatment, etc.), or is fired for reasons other than for cause? And if so, on what are you basing your statement other than your experience in the firm where you work?

GIGObuster

04-14-2009, 12:31 PM

That could be a logical position to take, depending on your view of b84. However, when it really comes down to it, we don't have enough information to condemn Zales right now. Sympathise with the employee, if you wish; her situation is obviously unfortunate regardless of whether her employer is screwing her.

However, as Sauron rightly notes above, we don't know anything about Zales' side of the story yet. If this woman was violating company policy, stealing, or whatever, they would be totally justified in firing her. We only have her representation of what she was told at her termination.

That's not an unusual policy with large employers. However, in most states, an employer has to document that the employee was terminated for cause (or was otherwise not entitled to unemployment) in order to deny an unemployment claim. They can't just issue blanket denials.
I can see your point, but this was not the only issue.

Speaking of personal experience, I once worked at a temp agency that refused to give me unemployment benefits after being dismissed several years ago from a phone company. At the hearing it turned out that the lady that was in charge of my case at the temp agency forgot to mention the detail that I had gone to her office to record in person the required information they needed to process the unemployment claim (I got the email evidence that she contacted me later acknowledging that I had gone to her office and the reason for it).

I won the case.

I can make the educated guess that there are many cases of convenient forgetfulness. I did not demand or begged to get my old job back, the issue, as I think this is, is the underhanded things many employers try to get away with after the firing of an employee, regardless if the firing was justified or not.

Sauron

04-14-2009, 12:31 PM

The issue here is that in your case you did not mention if the media that was alerted did confirm the the main points of the case or pointed to others that could confirm what was going on.

Fair enough. In my case, the media outlet (a small-market television station) ran a couple of stories prior to the adjutication. The grandfatherly ex-employee looked very believable on-screen, and it was very easy to cast him in the good-guy role -- especially since the company continued to no-comment the story. I don't remember a story running after the results of the adjutication hearing, but there could've been one I just didn't see.

What you are missing is that there are 2 issues, her firing and how she was treated regarding her health care needs, one issue is not clear. The other has not only the confirmation of the reporter but also, on context, the confirmation of the New York claims investigator.

I think you're confused over how COBRA works. Having the paperwork in-hand to start the COBRA filing process means squat. The woman would be covered under COBRA assuming she paid the back premiums once she filed the paperwork. In other words, Zale's wasn't preventing her from having the surgery whenever she scheduled it; she would've had health insurance under COBRA once she filed the paperwork, even if Zale's had taken 60 days to get the paperwork to her.

Really Not All That Bright

04-14-2009, 12:38 PM

That's not exactly a cite. You said that the majority of litigated claims are those in which the employee was fired for cause and filed a WC claim as retribution. Do you really think there are so few litigated cases in which the worker is not fired at all but still has reason to file a WC claim (such as the employer refusing to pay for treatment, etc.), or is fired for reasons other than for cause? And if so, on what are you basing your statement other than your experience in the firm where you work?
Sorry. I misread your previous post. I'll take back the assertion that those cases are a majority, although IMHO they might be.

We're talking about something pretty subjective here, since there's no way to tell if a claimant was actually injured or not unless you look at the records on a case-by-case basis. Since we can't do that, and 99% of these cases never make it to trial, I can't think of any way that I could back the original statement up (or that anyone could disprove it).

brazil84

04-14-2009, 01:06 PM

I have absolutely no faith on corporations.

You shouldn't, but nor should you have faith in the stories of disgruntled ex-employees.

Bricker

04-14-2009, 01:12 PM

To be fair though, Bricker, brazil84 has a history of being a moron. You're much more eloquent and capable of putting together a more persuasive argument, that actually makes SENSE.

It may sound biased against him, but I guess what I mean is, well, you're more intelligent, and able to get your point across. He is not.

Thank you for the compliment. Here's my point: there is a good way to rebut [brazil84[/b]'s argument, and a useless way. Here's an example of a good rebuttal:

I do recognize that "likely" != "must". But since I would say there is more evidence supporting her story than not, I would argue that your bias is showing.

Here's an example of a useless counterargument:

For the purpose of messageboard debate, yes.

(In response to the question of whether a claim of 'likely' is the same as 'certain.'

Malthus

04-14-2009, 01:16 PM

Sauron and Malthus, that may be, but so far, we have no evidence of such. And Zales has not provided any, nor have they even commented.

Well, certainly it may be the case that they are keeping quiet because they are dead guilty and have nothing to say. I don't know.

I suspect that they are keeping quiet on advice from their lawyers not to say anything until it has been thoroughly reviewed and checked, and maybe not until it has been proven in court.

Think of it this way: if the employee's claims to the media turn out to be totally bogus, the company (or the affected individuals) would not be in a position to sue the employee for libel - for one, she is likely to be impecunious, and for another, it would look terrible from a PR perspective.

OTOH, if the company starts to publicly accuse the employee of wrong-doing, and then fails to prove it in court - they may be subject to legal consequences. They have deep pockets and if they are found to have libelled this woman, they may be on the hook for wrongful termination *and* libel.

I dunno, as libel law is particularly complex and differs by jurisdiction (such statements may or may not be subject to "qualified privilege"). But it may be a possible reason why they will not comment right off the bat.

billfish678

04-14-2009, 01:28 PM

I think you're confused over how COBRA works. Having the paperwork in-hand to start the COBRA filing process means squat. The woman would be covered under COBRA assuming she paid the back premiums once she filed the paperwork. In other words, Zale's wasn't preventing her from having the surgery whenever she scheduled it; she would've had health insurance under COBRA once she filed the paperwork, even if Zale's had taken 60 days to get the paperwork to her.

Yeah, it may work that way, buttt...

You gonna get an expensive ass surgery when the company that FIRED you hasnt yet sent the paperwork yet?

Oh, don't worry, we will get it to you by the 60th day....we promise, because we wuvs you so berry berry much.

brazil84

04-14-2009, 01:49 PM

There are a lot of very good reasons why a large employer might have (and follow) a policy against a specific reply to an accusation like this.

In addition to what's been said already, the employer might not be confident it has all the facts yet. For example, an in-house attorney has probably interviewed the district manager by now. However, the in-house attorney is probably not an idiot and is therefore is skeptical of what the DM said. The attorney knows that the DM is a human being and quite likely spun, exaggerated, or even lied about what happened in order to put himself or herself in a better light. Even if the truth of the situation is very favorable to Zales, that attorney does not want to get his or her client into a situation where a document later contradicts the DM's story.

Even if Zale's is confident of the facts, they might also be concerned about being accused of violating the woman's privacy rights or defaming her. For example if she was discharged failing a drug test lying about a medical condition.

And even if the first two things are not a concern, there is still the big picture to think about. If they comment specifically about this case, it damages their credibility in the future if they deny comment on another case.

Boyo Jim

04-14-2009, 02:07 PM

OMG, Bricker is quoting ME! Where are my pills?

Rand Rover

04-14-2009, 02:15 PM

There may be more to the story.

Not on the SDMB there's not. Employers and "teh corporations" are bad, and employs and the unemployed are good. That's how it works. Facts are unnecessary. Implying that one should withhold judgment until the facts are in is heresy.

Carol the Impaler

04-14-2009, 02:32 PM

Yeah, it may work that way, buttt...

You gonna get an expensive ass surgery when the company that FIRED you hasnt yet sent the paperwork yet?

Oh, don't worry, we will get it to you by the 60th day....we promise, because we wuvs you so berry berry much.

Well, my question is if she was fired while her insurance was still in effect. If her premium had already been paid, she could've had the surgery before it ran out and wouldn't COBRA then be moot? It's not like your insurance necessarily is cancelled the day you leave employment. Of course, we'll never know the answer to this question...

Also, doesn't not sending COBRA paperwork by the deadline mean a law suit on top of everything?

billfish678

04-14-2009, 02:48 PM

Well, my question is if she was fired while her insurance was still in effect. If her premium had already been paid, she could've had the surgery before it ran out and wouldn't COBRA then be moot? It's not like your insurance necessarily is cancelled the day you leave employment. Of course, we'll never know the answer to this question...

Also, doesn't not sending COBRA paperwork by the deadline mean a law suit on top of everything?

How the system works and how she thought it works are two different things.

Its not out the realm of reasonablness to assume that you loose insurance when you loose your job. Nor is it to be surprised that you can retroactively pay your cobra after 2 months or whatever.

And besides, are you gonna do something expensive if somebody says "hey, its in your rights, you can just sue em later for the money"? I know I'd think twice. Hell, I WON a court case and never saw a dime.

And then there is the hospital. You were fired? You don't have the Cobra paperwork yet? Oh, the company is sending it to you, you'll get it on time, and you promise to pay the premium after we have done the surgery? Sure, honey step right in....:rolleyes:

I dont' know about any of the other story details, but the surgery part seems damn understandable/possible from my point of view.

brazil84

04-14-2009, 02:55 PM

Also, doesn't not sending COBRA paperwork by the deadline mean a law suit on top of everything?

Potentially, but the time limit is apparently 60 days. Since this woman was apparently separated from employment in March, the employer would probably* not be in default even if the COBRA paperwork were still not sent.

*When I use the word "probably," I mean the normal English meaning of the word and not the Fear Itself / Guinistasia meaning.

Sauron

04-14-2009, 02:56 PM

And besides, are you gonna do something expensive if somebody says "hey, its in your rights, you can just sue em later for the money"?

If I'm told I need life-saving surgery, I'm not going to worry at that point about paying for it. I'll cross that bridge after the surgery is done.

And then there is the hospital. You were fired? You don't have the Cobra paperwork yet? Oh, the company is sending it to you, you'll get it on time, and you promise to pay the premium after we have done the surgery? Sure, honey step right in...

I would be willing to bet that every hospital in the U.S. is familiar with COBRA situations, and wouldn't bat an eye at this.

Bricker

04-14-2009, 03:46 PM

OMG, Bricker is quoting ME! Where are my pills?

Favorably, no less! :D

billfish678

04-14-2009, 03:58 PM

If I'm told I need life-saving surgery, I'm not going to worry at that point about paying for it. I'll cross that bridge after the surgery is done.

I would be willing to bet that every hospital in the U.S. is familiar with COBRA situations, and wouldn't bat an eye at this.

I am not arguing what a well informed person would do. Or a Vulcan not worried about medical bills or lawyers.

Hell, I know people who balk at signing a contract for cable without ALL the details.

Not going in for major surgery without all the paperwork in order? Sounds reasonable to me.

