I’d definitely go above HR’s head, explain what a grade-A prick your current boss is, and look for another job. Could someone explain why a lawsuit is fruitless, BTW.
I’m going to print that up and put it on my cubicle wall.
HR will immediately contact her boss. The role of HR is to protect the company, not the employees. If the boss refuses to release her, HR will not even consider her for a new position. I’ve worked in 5 very large multinational corporations. This has been the rule in each and every one of them. Going to HR will accomplish one thing, pissing off her boss because she went “over his head.”
What law are you under the impression they are breaking? The company places employees in the positions that best benefit the company, not the employee.
Now if you’re under a collective bargaining agreement you should absolutely go to your union rep with your complaint, but going to HR is not a good idea.
If HR is so hostile to employees what benefit do employees get from HR?
Thanks for the advice. After about 3 more seconds of thought, I realized that there would be no basis for a lawsuit (as much as that pisses me off).
I think that she does need to take a stand somehow. I will make an Excel chart about how much wear and tear she will put on her vehicle over and above by working at her current store. Plus her time. Then she can present that to her manager and then his manager.
Preferably she could present it to someone who oversees BOTH stores and doesn’t care which store makes the profit. Then that person could see how the selfish desires of one store costs a valued employee money and makes her want to go elsewhere.
Yeah, I laughed at that last sentence as well.
So, here is my plan to tell her:
Step 1: Show my Excel chart to her manager. Tell him that if she’s so valuable, then she needs this raise (in my Excel sheet)
Step 2: When he tells her to piss off, schedule a meeting with the manager over BOTH stores
Step 0.5: Get the resumes out.
HR is not hostile to employees. It’s just that their function is to protect the company. They do not work for nor represent the employees. You know those sexual harassment classes they make you take? Those are to protect the company from accusations of complicity. You know those diversity classes they make you take? Those are to protect the company from accusations of discrimination.
Many HR employees work hard to ensure their companies enact programs to help employees with issues like substance abuse, personal legal problems, child care etc. They do care about the people they work with. They want to help. They will try to protect you if they can.
But make no mistake, the main function of HR is to protect the interests of the company.
You are ignoring one of the concerned parties; namely, the company.
Presumably the company employs the manager with the expectation that the manager will act in the best interest of the company.
If the employee transfer would be bad for the company, and the manager knew it, (s)he would be acting unethically in not speaking up against the transfer to defend the company’s best interests.
Furthermore - if the transfer would be neutral to the company but negative to the manager - (s)he has no ethical obligation to OK the transfer.
Flip your statement around - from the manager’s viewpoint, the employee might be harming her by transferring, which is entirely to the employee’s benefit. By your logic then, the employee is being unethical.
It would be best for all if they could all come to a happy agreement, and we don’t know the full story. But I maintain there is nothing unethical (from what I’ve heard so far.)
There might be a silver lining – job satisfaction can be affected by coworkers. She might not have liked the people at the new store as much as the ones at the current one and the few extra miles might have ended up to be totally worth it.
The OP is angry because his wife was treated unfairly. When someone deals you crooked you get mad.
Try this. Have the wife make a resume this weekend and start looking for another job. Send this resume out and really start looking.
Once you see how hard it is to find another job, with similar pay and stature, this situation will still be unfair but it won’t be as upsetting.
It’s like when I was looking for an apartment because my landlord was not doing anything. I never realized how nice my apartment was until I saw what other people were offering.
I agree with posters who said, HR isn’t to help employees. It’s to protect a company. Before I retired, I could never figure out half the stuff our HR department did.
Oh, I think she’s probably capable of finding an AK all by herself.
Can you explain what law has been violated by the manager or the corporation?
The problem with a lawsuit seems to be that both stores are owned and operated by the same parent corporation. So what we really have is two managers within the same organization discussing the best placement for an employee of the corporation.
This is just normal business.
And if she goes to HR to make a stink about it, chances are she’ll find herself on everyone’s shit list 
Moved MPSIMS --> IMHO.
But this went a little above and beyond that: it’s not that the current manager just failed to give a recommendation, it’s that she actually contacted the other store and asked the manager there NOT to hire away the employee.
I agree that it’s legal, but it’s still a pretty low thing to do.
Why? The managers first responsibility to to the store, not the employee. It’s not a low thing to do, it’s the responsible thing to do.
Posters keep acting like the relationship between employee and employer is equal. It’s not even close. Your boss is not your friend. How many of your friends do you pay to hang out with you?
It is by definition an exploitive relationship - the only reason I’m willing to pay you $10/hr is because I know I can get $15/Hr of work from you netting me $5/hr. Why in the hell would I hire you otherwise?
I think a lot of Dopers don’t understand this. Just as a lot of Dopers don’t understand the clout other employees and customers can have over them. I also think a think a lot of Dopers confuse job with a hobby. There’s no law that says you have to like your job and people have to be nice to you when there. That’s why you’re paid to be there.
Sorry for the hijack.
I disagree with that. Just because you get $15/hr and pay me $10/hr is not exploitive. You have fixed costs and risks associated with your business. If I could make that $15 on my own, I would, but I assume fewer risks and startup costs by accepting the $10 from you. That’s not in the least bit exploitive. It’s a win-win for both parties.
And, no, I’m not saying that the manager has an obligation to do what is in her best interests, but in my experience that is what happens to an extent. Most business owners aren’t robots. They have a certain amount of human feeling. And that is a good business decision as well. If you don’t realize that your employees have lives outside of work, then the best and brightest will work for your competitor that does.
[ul]
[li]Fair market compensation[/li][li]Negotiation of benefits such as health insurance and retirement plans[/li][li]Training, development and continuing education, if applicable[/li][li]Attention to occupational health and safety[/li][li]Employee and labor relations[/li][/ul]
Just to name a few
I know people like to shit all over human resources, but if the management of a company or organization doesn’t attend to the business and economic needs, that company or organization will not remain viable, and people will be out of their jobs.