You do know there is a range between major surgery you MUST do NOW or DIE, Do soon or die, or just get done reasonably soon right?

Sauron

04-14-2009, 04:38 PM

You do know there is a range between major surgery you MUST do NOW or DIE, Do soon or die, or just get done reasonably soon right?

Sure. My point is, Zale's is being vilified for not getting COBRA information to the woman within a two-week period. If the need for surgery was such that ANY delay could cause her to die (which is the way her son portrayed the situation to the newspaper), then don't wait on bureaucratic nonsense to have the surgery. On the other hand, if the surgery can be safely postponed a few days or weeks, then don't criticize Zale's for not responding immediately.

I don't know how Zale's handles their insurance premiums, but every place I've ever worked cut my pay in advance for health insurance. In other words, on my March 15 check, I paid for my health insurance through the upcoming pay period (the end of March). If Zale's does the same type of thing, there shouldn't have been any problem with the woman having the surgery on 3/26 if she was fired on 3/14. Which is what niblet_headwas saying earlier.

JohnT

04-14-2009, 07:29 PM

My stepmother, finalist for the "most incompetent executive ever (who didn't cost the taxpayers billions) award" had these final words to say to a 14-year employee, the second person hired when the company moved to Knoxville, when said employee requested 3 weeks off for an operation:

"You do realize you probably won't have a job when you get back."

Said employee was laid off, by phone, 3 days prior to her return.

HOWEVER, there is a happy ending (kind of): Employee hated working there and said the call lifted a whole world of weight off her shoulders, she was dreading having to return that much. Hell, apparently she was in therapy the last 4 years because of job stress!

Boyo Jim

04-14-2009, 11:56 PM

Favorably, no less! :D

Ah, that calls for different pills.

jsgoddess

04-15-2009, 01:51 PM

How the system works and how she thought it works are two different things.

Its not out the realm of reasonablness to assume that you loose insurance when you loose your job. Nor is it to be surprised that you can retroactively pay your cobra after 2 months or whatever.

Since she went to the media and since there was an article, shouldn't someone, somewhere maybe have asked the question about how COBRA works before running the article?

I'm sure this post will be ignored just like my earlier ones on the subject.

Beware of Doug

04-15-2009, 02:10 PM

Not on the SDMB there's not. Employers and "teh corporations" are bad, and employs and the unemployed are good. That's how it works. Facts are unnecessary. Implying that one should withhold judgment until the facts are in is heresy.What is truly unnecessary is any notion of moral "oughts." Especially if it values individual wellbeing over the production of wealth. What is right consists entirely in who is judged to be telling the truth - all questions of illness, bureaucratic bumbling, or vengeful cost-cutting aside.

I don't like it, but it's the way things get done.

Carol the Impaler

04-15-2009, 02:38 PM

Since she went to the media and since there was an article, shouldn't someone, somewhere maybe have asked the question about how COBRA works before running the article?

I'm sure this post will be ignored just like my earlier ones on the subject.

Why ruin a great story with the facts? Then all the peoples wouldn't get all hepped up. Then where would we be? Stuck with White House Portuguese Water Dog stories....

Sauron

04-15-2009, 02:44 PM

Since she went to the media and since there was an article, shouldn't someone, somewhere maybe have asked the question about how COBRA works before running the article?

I'm sure this post will be ignored just like my earlier ones on the subject.

Yep, and for that I fault the media outlet/reporter. The story is shoddy on many levels, frankly;

1) It quotes the son as saying "They're turning my mother's health coverage back on today"; if Zales did that, it was a magnanimous gesture on their part. You can argue that they did it because they knew they were in the wrong, and that may be true. The point is, if Zales continued her health coverage, she had no need of COBRA information to have her surgery, and that entire aspect of the story becomes moot.

2) The reporter says Camilleri had "nearly a dozen" commendations from Zales. That's either lazy reporting or the reporter's bias showing through. Camilleri had 11 commendations. Say that.

3) If the reporter made any attempt to talk to Camilleri's doctor to confirm her statements regarding her condition, we don't know about it. Maybe she did, and maybe the doctor refused comment. We have only Camilleri's word (and the word of her son) to judge how serious her condition is/was.

4) The quote from the New York Insurance Department official is framed to make it appear they pressured Zales (at the behest of the newspaper) to get this resolved. A literal reading of the quote, though ("We'd put pressure on the relevant parties to do the right thing") shows that the official is indicating what his department would do in a hypothetical situation -- not what they actually did for Camilleri. My guess is, the NYID did nothing here, because there was nothing to do.

5) Finally (and this may be just a journalistic bias on my part) the paper/reporter seems very self-congratulatory on their role in getting Camilleri covered by COBRA (which was never in question anyway).

All in all, it was a terrible piece of reporting, with no apparent fact-checking done at all.

brazil84

04-15-2009, 04:08 PM

The story is shoddy on many levels, frankly;

Probably* my biggest gripe about the article is that, as far as I can tell, it omits a critical piece of information, specifically what the woman says was Zale's official reason for discharge. The woman should have been asked something along the lines of this:

"when you were let go, what reason did they give you?"

or

"what did they accuse you of doing wrong when they fired you?"

Her answer should have been printed, in my opinion.

* when I use the word "probably," I mean the normal English use of the word and not the Fear Itself / Guinistasia definition.

Typo Negative

04-15-2009, 06:45 PM

Count me in with the folks who say there has to be more to this story.

I can't imagine that any company would fire a proven performer for a medical claim. From the details in the OP, sketchy as they may be, it would seem that any savings would be wiped out by loss in sales. And firing someone because they need surgery seems actionable. Any savings would be likely be spent defending a lawsuit, even if they were successful.

As I understand Cobra, she's covered on her original plan for a number of months, so long as pays the premium. Her not getting the paperwork immediately would not mean a gap in coverage.

Even if I am to belive that Zales is an evil company, the story, as written, makes no sense.

Rand Rover

04-15-2009, 07:05 PM

I notice that Guin hasn't come 'round these parts now that cooler (and fuller) heads are posting. A new shiny RO-worthy object probably has her attention.

jsgoddess

04-15-2009, 07:08 PM

I notice that Guin hasn't come 'round these parts now that cooler (and fuller) heads are posting. A new shiny RO-worthy object probably has her attention.

Since we're sharing observations, I notice that you are really creepy.

Algorithm

04-15-2009, 07:25 PM

I can't imagine that any company would fire a proven performer for a medical claim. From the details in the OP, sketchy as they may be, it would seem that any savings would be wiped out by loss in sales.

This is what makes it stupid to reflexively blame Zales. Even if you presuppose the "evil" nature of corporations, assume they don't care about the bad publicity, the possibility of a lawsuit, and just plain don't give a shit about anything other than increasing the bottom line, firing that woman did not make any sense. It's illogical no matter what point you start from.

GIGObuster

04-15-2009, 09:01 PM

Guinastasia

04-15-2009, 09:45 PM

I notice that Guin hasn't come 'round these parts now that cooler (and fuller) heads are posting. A new shiny RO-worthy object probably has her attention.

I'm still here. I simply have nothing new to add at present. Unlike others, snide generalizations.

Rand Rover

04-15-2009, 09:58 PM

I'm still here. I simply have nothing new to add at present. Unlike others, snide generalizations.

You didn't have anything to add before you started this thread, but that didn't stop you.

Broomstick

04-15-2009, 10:11 PM

This is what makes it stupid to reflexively blame Zales. Even if you presuppose the "evil" nature of corporations, assume they don't care about the bad publicity, the possibility of a lawsuit, and just plain don't give a shit about anything other than increasing the bottom line, firing that woman did not make any sense. It's illogical no matter what point you start from.
You are assuming that the manager is operating in a logical manner. Of course, one always hopes this is the case, but there are many exceptions.

I have seen managers scheme ways to fire people for people younger than them, prettier than them, for having a different religion (yes, I know that's illegal. So do they, but they're doing "The Lord's Work"), different skin color (yes, I know that's illegal, too), having hobbies they don't approve of, political views they don't agree with (yes, also illegal), a different taste in clothing, for buying a car better than the manager's, for smoking, for having pets, for not donating to the manager's favorite charities, and yes, for having the audacity to get sick or injured. Little or none of it makes sense, but managers are human beings and some of them make decisions based more on emotion and prejudice than reason.

As for the OP - it looks suspicious to me that she got fired at the same time as this health problem required time off, but we don't know all the details.

Sauron

04-15-2009, 10:25 PM

You are assuming that the manager is operating in a logical manner. Of course, one always hopes this is the case, but there are many exceptions.

Yep. I've seen this, too, and that's why I'm withholding any judgement on this situation. It's entirely possible the new regional manager fired the woman because it would provide a short-term boost to his/her sales/expense ration (a scenario GIGObuster has mentioned). Stupid and short-sighted, but that kind of stuff happens a lot.

Guinastasia

04-15-2009, 10:29 PM

You didn't have anything to add before you started this thread, but that didn't stop you.

And you did?

What the hell do you do-follow me around from thread to thread?

Rand Rover

04-15-2009, 10:31 PM

And you did?

This doesn't make any sense.

What the hell do you do-follow me around from thread to thread?

No. But every post I read of yours is just brimming with ignorance, so, good doper that I am, I'm fighting it.

Fear Itself

04-15-2009, 10:39 PM

No. But every post I read of yours is just brimming with ignorance, so, good doper that I am, I'm fighting it.You can fight fire with fire; but, fight ignorance with ignorance? Not so much.

Beware of Doug

04-15-2009, 11:22 PM

Algorithm

04-15-2009, 11:35 PM

You are assuming that the manager is operating in a logical manner. Of course, one always hopes this is the case, but there are many exceptions.
Actually, I'm assuming the superiors to the manager who did the firing are operating in a logical manner. They likely would have remedied this mistake if there was no problem with this star employee.

Companies don't always act in their own best interests. They care about covering their asses and acting out their culture as much as the bottom line, and quite often, more. Corporate managers care about getting bonuses, implementing policy, justifying their actions whatever the cost to the company or anyone else, and failing that, covering their own asses.
Yes, and this situation is about as far from covering one's own ass as one could get.

brazil84

04-16-2009, 06:13 AM

I have seen managers scheme ways to fire people for people younger than them, prettier than them, for having a different religion (yes, I know that's illegal. So do they, but they're doing "The Lord's Work"), different skin color (yes, I know that's illegal, too), having hobbies they don't approve of, political views they don't agree with (yes, also illegal), a different taste in clothing, for buying a car better than the manager's, for smoking, for having pets, for not donating to the manager's favorite charities, and yes, for having the audacity to get sick or injured. Little or none of it makes sense, but managers are human beings and some of them make decisions based more on emotion and prejudice than reason.

I agree with you on this point. Also, some managers see a leave request as an indication of disloyalty.

But the thing is this: If we are accept that the manager is a human being, we should also accept that the ex-employee is a human being. Which means there is a pretty good chance* that she is spinning, exaggerating, or even lying to put herself in a better light and to put Zale's in a worse light.

*When I say "pretty good chance," I mean it in the normal, English sense of the phrase. As opposed to the Fear Itself / Guinistasia definition.

Guinastasia

04-16-2009, 02:10 PM

*When I say "pretty good chance," I mean it in the normal, English sense of the phrase. As opposed to the Fear Itself / Guinistasia definition.

Which would be....???

Algorithm

04-16-2009, 02:35 PM

brazil84

04-16-2009, 02:51 PM

SteveG1

04-17-2009, 03:57 PM

Given that she had $1,000,000 in sales in 2008 and was terminated one week after asking for time off for surgery, I know what my judgement is.
If I owned the company, I'd hire her back and fire the manager. Dollars and cents, common sense, profit and loss and all that.

Sauron

04-17-2009, 04:12 PM

If I owned the company, I'd hire her back and fire the manager. Dollars and cents, common sense, profit and loss and all that.

Would you hire her back if she'd been stealing from the company?

brazil84

04-17-2009, 04:27 PM

If I owned the company, I'd hire her back and fire the manager. Dollars and cents, common sense, profit and loss and all that.

It's ironic that you should say that, because often it's firing people without sufficient thought or consideration that causes these sorts of problems in the first place.

Dante

04-18-2009, 09:08 PM

I believe post #31 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11029112&postcount=31) (and the ensuing discussion on page 1) is the reason for brazil84's disclaimer. A few posters interpreted the phrase "pretty good chance of X" to mean "X is necessarily true".

Here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=502519) you can see brazil84's sing the same tune to you with the face. Posts 31 & 33. Apparently, "Not necessarily" is equal to "No".

Guinastasia

04-18-2009, 09:46 PM

Here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=502519) you can see brazil84's sing the same tune to you with the face. Posts 31 & 33. Apparently, "Not necessarily" is equal to "No".

And it goes downhill from there. (The death penalty is sexist, apparently.)

SteveG1

04-20-2009, 10:22 AM

Would you hire her back if she'd been stealing from the company?

Oh, HELL no.

Sauron

04-20-2009, 11:24 AM

Oh, HELL no.

And that wasn't a fair question, either. I'm speculating wildly, which I shouldn't do.

I seriously doubt we ever hear the resolution to this.

brazil84

04-20-2009, 11:51 AM

I seriously doubt we ever hear the resolution to this.

I agree. If her case has any merit, it will probably* be quietly settled with a confidentiality agreement.

*When I say "probably," I mean the normal English meaning and not the Fear Itself / Guinistasia definition.

. .

By the way, I don't engage with or respond to this poster due to his or her past dishonesty. I am happy to provide a link as appropriate.

Dante

04-20-2009, 12:41 PM

By the way, I don't engage with or respond to this poster due to his or her past dishonesty. I am happy to provide a link as appropriate.Let me guess. I pulled and squeezed and hurt your neck? In 1988?

You're a troll, you're a coward, you're a racist, and you're intellectually dishonest. What you're doing on this message board is beyond me.

Go hide your face in your serious injury book, and keep it hidden there while the grownups talk.

glilly

04-20-2009, 11:43 PM

If I owned the company, I'd hire her back and fire the manager. Dollars and cents, common sense, profit and loss and all that.

This thread has put our saleswoman as either wronged star employee or possible felon. But people can be justifiably fired without committing criminal acts.

One problem sometimes faced by managers is the star performer who is a jerk. They may perform exceptionally at their assignments, but drive other workers away or gain sales at the expense of the other salespeople. Management professors (like Robert Sutton in "The No Asshole Rule") argue these people cost the company more than they gain and should be purged.

If that were the case here (and I'm not arguing it is as I have no evidence that it is so), then our saleswoman's facts (awards, etc.) could be all correct yet still fired for (good) cause. Even if she were given this cause on termination (and previous reviews), she may believe it was a cover for a dishonest termination.

But as said, we'll probably never know. I don't think I've EVER heard of a company publicly discuss a (non-executive) termination except as part of a lawsuit.

runner pat

05-01-2009, 11:53 AM

Voyager

05-01-2009, 03:53 PM

Update (http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090424/BIZ/904240370/-1/NEWS). Still not resolved.

Main points; Zales is claiming she was fired for misbehavior and written up for such but has not released documentation to her lawyer.

Zales also tried to deny her unemployment benefits but again failed to provide documentation.

I just read through the reader comments on this. Of 160 comments, only one person (plus one sock) supported Zales, with spurious arguments. She claimed to work in the same mall, and claims to know the fired lady and others who work there. Supposedly the firing was done for being overly aggressive and doing things like selling maintenance agreements without consent and claiming jewelry was gold plated when it wasn't. However it seems hard for me to imagine that someone with $1M in sales can do it without return business.
Also, copies of any formal writeups are given to the employee, at least in large companies. It is hard for me to believe she was on some sort of performance improvement plan and getting awards at the same time. It is also hard to believe that even if she was on a plan or was being warned, she'd be fired a week after asking for leave. That's just evil.

The interesting stuff is on the last two pages of comments. The rest of the comments are calling for a boycott of Zales and possible demonstration against them Memorial Day.

SteveG1

05-01-2009, 04:09 PM

And that wasn't a fair question, either. I'm speculating wildly, which I shouldn't do.

I seriously doubt we ever hear the resolution to this.
I imagine it will grind on in some court room, and we will have long since moved on to some other subject.

SteveG1

05-01-2009, 04:16 PM

This thread has put our saleswoman as either wronged star employee or possible felon. But people can be justifiably fired without committing criminal acts.

One problem sometimes faced by managers is the star performer who is a jerk. They may perform exceptionally at their assignments, but drive other workers away or gain sales at the expense of the other salespeople. Management professors (like Robert Sutton in "The No Asshole Rule") argue these people cost the company more than they gain and should be purged.

If that were the case here (and I'm not arguing it is as I have no evidence that it is so), then our saleswoman's facts (awards, etc.) could be all correct yet still fired for (good) cause. Even if she were given this cause on termination (and previous reviews), she may believe it was a cover for a dishonest termination.

But as said, we'll probably never know. I don't think I've EVER heard of a company publicly discuss a (non-executive) termination except as part of a lawsuit.
I like the No Asshole Rule. Some people are just. not. worth. it. I've had to work with a few (fortunately only a few), and when you really really look, they usually weren't such stars after all. They had just managed to convince someone that they were. I had one of them try to steal MY work once, but I was already wise to the situation and set her up. I sent a "pre release" to my bosses, and left a really awful pile of garbage on my desk for her to steal (and she did). BUSTED :D

And then there was the office bully who constantly disrupted work and made a habit of physically threatening people.

As for this lady, I don't dare claim to know more than anyone else here. but on the face of it, I'd have been leery of firing her. I'd be very very sure I had all the CYA's and "Pearl Harbor files" in place, just in case.

The Flying Dutchman

05-01-2009, 11:53 PM

brazil84

05-02-2009, 03:27 AM

Also, copies of any formal writeups are given to the employee, at least in large companies.

Sure at the time of the writeup. But down the road, after the employee's job has ended, many employers will refuse to provide copies of this sort of stuff.

Which is probably a pretty good strategy on the company's part.

It is hard for me to believe she was on some sort of performance improvement plan and getting awards at the same time.

I've seen it happen many times that an employee was discharged for legitimate reasons despite being a star performer or an employee of the month or something.

It is also hard to believe that even if she was on a plan or was being warned, she'd be fired a week after asking for leave.

I've seen stuff like this happen many times too. Sometimes the official reason for discharge is a pretext. More often than not, it isn't. With big employers, anyway.

Anyway, reading between the lines of the articles, it seems pretty clear that the employer here will be able to offer a legitimate reason for the discharge and it will be up to this woman to show that the reason is a pretext.

What's suspsicious to me is that none of the articles contain this official reason. For example, the woman could have said "when they fired me, they told me it was for violating the employee discount policy, but I never did so." Or something like that. Usually when that information is not disclosed, it's damaging to the employee. (Of course here, it's hard to tell if the reporter even asked that question.)

runner pat

05-02-2009, 12:45 PM

Zales has stated she was fired for misbehavior and tried to deny her unemployment benefits on that basis.

From the New York Dept. of Labor website (http://www.labor.state.ny.us/ui/claimantinfo/beforeyouapplyfaq.shtm).

You were fired because your employer alleged that you violated a company policy, rule or procedure, such as absenteeism or insubordination; because of a disagreement or dispute with a boss or co-worker; or you were fired for any other reason.

Zales would not or could not provide the required documentation to the NY DOL in support of their claim. After making the reason public, why not?

From the article (http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090424/BIZ/904240370/-1/NEWS) I linked to before.

Finally, Zales denied Camilleri's unemployment benefits, claiming she was fired for misbehavior.

"I talked to their attorney twice," said Quartaro. "She claimed there was a record of Rose being written up. I requested copies of that, and I never received them."

Because Zale did not document its claim, Camilleri now collects unemployment.

brazil84

05-02-2009, 01:53 PM

Zales has stated she was fired for misbehavior and tried to deny her unemployment benefits on that basis.

All that means is that someone working for Zales (probably* an employee of TALX) checked off "misconduct" on the notice of potential charges transmitted by the New York State Department of Labor.

What would happen next is that a questionnaire would be generated and sent to Zale's agent (probably* TALX UC Services in St. Louis). If that questionnaire is not returned within a week or two, the claim would normally be determined in favor of the claimant based upon available information.

It would appear that's what happened here.

Note that neither a Notice of Potential Charges nor a questionnaire would be a public document. Moreover, it's very common for employers -- particularly large retailers -- to fail to return these questionnaires. For any number of non-nefarious reasons. The most common reason being that TALX handles hundreds, if not thousands of claims a week and many fall through the cracks. For example, if the TALX employee can't track down and contact the claimant's supervisor to get further information about the separation. Or if the case is flagged as having a potential for litigation, the employer's legal department might decide not to contest the claim for unemployment insurance.

Zales would not or could not provide the required documentation to the NY DOL in support of their claim. After making the reason public, why not?

See above. The agency to whom Zales must respond is the EEOC (or the State Division of Human Rights). If Zales fails to provide information to those agencies, then yes, it may be reasonable to infer that they are in the wrong.

*when I use the word "probably," I intend it in the normal English sense of the word, and not the Fear Itself / Guinistasia definition.

Guinastasia

05-02-2009, 10:16 PM

*when I use the word "probably," I intend it in the normal English sense of the word, and not the Fear Itself / Guinistasia definition.

Your little schtick is no longer cute, and is quite tiresome. We get it already.

Voyager

05-03-2009, 01:20 AM

Sure at the time of the writeup. But down the road, after the employee's job has ended, many employers will refuse to provide copies of this sort of stuff.

Which is probably a pretty good strategy on the company's part.

You think so? Do you think that if a lawsuit proceeds the company would not have to present this information? There can be no claim of confidentiality, since they would have already given it to her. I was involved in a case, in another state, where it would have been very helpful to have been able to refuse to provide information. Maybe our lawyer was dumb, but it was not even presented as a possibility.

She also has no record of any warnings or plans, or threw it away, or is lying to her attorney. Maybe, but not likely.

I've seen it happen many times that an employee was discharged for legitimate reasons despite being a star performer or an employee of the month or something.

There are plenty of reasons for immediate termination for cause which could happen even to star performers - but which clearly wasn't happening here. I have a hard time imagining that a madwoman, as described by one of the posters in the comments, could sell a million bucks worth of jewelry.

I've seen stuff like this happen many times too. Sometimes the official reason for discharge is a pretext. More often than not, it isn't. With big employers, anyway.

I'm surprised that Zales gave a reason. Usually they can refuse to give one to the press for reasons of confidentiality - but not to the person.

Anyway, reading between the lines of the articles, it seems pretty clear that the employer here will be able to offer a legitimate reason for the discharge and it will be up to this woman to show that the reason is a pretext.

I'd bet they'd settle. Unless she was shooting up in full view of customers or something, there is precious little that would justify firing someone with a critical heart problem. Zales would lose a lot more in business there than they would ever save from not paying her. Publicly the company stands as one, while negotiations are going on, but I bet the moron who fired her is not going to get a good review.

In this case, since she worked in public, it should not be hard to get a bunch of her customers to testify what a nice person she is. One of the posters in the comments section did not have good things to say about the other workers.

What's suspsicious to me is that none of the articles contain this official reason. For example, the woman could have said "when they fired me, they told me it was for violating the employee discount policy, but I never did so." Or something like that. Usually when that information is not disclosed, it's damaging to the employee. (Of course here, it's hard to tell if the reporter even asked that question.)
I got the impression that she wasn't given a reason. Zales I'm sure fires lots of people for very good reasons, and it boggles the mind that they don't fully document legitimate causes. Not being able to document her firing - either to her or the DoL - stinks to high heavens. I see you agree.

brazil84

05-03-2009, 07:42 AM

You think so?

Absolutely.

Do you think that if a lawsuit proceeds the company would not have to present this information?

No, but there are a lot of advantages in delaying. For one thing, it's helpful to keep the employee and her attorney in the dark when they prepare her EEOC charge. That way there is a better chance she will swear to something which is later contradicted by a document. Instead of being able to tailor her story.

For another, if you are an attorney, you want your client to tell his or her story as few times as possible. Even an honest person's story changes a bit from telling to telling.

There can be no claim of confidentiality, since they would have already given it to her. I was involved in a case, in another state, where it would have been very helpful to have been able to refuse to provide information. Maybe our lawyer was dumb, but it was not even presented as a possibility.

Was there a subpoena, a document request, or some other legal process requesting the information? Then yeah, you have to turn it over. But if it's just a pissed off former employee asking for her file so she can explore the possibility of a lawsuit, a New York employer has no obligation to turn the information over.

She also has no record of any warnings or plans, or threw it away, or is lying to her attorney. Maybe, but not likely.

You gotta be kidding me. People lie about these all the time. I've lost count of the number of people who claimed to have a clean disciplinary record, only to have an employer pull out a stack of writeups. Besides, where in the article does this woman claim to have a clean disciplinary record? I don't recall such a claim.

Even if she did make such a claim, there is no reason to automatically believe her. Suppose she is saying she had a clean record. The employer is apparently saying that she did have a record. Why should we believe her and assume the employer is lying?

There are plenty of reasons for immediate termination for cause which could happen even to star performers - but which clearly wasn't happening here.

I don't see how you can reasonably say that having only heard this woman's side of the story.

I'm surprised that Zales gave a reason. Usually they can refuse to give one to the press for reasons of confidentiality - but not to the person.

I'm not sure what your point is here. 95% of employers in New York give a reason at the time of discharge to an employee who is fired. Usually it's done orally.

I'd bet they'd settle.

That may very well be, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are in the wrong.

Unless she was shooting up in full view of customers or something, there is precious little that would justify firing someone with a critical heart problem.

That's nonsense. Someone with a heart problem might be fired for any reason a healthy person might be fired. People get fired from jobs all the time.

I got the impression that she wasn't given a reason.

What gives you that impression? The article doesn't say, one way or another. As noted above, the vast majority of New York employers will give a reason at the time of discharge. Besides, the article could have quoted her as saying "and they didn't give me any reason!!" But it didn't.

Zales I'm sure fires lots of people for very good reasons, and it boggles the mind that they don't fully document legitimate causes.

You don't know yet if a legitimate reason was or wasn't documented. As noted above, the (apparent) fact that such documentation was not provided to this woman or to the DOL doesn't necessarily mean anything. The question is whether such documentation is presented to the EEOC (or to the State Division of Human Rights).

I see you agree.

No I do not. Please read my post above about unemployment insurance.

brazil84

05-03-2009, 07:51 AM

Your little schtick is no longer cute, and is quite tiresome. We get it already.

Who is "we"? Are you saying that you now admit that I was correct and reasonable to state that for me, "X is probably true" has a different meaning from "X must be true"?

Because if so, it would appear you owe me an apology.

IvoryTowerDenizen

05-03-2009, 08:10 AM

Who is "we"?

Don't know about the rest of the world, but you can count me among the "we" and I don't even care who is right and who is wrong.

FWIW and I have no dog in this fight, it makes me want to skip over your posts.

Polycarp

05-03-2009, 08:23 AM

brazil84

05-03-2009, 08:34 AM

Don't know about the rest of the world, but you can count me among the "we" and I don't even care who is right and who is wrong.

FWIW and I have no dog in this fight, it makes me want to skip over your posts.

I don't understand your point, but if you think it's reasonable to intentionally misinterpret my posts, then please, by all means, skip over them and do not respond.

IvoryTowerDenizen

05-03-2009, 08:50 AM

I don't understand your point, but if you think it's reasonable to intentionally misinterpret my posts, then please, by all means, skip over them and do not respond.

Excuse me? I'm not intentionally misinterpreting your posts???

I find it tiresome when someone beats a dead horse- which is what you seem to be doing. Even if you are right, jeez Louise enough already. Obviously you are making a point, but sometimes debating style can turn a person off, even when that person is right.

All I'm saying is- you asked who the "we" are, and frankly I find your disclaimer dopey and juvenile at this point, which, frankly, lessens my interest in reading what you have to say. I'm sure the loss is mine.

brazil84

05-03-2009, 08:56 AM

I knew a man once who maintained that nearly all teenage boys were violent hateful vindictive antisocial little bastards. And nothing I could say or do would shake his conviction, which he claimed was derived from sad experience with a lot of them.

I finally found out what he did for a living -- he was a guard at a juvenile correction facility.

Just saying' --

That's interesting. It reminds me of the story of a man who was quite credulous and trusting. He was an honest person and assumed other people were basically the same. Eventually, he took a position where his job was to help people who were the victims of various wrongs. Since he was a trusting man, he normally accepted the stories' of those who came to him with grievances. But his job also involved follow up, so he had an opportunity to see the other side of the story, including the evidence supporting that other side. He eventually learned to be cautious and skeptical of peoples' claims. He learned that most people (and corporations) will spin, exaggerate, or even lie when they tell their side of a dispute.

Just sayin'.

brazil84

05-03-2009, 09:43 AM

Excuse me? I'm not intentionally misinterpreting your posts???

I don't understand this.

I find it tiresome when someone beats a dead horse- which is what you seem to be doing. Even if you are right, jeez Louise enough already. Obviously you are making a point, but sometimes debating style can turn a person off, even when that person is right.

I do you think you have a point here. However, you (and others) would go a lot further in convincing me that the horse is dead if you would actually concede that I was reasonable and correct in stating that for me, "probably" does not mean the same thing as "must be"

In any event, my disclaimer has the added bonus of (I hope) deterring similar shenanigans.

I find your disclaimer dopey and juvenile at this point, which, frankly, lessens my interest in reading what you have to say. I'm sure the loss is mine.

Duly noted.

Fear Itself

05-03-2009, 09:53 AM

However, you (and others) would go a lot further in convincing me that the horse is dead if you would actually concede that I was reasonable and correct in stating that for me, "probably" does not mean the same thing as "must be"I will concede that your use of "probably" is a weasel word at best, specifically chosen so that you can claim vindication if the circumstances turn out to support you, but maintain deniability if they do not.

ivn1188

05-03-2009, 10:30 AM

I will concede that your use of "probably" is a weasel word at best, specifically chosen so that you can claim vindication if the circumstances turn out to support you, but maintain deniability if they do not.

Dude, at this point you need to just man up and admit you were wrong. Brazil84's whole point is that people shouldn't be leaping to judgment about which party is in the wrong based on a single, one-sided news story. "Weasel words" doesn't come into it. People who aren't mental midgets acknowledge the ambiguity of the world; maybe it's time for you to step up and do so as well.

Guinastasia

05-03-2009, 10:40 AM

Who is "we"? Are you saying that you now admit that I was correct and reasonable to state that for me, "X is probably true" has a different meaning from "X must be true"?

Because if so, it would appear you owe me an apology.

We are not amused.

(Dear GOD, you are so pork stupid.)

brazil84

05-03-2009, 01:23 PM

I will concede that your use of "probably" is a weasel word at best, specifically chosen so that you can claim vindication if the circumstances turn out to support you, but maintain deniability if they do not.

That's not a concession at all. It's an argument with "I concede" at the beginning, as far as I can tell.

Your claim is that "probably X" means the same thing as "must be X" for purposes of message board debate.

Until you concede that is wrong, it's reasonable for me to tell people that when I use the word "probably," I mean the normal English meaning of the word. As opposed to the meaning you wish to ascribe.

Anyway, I'm comfortable admitting that I don't know who's right and who's wrong in this story. I think that more likely than not, the (ex) employee is in the wrong, but I don't know it. If you want to call that weaseling, fine.

If it turns out Zales is wrong, I will concede that my best guess was incorrect.

brazil84

05-03-2009, 01:25 PM

We are not amused.

Lol. I guess that means you won't concede your horse is dead.

IvoryTowerDenizen

05-03-2009, 01:38 PM

Until you concede that is wrong, it's reasonable for me to tell people that when I use the word "probably," I mean the normal English meaning of the word. As opposed to the meaning you wish to ascribe.

Why? If your argument is their interpretation of the word is the outlier and you're using it in the typical fashion, why do you feel the need to explain that? Why wouldn't you assume that the rest of us know the definition?

Guinastasia

05-03-2009, 01:48 PM

Because he seems to prefer semantic nitpicking to defending his point, one supposes. As he wishes to use such tactic to weasel.

Either way, it's pointless arguing with him, as it's just nothing more than the same old thing.

And yes, we GET what you're saying, brazil. It's just that, we don't give a shit.

brazil84

05-03-2009, 02:01 PM

Why? If your argument is their interpretation of the word is the outlier and you're using it in the typical fashion, why do you feel the need to explain that?

To make myself clearer; to heap well-deserved scorn on Fear Itself and Guinistasia, and to deter others from similar shenanigans.

Why wouldn't you assume that the rest of us know the definition?

Why should I? Numerous people in this thread have exhibited a strange lack of knowledge of the English language in interpreting "probably" and "pretty good chance." Probably* they do know the definition but are ignoring it in their minds for rhetorical purposes.

*See my note about "probably" above.

runner pat

05-03-2009, 02:09 PM

To make myself clearer; to heap well-deserved scorn on Fear Itself and Guinistasia, and to deter others from similar shenanigans.

Why should I? Numerous people in this thread have exhibited a strange lack of knowledge of the English language in interpreting "probably" and "pretty good chance." Probably* they do know the definition but are ignoring it in their minds for rhetorical purposes.

*See my note about "probably" above.

Just like you, we read between the lines.

brazil84

05-03-2009, 02:13 PM

Because he seems to prefer semantic nitpicking to defending his point, one supposes.

Actually, I prefer to defend the point I actually made.

As opposed to the point that you wish I had made.

And yes, we GET what you're saying, brazil. It's just that, we don't give a shit.

If you really didn't give a shit, you would concede that I was reasonable and correct in stating that for me, "X is probably so" doesn't mean the same thing as "X must be so."

Fear Itself

05-03-2009, 03:05 PM

To make myself clearer; to heap well-deserved scorn on Fear Itself and Guinistasia, and to deter others from similar shenanigans.Is this what passes for scorn in your little world? By SDMB standards, it barely rises to the level of petulant whimpering. Three strikes, you're out

brazil84

05-03-2009, 03:10 PM

Is this what passes for scorn in your little world?

Pretty much, except that my world is reality which is rather large. Your world is a fantasy land where "probably" means the same thing as "must be" -- when it suits your purposes.

By SDMB standards, it barely rises to the level of petulant whimpering.

:shrug: Then I suppose you have no objection if I continue to inform people that when I use the word "probably," I mean the normal English meaning and not the Fear Itself / Guinistasia definition.

Fear Itself

05-03-2009, 03:23 PM

Then I suppose you have no objection if I continue to inform people that when I use the word "probably," I mean the normal English meaning and not the Fear Itself / Guinistasia definition.Knock yourself out. But the first time you forget, I will conclude that you lack the discipline to give that dead equine the attention it requires to prove your point.

brazil84

05-03-2009, 03:30 PM

Knock yourself out. But the first time you forget, I will conclude that you lack the discipline

Conclude whatever you like. Anyone who thinks that "probably" means the same thing as "must be" (for purposes of message board discussions) is someone for whom I have no respect whatsoever.

Polycarp

05-03-2009, 04:27 PM

That's interesting. It reminds me of the story of a man who was quite credulous and trusting. He was an honest person and assumed other people were basically the same. Eventually, he took a position where his job was to help people who were the victims of various wrongs. Since he was a trusting man, he normally accepted the stories' of those who came to him with grievances. But his job also involved follow up, so he had an opportunity to see the other side of the story, including the evidence supporting that other side. He eventually learned to be cautious and skeptical of peoples' claims. He learned that most people (and corporations) will spin, exaggerate, or even lie when they tell their side of a dispute.

Just sayin'.

Duly zinged back; touché! Let me observe that, like everyone else in this thread, you are arguing out your ass, with no more data regarding Mrs. Camilleri's actual specific case than anyone else.

Except that you, who appear to have had some job in which you investigate unemployment fraud (if you, unlike your opinion of Mrs. Camilleri, are to be believed), are generalizing from your own experience to say that anybody who claims improper dismissal is ipso facto in the wrong. Or something close enough to that as to not warrant tryint to ferret out the distinction.

I for one have never disagreed that there's a possibility she might have been terminated for cause, rather than to avoid a hefty insurance claim. Unlike you, I don't give it a large amount of probability.

Because such evidence as we have is flat out in the opposite direction.

And that was the point to my post -- you are hammering into the ground the fact that in your fucking experience, people are often crooked in their claims.

You know what? You're right -- assuming you are actually telling the truth. (And remember, an important part of your case is that people often llie and slant the truth -- so give me one good reason we should believe you and not her.)

But not every case is the majority case -- even assuming your anecdotal evidence is valid. Even if 80% of claims are fraudulent, that leaves 20% that are not. And for reasons known bes6t to you, you persist in painting this woman as an obvious crook, and acting out the picture of outraged innocence that anyone might think you are anything but an objective analyst interested in nothing but the facts.

Now, as to how much weight to give your opinion:

In Great Debates, there have been numerous threads regarding ACC (AKA global warming). Tou have taken a solid position of "not proven, inadequate evidence, it's all a bunch of BS advanced by some enviro-wackies for their own ends." You've had more than adequate opportunity to blow jshore and his colleagues out of the water by advancing solid evidence supporting your position. Instead, what you have done is a mess of denial, bloviation, and nitpickery that has probably convinced not a few who were on the fence that your side has nothing to show for it except hot air (not, of course, anthropogenetically created climate-changing hot air) Your evaluation of evidence is highly selective, ignoring that great mass of data that goes against your preferred conclusion. and focusing one what little does support your view.

That indicates to me that your perspective on this situation as well might well be skewed, and skewed in favor of a pre-judged conclusoon.

brazil84

05-03-2009, 04:45 PM

with no more data regarding Mrs. Camilleri's actual specific case than anyone else.

Correct.

Except that you, who appear to have had some job in which you investigate unemployment fraud (if you, unlike your opinion of Mrs. Camilleri, are to be believed), are generalizing from your own experience to say that anybody who claims improper dismissal is ipso facto in the wrong. Or something close enough to that as to not warrant tryint to ferret out the distinction.

Please either show me where I said this (with a QUOTE) or admit that I said no such thing and apologize. Your choice.

In Great Debates, there have been numerous threads regarding ACC (AKA global warming). Tou have taken a solid position of "not proven, inadequate evidence, it's all a bunch of BS advanced by some enviro-wackies for their own ends." You've had more than adequate opportunity to blow jshore and his colleagues out of the water by advancing solid evidence supporting your position. Instead, what you have done is a mess of denial, bloviation, and nitpickery

Please show me 2 examples of my "denial, bloviation and nitpickery" in a global warming thread. Please QUOTE me. Thank you.

Your evaluation of evidence is highly selective, ignoring that great mass of data that goes against your preferred conclusion. and focusing one what little does support your view.

Two examples, please. Please QUOTE me. Thank you.

That indicates to me that your perspective on this situation as well might well be skewed, and skewed in favor of a pre-judged conclusoon.

Actually, I suspect you are the one with the skewed perspective. But I will withhold judgment until you have an opportunity to back up your claims.

Based on past experience with other posters, I have a feeling that you will be unable to do so and will instead advance some lame excuse, but god forbid I should "stereotype" you. So go ahead and back up your claims.

Guinastasia

05-03-2009, 06:34 PM

Does anyone even know (or CARE) what his point is?

Algorithm

05-03-2009, 06:49 PM

People, STFU about global warming.

brazil84

05-03-2009, 06:51 PM

Does anyone even know (or CARE) what his point is?

Assuming you are referring to me, I would certainly guess that you probably* don't know or care what my point is. Based on your earlier post, I would guess that you prefer to argue against the point you wish I had made, rather than the point I actually made.

*same disclaimer as before about the word "probably."

Fear Itself

05-03-2009, 08:08 PM

Conclude whatever you like. Anyone who thinks that "probably" means the same thing as "must be" (for purposes of message board discussions) is someone for whom I have no respect whatsoever.The total mass of the anguish caused by the loss of your respect would rattle around in an ant's ass like a pea in a boxcar.

Dante

05-03-2009, 08:38 PM

Dante

05-03-2009, 08:49 PM

Folks, he's a troll. A self-admitted troll. He says that he enjoys arguing unpopular sides to a debate. Not that he BELIEVES those sides.Sorry, forgot to mention it's post #101 in this thread.

See, I have to show where he said it or admit he said no such thing and apologize. My choice.

brazil84

05-03-2009, 08:53 PM

The total mass of the anguish caused by the loss of your respect would rattle around in an ant's ass like a pea in a boxcar.

Yawn. I suppose this falls under the category of "petulant whimpering" you mentioned earlier.

Fear Itself

05-03-2009, 08:59 PM

Yawn. I suppose this falls under the category of "petulant whimpering" you mentioned earlier.You are not even trying now. I tire of toying with you. Aroint thee, rump-fed ronyon!

Idle Thoughts

05-03-2009, 11:21 PM

Amazing how a lot of threads that brazil84 participates in seem to eventually revolve around him.

Folks, he's a troll. A self-admitted troll. He says that he enjoys arguing unpopular sides to a debate. Not that he BELIEVES those sides.

People, don't wast your time.

*Please note that brazil84 no longer interacts with me due to his previous ignorance about a gigantic country. Called Brazil.

Exactly. He's probably living in the same house as Curlcoat and they're laughing to each other nightly over trolling this board. They both do the same things, share the same tactics, post endlessly to one, specific topic destined to have the last word, seemingly...post nothing but wrong info and misguided "facts", and continually--even in the face of everyone calling them wrong--insist they are right. They both never go away either, once they get their claws into a topic, and it becomes, basically, a topic in which everyone argues with them alone. This has happened in about 5 pit threads each, including one where they were together and arguing against everyone else.

Stop feeding the trolls. : p

Guinastasia

05-04-2009, 12:17 AM

*Please note that brazil84 no longer interacts with me due to his previous ignorance about a gigantic country. Called Brazil.

Was that the thread about Brazil being a Hispanic country...even though it was colonized by the Portuguese...which is the language they speak, and the basis of their culture?

I didn't know that was him. Heh.

ivn1188

05-04-2009, 01:30 AM

Hrm, well put me in the "troll" category, because I see a guy sticking to his guns against a bunch of retards who can't make an argument, and instead have to resort to calling people trolls and claiming victory.

Hint to the dumbasses:

Saying LOLZ YER DUMB GTFO TROLL doesn't actually prove anything, except that you are pretty much intellectually worthless. Of course, that hasn't stopped you yet. Don't you have a rally to make immigrants speak english or a Ron Paul convention to go to?

GIGObuster

05-04-2009, 02:54 AM

Hrm, well put me in the "troll" category, because I see a guy sticking to his guns

What guns? If he is really, he should just had said his piece once and wait for all the evidence, of course that does not take away the reality that that is just supporting inactivism and missing spectacularly the point of the pit, like you are doing too. Bicker already pointed out why his guns are not quite shooting straight.

He keeps repeating that it is "just her claims", when the context is showing that it is also the claim of the reporter and the son. If he is just complaining that we should wait, he should not continue to seed doubts on items that he has no evidence for. And now another item has been added, the company claimed that they were not going to give her unemployment but then they fail to document their reasons when they needed to, the fact that she is getting unemployment now is showing me who is being more trustworthy so far.

Once again, I'm not complaining much about her losing her job as there is a chance that she deserved it. But the timing was bad, it is a fact that many lawyers recommend companies to wait a few months before dismissing an employee that deserves it when a medical condition appears suddenly. The main reason why I'm here is to point out that employers may be justified on dismissing a person, but many companies do attempt to abuse their power when the former employee then requests their legal unemployment and heath care.

brazil84

05-04-2009, 06:15 AM

Was that the thread about Brazil being a Hispanic country...even though it was colonized by the Portuguese...which is the language they speak, and the basis of their culture?

You are probably thinking of the thread where I claimed that by some subset of definitions, "hispanic" included Brazillians. I cited and linked to an online dictionary which backed up my claim. I then offered to stipulate for the sake of argument that "hispanic" did not include Brazillians.

cite:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hispanic

His⋅pan⋅ic /hɪˈspænɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hi-span-ik] Show IPA
–adjective 1. Spanish.
2. Latin American: the United States and its Hispanic neighbors.

–noun 3. Also, Hispano. Also called Hispanic American, Hispano-American. an American citizen or resident of Spanish or Latin-American descent.

I should also note that I did not put Dante on my ignore list as a result of that thread. In a different thread, he accused me of "moving the goalposts" but was unable to back up his claim.

Not that any of the above likely matters to you, since you are probably* not the type of person to let actual facts get in the way of your desire to hate.

*When I use the word "probably," I mean the normal English sense, and not the Fear Itself / Guinistasia definition.

Polycarp

05-04-2009, 06:27 AM

Re post #708:

I'd originally decided to let his response stand as is. Then I realized it does call for an answer.

This very thread is full of the cites he claims to be demanding. There have been several threads in Great Debates on the topic global warming that contain examples of the cites on tht topic.

While I could go quote-mining, it would be a waste of my time and everyone else's, as b84 will merely handwave it away or make a semantic nitpick ("You claim I said 'at anytime' when it's clear I said 'at any time' with a space in it!!"), and anyone who's got to this point has seen him dump innuendo after innuendo on that woman who was the original topic of this thread.

While he might have actually had a valid point (as my first post responding to him admits), he's converted this into an "All Brazil84, All the Time" thread. And i now leave off feeding him.

brazil84

05-04-2009, 06:41 AM

This very thread is full of the cites he claims to be demanding. There have been several threads in Great Debates on the topic global warming that contain examples of the cites on tht topic.

While I could go quote-mining, it would be a waste of my time and everyone else's,

As expected, you chose to offer a lame excuse rather than actually back up your claims. I suppose my "stereotyping" of you was correct.

The fact is that I did not do the things you accused me of.

Among other things, I never claimed that "anybody who claims improper dismissal is ipso facto in the wrong" Or anything close to it.

You are the one whose perspective is skewed. You are a liar and a scumbag. Goodbye.

Dante

05-04-2009, 08:40 AM

SteveG1

05-04-2009, 11:47 AM

You were fired because your employer alleged that you violated a company policy, rule or procedure, such as absenteeism or insubordination; because of a disagreement or dispute with a boss or co-worker; or you were fired for any other reason.
That sounds pretty open ended. "any other reason" Just exactly what is "any other reason"?

Like you wore white shoes after Labor Day? You like the Yankees instead of the Mets? You smell funny? You have a creepy monobrow? What? What?
Finally, Zales denied Camilleri's unemployment benefits, claiming she was fired for misbehavior.

"I talked to their attorney twice," said Quartaro. "She claimed there was a record of Rose being written up. I requested copies of that, and I never received them."

Because Zale did not document its claim, Camilleri now collects unemployment.
If there were no records, it didn't exist (so to speak). If this person were a problem employee, surely it would be documented in her file - discplinary actions, counseling, warnings, something.

It just doesn't look right. A supposed "star employee" goes in for (refresh my memory) a non-elective surgery. Not a nose job, not a boob enlargement, but to fix a potential serious health problem.

Now this "star employee" must have been on the payroll for a while, in order to "achieve star status", as in a number of years. And yet, was somehow not covered (or something) for vacation/leave/health benefits(or something)?

I DON'T THINK SO.

If she were a crook or broke the "don't be an asshole" rule, there'd be a record of it somewhere. Apparently there isn't.

End of story.

ivn1188

05-04-2009, 02:13 PM

Hey brazil84, looks like ivn1188 is on your side! There's a feather in your cap! All you need to do is get Rand Rover and curlcoat on board, and you've got a foursome for bridge. God, can you imagine being a fly on the wall in THAT room?

**Please note that brazil84 no longer interacts with me because he has to move his goalposts with both hands and has no time for typing.

I'm not "on his side". I am on the opposite side of people, just like you, who prance around thinking they have made telling points when they have failed to put together two logical sentences. It's easy to just run around calling people trolls, but looking at your posts, the only thing separating you from a troll is that you actually think you're saying something real, whereas a troll is just jerking people's chains for fun. Hell, it actually takes more skill to be a good troll than you have shown so far.

Of course, I don't know why I bother responding to the likes of you, because you're not going to type anything more substantive than some variant of the Pee-wee Herman defense.

brazil84

05-04-2009, 02:19 PM

That sounds pretty open ended. "any other reason" Just exactly what is "any other reason"?

Like you wore white shoes after Labor Day? You like the Yankees instead of the Mets? You smell funny? You have a creepy monobrow? What? What?

If you really are curious about what reasons for discharge can disqualify a person from collecting unemployment insurance benefits, you can check here:

http://www.labor.state.ny.us/ui/aso/Section_1100.htm

If there were no records, it didn't exist (so to speak). If this person were a problem employee, surely it would be documented in her file - discplinary actions, counseling, warnings, something.

Sure, and there is no reason at the moment to think her file is missing these things.

It just doesn't look right.

Sure it doesn't look right. And it's possible -- indeed likely -- that it doesn't look right because the employee has failed to share some important pieces of information. Or has spun, exaggerated, or even lied.

Apparently there isn't.

You don't know that. See my post above about TALX.

End of story.

It's sad the way so many people rush to judgment.

SteveG1

05-04-2009, 02:29 PM

Sure it doesn't look right. And it's possible -- indeed likely -- that it doesn't look right because the employee has failed to share some important pieces of information. Or has spun, exaggerated, or even lied.
It's possible, sure. But then it may be possible that she didn't lie or exaggerate or spin. Both are equally possible. But I wouldn't say it is likely. That is making an assumption, just as I made my assumption.
You don't know that. See my post above about TALX.
Right, I don't know for sure, so I can only make statements based on things I know, and my own experiences.

It's sad the way so many people rush to judgment.Why is it sad? I could have just as easily "gone to the other side", based purely on how it looks (an assumption).

Some people are wrongfully terminated. Some deserve to get the boot. Some manage to stay on, even when they should get the boot. The thing that makes it flaky is, there apparently are no Zales records pointing to this person ever being a problem before. Where are they?

ivn1188

05-04-2009, 02:41 PM

] The thing that makes it flaky is, there apparently are no Zales records pointing to this person ever being a problem before. Where are they?

Asked and answered earlier in the thread. There's no reason for Zales to release employee records to the press, and many reasons to keep them private. If they are discovered as part of a lawsuit, then you might get to see them.

Imagine, though, that you got fired, and the company that fired you posted a full-page ad detailing your employment record. That would be a dick move, right? Zales is playing it conservatively, knowing that in most places any bad PR will blow over. It might be that they don't have anything, as you say, but the lack of public information does not prove that there isn't any.

By the way, assumptions aren't merely 6 one way, half a dozen the other. Zales is a giant corporation that brings in a lot of money. They have decades of experience with these sorts of things, and they are going to be pretty rational about risk v reward in the press and in court. An assumption that Zales is probably right isn't unwarranted or just a guess. Imagine if I were to play some 1 on 1 vs Michael Jordan -- if I assumed I would win, and you assumed MJ would win, your assumption is probably better. In this case, you both have arguments as to why your respective assumptions might be correct. Neither of you has made an iron-clad case, and neither side can pull an "end of story", because it isn't that simple.

brazil84

05-04-2009, 02:45 PM

It's possible, sure. But then it may be possible that she didn't lie or exaggerate or spin. Both are equally possible. But I wouldn't say it is likely. That is making an assumption, just as I made my assumption.

I happen to have personal experience in this area with claims similar to those of this individual and I feel comfortable saying that more likely than not, she was not discharged because of her (alleged) request for a medical leave.

Of course, it's unlikely that you have experience in this area, and certainly nobody should hold it against you if your position is that it's a tossup. But earlier, you seem to have reached a conclusion that the employer is in the wrong.

Why is it sad? I could have just as easily "gone to the other side", based purely on how it looks (an assumption).

There is a third option, which is to conclude that it's not "end of story."

The thing that makes it flaky is, there apparently are no Zales records pointing to this person ever being a problem before. Where are they?

Why leads you to believe that there are no such records?

runner pat

05-04-2009, 02:51 PM

But the (former) employee is entitled to copies. Zales' lawyer says they have records but won't release them. Zales tried to block her unemployment claim, knowing they would have to provide records to back it up and didn't. It's now public that Zales is claiming she was fired for misbehavior(that covers a lot of ground, why not a specific reason?) yet won't show the records they claim to have. Now that the reason is public, there's no need for secrecy. They could prove thay are right by releasing the records.

brazil84

05-04-2009, 03:06 PM

But the (former) employee is entitled to copies.

As far as I know, that's completely false.

Cite: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005556596

Currently, 35 states and the District of Columbia have laws that govern employee access to personnel files, according to the Society for Human Resource Management, a Virginia-based association for human resources management. States with no laws guaranteeing personnel-file access include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Montana, New Jersey and New York.

Do you have a cite that says something different?

Zales' lawyer says they have records but won't release them.

Actually, Ms. Camilleri's lawyer says that Zale's says that. But so what?

Zales tried to block her unemployment claim, knowing they would have to provide records to back it up and didn't.

Again, that doesn't mean anything. See my post above about TALX.

It's now public that Zales is claiming she was fired for misbehavior(that covers a lot of ground, why not a specific reason?) yet won't show the records they claim to have. Now that the reason is public, there's no need for secrecy.

What exactly is the reason Zale's is claiming? And please provide a cite. Thank you.

SteveG1

05-06-2009, 11:47 AM

Imagine, though, that you got fired, and the company that fired you posted a full-page ad detailing your employment record. That would be a dick move, right? Zales is playing it conservatively, knowing that in most places any bad PR will blow over. It might be that they don't have anything, as you say, but the lack of public information does not prove that there isn't any. OK, that makes sense.

brazil84

05-06-2009, 12:52 PM

SteveG1

05-06-2009, 04:53 PM

Not only that, but a savvy plaintiff's side employment lawyer is always looking for the opportunity to assert a retaliation claim. If Zale's were to break policy and publicly disclose embarrassing information about this woman, a smart lawyer would allege that it was done in retaliation for asserting her rights and assert a second, independent cause of action against Zale's for retaliation.
That makes sense too, because if there is something in her file, and Zale's made it public, that could be considered "retaliatory spite work".

I guess the only question left for me to really ask is, if she had indeed been a money making star employee, why not cut her some slack? If she was trouble all along, why wait until now to fire her? I can accept the "straw that broke the camel's back" argument because sometimes that's exactly what it is. But, who the hell knows.

Voyager

05-06-2009, 06:37 PM

By the way, assumptions aren't merely 6 one way, half a dozen the other. Zales is a giant corporation that brings in a lot of money. They have decades of experience with these sorts of things, and they are going to be pretty rational about risk v reward in the press and in court. An assumption that Zales is probably right isn't unwarranted or just a guess. Imagine if I were to play some 1 on 1 vs Michael Jordan -- if I assumed I would win, and you assumed MJ would win, your assumption is probably better. In this case, you both have arguments as to why your respective assumptions might be correct. Neither of you has made an iron-clad case, and neither side can pull an "end of story", because it isn't that simple.

You are assuming that every manager at Zales knows and follows the rules. I know of a case at a company much older and bigger than Zales where the manager totally screwed up on maintaining the proper documentation. Of the course the company is going to stand behind the manager, publicly at least.

Of course Zales won't - and shouldn't - make anything public. However I'd suspect that if she was fired for misbehavior there would be at least one written warning, which she would have a copy of. Did she lie to her lawyer about this? If there was one, why wouldn't Zales give her lawyer a duplicate copy of what she has already?

The thing that really stinks is the timing relative to her request for sick leave. Did they internally increase the severity of any warnings or issues to justify not paying for her surgery? Did some moron manager think this was going to save money?

Algorithm

05-06-2009, 08:00 PM

You are assuming that every manager at Zales knows and follows the rules. I know of a case at a company much older and bigger than Zales where the manager totally screwed up on maintaining the proper documentation. Of the course the company is going to stand behind the manager, publicly at least.
I believe what ivn1188 is saying is that it is likely the manager knew and followed the rules. An second or third hand anecdote does nothing to refute that.

Of course Zales won't - and shouldn't - make anything public. However I'd suspect that if she was fired for misbehavior there would be at least one written warning, which she would have a copy of. Did she lie to her lawyer about this? If there was one, why wouldn't Zales give her lawyer a duplicate copy of what she has already?
If she wanted to pursue a claim against the company, and she had received such documentation, clearly she wouldn't make public via the press said documentation, nor elaborate on any reason she may have been dismissed that isn't related to the alleged violation. The only thing we know is that she hasn't told the press that the documentation exists, which makes plenty of sense whether or not her case has merit.

The thing that really stinks is the timing relative to her request for sick leave. Did they internally increase the severity of any warnings or issues to justify not paying for her surgery? Did some moron manager think this was going to save money?
Great questions. These are the types of things that should come to light in a hearing, and can't be assumed to be necessarily true or false until then.

Guinastasia

05-06-2009, 08:51 PM

I believe on the first page, THIS (http://www.zalecorp.com/corporate/corporate.aspx?pid=92) was Zales' official PR policy:

Take a Common Sense Test

A good test for judging the employee's conduct under
Zale’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is:

If you would be embarrassed for your supervisor or co-workers to read about your conduct on the front page of tomorrow morning’s newspaper or if the conduct is potentially harmful to the company…

Don't Do It

brazil84

05-06-2009, 09:10 PM

That makes sense too, because if there is something in her file, and Zale's made it public, that could be considered "retaliatory spite work".

I guess the only question left for me to really ask is, if she had indeed been a money making star employee, why not cut her some slack? If she was trouble all along, why wait until now to fire her?

We don't know the details, but based on my experience, I would say the two most likely possibilities are (1) she had a personality conflict with the new DM; and (2) she was violating some policy all along and the new DM decided to crack down.

brazil84

05-06-2009, 10:09 PM

You are assuming that every manager at Zales knows and follows the rules. I know of a case at a company much older and bigger than Zales where the manager totally screwed up on maintaining the proper documentation.

Personally, I've seen it happen many times that a rogue manager screwed up in this way. It's unusual at large employers, but it does happen. However, if I had to bet one way or another, I would put my money on Zales. It's just a lot more common for disgruntled former employees to spin tales than it is for rogue managers to flagrantly violate the law.

However I'd suspect that if she was fired for misbehavior there would be at least one written warning, which she would have a copy of. Did she lie to her lawyer about this? If there was one, why wouldn't Zales give her lawyer a duplicate copy of what she has already?

There are a couple potential advantages in this, the main one being that the employer wants the ex-employee to be as in-the-dark as possible when she swears out her EEOC/human rights charge. With a little luck, she may swear to something which is contradicted by a document. A lesser advantage is that you want to make it difficult for the ex-employee's potential lawyer to evaluate her case. If the potential lawyer has doubts about the case (and any competent lawyer knows to be skeptical of these sorts of claims), then he might tell the ex-employee that she needs to pay some money up front for representation. Which makes it less likely that she will retain him and less likely that she will file a charge or lawsuit.

The thing that really stinks is the timing relative to her request for sick leave.

To me what really stinks is the omission from the story of Zale's official reason for discharge, which almost certainly would have been told to this woman before now.

SteveG1

05-11-2009, 11:02 AM

We don't know the details, but based on my experience, I would say the two most likely possibilities are (1) she had a personality conflictwith the new DM; and (2) she was violating some policy all along and the new DM decided to crack down.
If this were just a personality conflict with the new manager, I would want to know how she had "interfaced" with previous managers. If her record had been a good one up to now, then I would take a harder look at the manager. If shere were violating some policy, did her previous managers know about it? If so then there was a precedent set. To suddenly get canned for doing what previous bosses had either condoned or turned a blind eye to, is not how you do things. You give warnings, you counsel, you say "stop doing that".

You like to talk about all your experience in this stuff. I have some too, as a local union rep. If this this new manager simply fired someone for something and didn't document it, or fired someone for something that had been allowed before (either explicitly or implicitly), if this manager fired someone for a simple personality difference, I'd be in a very good spot to get the lady hired back and the manager domoted or fired.

Voyager

05-11-2009, 11:48 AM

Personally, I've seen it happen many times that a rogue manager screwed up in this way. It's unusual at large employers, but it does happen. However, if I had to bet one way or another, I would put my money on Zales. It's just a lot more common for disgruntled former employees to spin tales than it is for rogue managers to flagrantly violate the law.

Not rogue, just incompetent. Most managers don't run into this kind of thing that often (maybe ones in retail do) and without training and very clear guidelines they might violate the law without intending to. I'd guess that management training is a victim of the economy, as well as HR. When I had to do a performance improvement plan for someone, it was a big help to have lots of HR people in my building. I doubt this manager had that advantage.

There are a couple potential advantages in this, the main one being that the employer wants the ex-employee to be as in-the-dark as possible when she swears out her EEOC/human rights charge. With a little luck, she may swear to something which is contradicted by a document. A lesser advantage is that you want to make it difficult for the ex-employee's potential lawyer to evaluate her case. If the potential lawyer has doubts about the case (and any competent lawyer knows to be skeptical of these sorts of claims), then he might tell the ex-employee that she needs to pay some money up front for representation. Which makes it less likely that she will retain him and less likely that she will file a charge or lawsuit.

Maybe true, but that doesn't explain why she didn't get a copy of the write-up, before she got fired. I've read of several cases where the fired employee acknowledges the reason for termination but disputes its validity. Saying she wasn't given a reason is odd.

To me what really stinks is the omission from the story of Zale's official reason for discharge, which almost certainly would have been told to this woman before now.
You mean from her lawyer? I can see why Zales wouldn't say anything except in the most general sense. I know of issues with principals in our school system where the actual reason for firing or demotion (which I got through back channels) never came out officially.

But, given that she didn't do anything that would justify immediate termination, even if an employee was on report why would she be fired just before a serious operation? Even if a case for termination were winding its way through the company, why not wait? I can think of two explanations. One, the manager incorrectly thought that she would be saving the company money by firing her before the operation. Two, the manager had it in for the employee for some reason, and thought she didn't deserve getting her operation paid for. Can you think of a good reason for this awful timing - especially bad in a customer facing retail operation.

brazil84

05-11-2009, 12:07 PM

If this were just a personality conflict with the new manager, I would want to know how she had "interfaced" with previous managers. If her record had been a good one up to now, then I would take a harder look at the manager. If shere were violating some policy, did her previous managers know about it? If so then there was a precedent set. To suddenly get canned for doing what previous bosses had either condoned or turned a blind eye to, is not how you do things.

Many employers act like this all the time. Yes, it's often a crappy thing to do, but the question I've been focused on is whether this woman was fired because she requested medical leave.

You like to talk about all your experience in this stuff. I have some too, as a local union rep. If this this new manager simply fired someone for something and didn't document it, or fired someone for something that had been allowed before (either explicitly or implicitly), if this manager fired someone for a simple personality difference, I'd be in a very good spot to get the lady hired back

What you've said so far is is consistent with my experience too. I've been going on the assumption that this woman is not a union employee. There is no mention in the article that she's in a union and the vast majority of retail salespeople in New York are not in unions.

Workers in most unions are much better protected against the kinds of unfair discharges which plague non-union employees. Of course, the question of whether this woman was fired for an unfair reason is different from the question of whether she was fired for requesting medical leave.

brazil84

05-11-2009, 12:34 PM

Not rogue, just incompetent.

You can call it whatever you want. It does happen sometimes that incompetent managers break the law without knowing it. However, it's unusual for such a discharge to take place from a big employer.

Maybe true, but that doesn't explain why she didn't get a copy of the write-up, before she got fired.

Where does it say she didn't get a copy?

You mean from her lawyer?

No, from the article.

I can see why Zales wouldn't say anything except in the most general sense. I know of issues with principals in our school system where the actual reason for firing or demotion (which I got through back channels) never came out officially.

The vast majority of private employers in New York tell people (at the time of discharge) a reason for discharge. That's just how things are done.

But, given that she didn't do anything that would justify immediate termination, even if an employee was on report why would she be fired just before a serious operation?

For one thing, her DM might not have been aware that she had requested leave. For another, her DM might not have cared. For another, her DM might have thought that, given that the decision was made to fire her, it would be better (from a risk point of view) to do it before the medical leave than after.

I mean, suppose this woman had gone out for surgery and come back a couple months later and was fired the day she got back. Would the people who are outraged at Zales be any less outraged? Of course not.

Can you think of a good reason for this awful timing - especially bad in a customer facing retail operation.

Assuming that Zale's had a legitimate reason to fire this woman, when and how do you think they should have fired her?

SteveG1

05-11-2009, 02:24 PM

Many employers act like this all the time. Yes, it's often a crappy thing to do, but the question I've been focused on is whether this woman was fired because she requested medical leave.

What you've said so far is is consistent with my experience too. I've been going on the assumption that this woman is not a union employee. There is no mention in the article that she's in a union and the vast majority of retail salespeople in New York are not in unions.

Workers in most unions are much better protected against the kinds of unfair discharges which plague non-union employees. Of course, the question of whether this woman was fired for an unfair reason is different from the question of whether she was fired for requesting medical leave.That's the "million dollar question". Simply requesting medical leave is not a good grounds for dismissal at all. If shere were flatly denied, she has choices - accept that decision and defer the operation, file some sort of protest or appeal, argue (respectfully), or ignore it (insubordination) and take the risks. If she was told "this is not a good time could you do it later", then she could go along with that too. If she were fired for requesting leave, and only for requesting leave, I would call that the same as firing for unfair reasons. Many employees are not union, and the place they work is not a "union shop". Yet, if you have good people, you want to keep them. So, companies can and often will voluntarily set up their own "employee safeguards". It's good business.

If someone gets fired for simply requesting leave, then Zale's needs to re-examine their policies and procedures.

brazil84

05-11-2009, 02:52 PM

If she were fired for requesting leave, and only for requesting leave, I would call that the same as firing for unfair reasons.

And I wouldn't. To be sure, it's unfair to fire somebody just for requesting medical leave. But here's a hypothetical for you:

Suppose she was fired simply because she had a personality conflict with her boss. Do you agree that would be unfair? And if so, do you think (assuming it were proven) it would or should evoke the same level of outrage as with a person who is fired for requesting medical leave?

Do you think a person should be able to sue their employer if they are fired simply because they cannot get along with their boss?

Voyager

05-11-2009, 03:02 PM

You can call it whatever you want. It does happen sometimes that incompetent managers break the law without knowing it. However, it's unusual for such a discharge to take place from a big employer.

We're only talking one instance here. The company I worked for was far, far, larger than Zales. Large companies with many satellite offices do not necessarily have uniform application of policies.

Where does it say she didn't get a copy?

There has been no mention of any reason for her firing from her lawyer. As I said, they usually refute the given reason, not ignore it.

No, from the article.

of course from the article, but quoting the lawyer. Do you really think that the HR and PR people in Zales would or should reveal personal performance information to the press?

The vast majority of private employers in New York tell people (at the time of discharge) a reason for discharge. That's just how things are done.

You misunderstood me. The people get told, but reporters do not. Nor should they.

For one thing, her DM might not have been aware that she had requested leave. For another, her DM might not have cared. For another, her DM might have thought that, given that the decision was made to fire her, it would be better (from a risk point of view) to do it before the medical leave than after.

I mean, suppose this woman had gone out for surgery and come back a couple months later and was fired the day she got back. Would the people who are outraged at Zales be any less outraged? Of course not.

You mean the DM would not be aware of current staffing levels, and would not have to approve the leave? Sounds unlikely. She knew the employee was home, didn't she? She might not have known the reason (since medical stuff is usually confidential) but she would have known. As for not caring or thinking firing before is better, you might be right, but I still consider both options signs of incompetence. The employee might never return due to her health problems, and Zales wouldn't have an unemployment issue. I know very few managers who enjoy firing people (I sure didn't) and having the problem maybe fixing itself would have been ample reason to delay. Maybe her attitude would have been a lot better when she came back.

Assuming that Zale's had a legitimate reason to fire this woman, when and how do you think they should have fired her?
I don't know about Zale's, but places I've worked have had performance improvement plan systems. This might be pro forma when the person is a slacker, but I think that a person who clearly contributed to the bottom line of Zale's would get at least some chance to improve. If she was on one, it hasn't come out.

I'd have waited until she returned, made my expectations clear, and monitored the situation. AND WRITE EVERYTHING UP! If they did, they sure didn't share it with the state, did they?

Who knows, maybe the DM thought Blondie offers an accurate view of how management is done.

brazil84

05-11-2009, 03:18 PM

We're only talking one instance here. The company I worked for was far, far, larger than Zales. Large companies with many satellite offices do not necessarily have uniform application of policies.

So what?

There has been no mention of any reason for her firing from her lawyer. As I said, they usually refute the given reason, not ignore it.

That's not my experience. When I speak to unhappy former employees, getting the employer's official reason for discharge out of them is often like pulling teeth. For some reason a lot of people have a difficult time saying "when they fired me, they accused me of _______." Do you agree with me that the vast majority of private employers in New York give a reason for discharge at the time of discharge?

Do you really think that the HR and PR people in Zales would or should reveal personal performance information to the press?

Of course not. Why would you think I would think that?

You mean the DM would not be aware of current staffing levels, and would not have to approve the leave?

A lot of the time, no. For example with FMLA leave, the DM often has no input or control at all. Even if a department is completely short-staffed, a large employer cannot deny a legitimate request for FMLA leave.

In any event, even if the DM is told, it doesn't necessarily happen immediately. With a big company, if an employee writes a letter to HR requesting medical leave, what typically happens next is that HR will send an FMLA or other leave application form back to the employee and wait for a response. If this woman sent a letter in a week before she was fired, it's completely possible that the DM had no idea she had just requested time off for surgery.

She knew the employee was home, didn't she?

Can you show me in the article where it says this employee had absented herself before her discharge? I didn't notice it.

As for not caring or thinking firing before is better, you might be right, but I still consider both options signs of incompetence. The employee might never return due to her health problems, and Zales wouldn't have an unemployment issue. I know very few managers who enjoy firing people (I sure didn't) and having the problem maybe fixing itself would have been ample reason to delay. Maybe her attitude would have been a lot better when she came back.

I don't know about Zale's, but places I've worked have had performance improvement plan systems. This might be pro forma when the person is a slacker, but I think that a person who clearly contributed to the bottom line of Zale's would get at least some chance to improve. If she was on one, it hasn't come out.

I'd have waited until she returned, made my expectations clear, and monitored the situation. AND WRITE EVERYTHING UP!

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that if an employer has decided to discharge an employee, and the employee requests medical leave, the decision should be rescinded and the employee should be given another chance?

If they did, they sure didn't share it with the state, did they?

Apparently not. See my post above about TALX.

SteveG1

05-11-2009, 04:15 PM

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090409/BIZ/904090314
Surgery postponed
Camilleri told Zales she would need surgery as soon as possible.

"I told my manager I can't get upset because it could explode any minute," she said. "I typed up a letter asking for time off and guidance from human resources."

One week later, on March 14, she was asked to attend a meeting with a new regional manager.

"He said, 'You're terminated,'" Camilleri recalled. "I tried to keep myself very calm because I knew something could happen to me. I said, 'You're joking — you've never been in my store.' He said, 'It's the best thing.'"

http://consumerist.com/5207364/zales-fires-top-earning-saleswoman-because-she-needs-surgery
A saleswoman for Zales who had earned 5 diamonds and almost a dozen commendations over the past 4 1/2 years—she's the area's first employee to earn a million dollars in sales in one year—was terminated last month, one week after she requested time off to have surgery for a life-threatening aortic aneurysm.

"I told my manager I can't get upset because it could explode any minute," she said. "I typed up a letter asking for time off and guidance from human resources."

One week later, on March 14, she was asked to attend a meeting with a new regional manager.

"He said, 'You're terminated,'"
The above are the two articles cited in Post 1 of the thread.

Now just taking these two articles at face value, she had requested leave. There is nothing wrong with requesting leave. It could be granted, it could be denied. Simply requesting medical leave is not terms for firing someone, in ANY company.

Supposedly, this employee had a good record and had received numerous awards. Supposedly, her new boss fired her very soon after she had requested leave. I have trouble imagining she just suddenly turned into a bad worker.
Suppose she was fired simply because she had a personality conflict with her boss. Do you agree that would be unfair? And if so, do you think (assuming it were proven) it would or should evoke the same level of outrage as with a person who is fired for requesting medical leave?
Did she have personality conflicts with previous bosses? I'm going to gamble here and say she probably did not. Did she have a personality conflict with the new boss? Judging from the articles, I would venture to say this boss was so new, there hasn't been enough time to develop a conflict - 'You're joking — you've never been in my store.'

Something is either not right, or is being left out.