It’s kind of ironic to stage a strike to show how irreplaceable immigrants are in the work force. and then get fired.
Regards,
Shodan
Sounds like it might be a civil rights issue – if all the workers who were fired were in a protected class defined by national origin. They would not need to be of the same national origin, for that to be their protected class. For example, if the Jews and Muslims of a community decided to have a day of solidarity, they would be a protected class on the basis of religion.
It’s all well and good that the employees knew days in advance that they would protest, and did not communicate that to their boss. But the employer also knew days in advance that his employees of that class were being called upon to protest, and similarly failed to anticipate a problem and open a dialogue about it. The argument could be made that the employer said nothing, because he wanted to create the opportunity to fire the workers. and that would certainly be grounds for a civil rights suit. It is very easy to “create opportunities” to violate the rights of a protected class with impunity.
In this particular shop, I would suspect that there was already an undercurrent contributing to the firings.
I voted “fair”, but if the fired employees organized a boycott against the business, I’d say that was “fair” as well.
My brother has worked for a large multinational company for 20 years. He has lived in Turkey, China, Mexico, and Brazil for work.
When trump’s immigration ban was announced, he decided he would take time off of work to protest at an airport. His company gave him some grief over his choice, until he explained how his friends/coworkers were being affected. Then they changed to outright support; featuring his efforts in a company newsletter and paying him for his time off.
Completely fair for an employer to fire an employee for an unapproved absence. Now, if the workers had been fired for going to a political rally on their day off, that would have been unfair and probably legally actionable.
I’m not sure why you’d bring that up when it has little to do with the case unless the employer not only fired those who didn’t show up from work but also fired other people that were similar to them in some other aspect (religion, race, ethnicity etc).
And that’s the problem. They knew, they didn’t request a the day off, I’m not sure what the issue is.
The employer isn’t a mind reader. I hear my employees taking about upcoming events all the time. It’s not my job to assume they’re going to attend every event instead of work.
The argument actually can’t be made that the employer said nothing since the employer explicitly told them that they’d lose their jobs if they didn’t come in to work that day. Then they didn’t come in to work that day and they lost their jobs. Yeah, it sucks, but they really don’t have anyone to blame but themselves.
That may be the case and I’ve certainly seen it happen, but your entire post seems to be based on that assumption.
And a big difference? In the case of the op they actually were extremely important to have that day. Irreplaceable in the short-term anyway. The company’s ability to meet a promised deadline to customers was impacted. Possibly other workers had to be paid but could’t actually do much because what they needed to do was dependent upon what these workers had to do first. The large multinational’s ability to meet its promises to its customers being impacted by one person taking a few days off? Not impacted. The PR gain to the multinational with a large international workforce from highlighting support OTOH was worth some small amount.
Honestly this was one protest that did not make much sense to me. The people hurt by it were the employers of these companies and their customers depending on the product or service being there when they need it who in might even be and often are very supportive of the cause.
“Fair”? I think disproportionate. But yeah if they allow a large portion to take off for this then a large proportion informing the boss that they will be missing work, causing delays in meeting promised deadlines to customers and hurting the company’s bottomline, to all do something like attend a Trump or anti-immigration rally, is also fair to do and that responding to it as a boss would “unfair”. Fairness means that agreeing or disagreeing with the politics is immaterial.
ETA: Fairness would depend on whether or not other unapproved absences have been met with similar levels of response.
Fair, although if it turns out that the employees were irreplaceable (at least in the short-to-medium term) it would be counterproductive to the business.
I went fair mostly due to the short notice they gave and because “We are the team leaders directly under the supervisors”. In that kind of situation they could have been costing the people under them the days pay and doing some real damage to the company. That goes beyond making a statement to what I would consider a terminal offense.
While I support the immigrants intent, I think the firings are fair. Very few employers would tolerate employees who missed work unexcused because they wanted to do something else. The fact that it was a political rally doesn’t matter. The employees should have gotten approval for a vacation day if they wanted to go to the rally.
Some employees went even though their employer told them they would be fired and some didn’t even call to say they weren’t coming into work. From CNN:
I feel bad for the people who lost their jobs because they didn’t understand the reality of the situation, but that’s the way the world works. I hope the companies understand the reality of the situation as well. If you fire your entire masonry or kitchen line teams, you’ve decided to create a huge disruption to your business. Hopefully they have enough cash flow to keep the company afloat while they deal with the lost business as they try to rehire and retrain new workers.
Right. They participate in a rally which is basically saying, “Fuck you, employer. We will take a day off to show you how important we are and how you can’t live without us!”
They participate in said rally and get a pink slip, and are then crying about how unfair it is that the employer fires them.
I mean, don’t take such an aggressive stance if you cannot handle a very foreseeable outcome.
The question is whether, or not, they were irreplaceable at all. They weren’t, since the employer fired them all, and presumably replaced them.
‘I’m going to skip work to show that you can’t get along without me!’ If the company couldn’t get along without them, they wouldn’t have been fired. So the company is going to get along without them, no matter the short term impact on the business for that one day.
Regards,
Shodan
I mean, I sort of support the whole idea, but the protest/strike doesn’t mean as much unless there is actual risk involved, is my feeling.
I’ve always seen employment as a 2-party agreement. If either party decides to end the agreement, so be it.
I suspect you appreciate that the point was never to show that any individual is “irreplaceable” … few of us are … but how much our economy overall relies on immigrants. How much these workers as a group matter and what a hole results if they were suddenly all gone. But sure any particular 18 can be replaced by another 18 even if there is a short term disruption that occurs as a result.
An employer may decide that they need to follow through on a promised disciplinary action even if it harms them in the short run as a matter of establishing precedence for the future: “If I let this group do it without consequence I’ll need to to let the next group that wants to take off for whatever reason take off to do so without consequence also. I cannot run a business like that.”
Yes, especially if they were warned first.
However, employer now has 18 positions to fill and retrain, so good luck paying those expenses. For those who don’t think that’s a big deal, or will be easy, please note that this sort of thing always costs money, in advertising the positions, in time spent interviewing, in work not getting done.
From news reports it wasn’t just the painting company in Tennessee, that fired employees that walked out.
- Denver masonry company - 30 employees
- Oklahoma resturaunt - 12 employees
-Long Island, NY deli - 25 employees
-Florida private school - 2 employees - South Carolina boat manufacturer - 21 employees
Probably more in other locations.
Fair.
The whole point of a walk out is that you are inconveniencing your employer. You’d better be sure that your employer is more inconvenienced by your absence and wants to get you back. As Chimera pointed out - it isn’t free to the employer to have to rehire and retrain - there is lost productivity. Orders might not get completed on time which will upset customers - so sometimes its a good bet - but its a bet, not a riskless activity.
If you are walking out as a form of political protest that is not against your employer, better make sure your employer supports you.
I understood it as a fairly hastily planned multi-city/national protest in reaction to Trump’s hastily implemented immigrant ban. Someone had the idea, & then implemented it, & then is spread to a second, third, fifth(?), tenth(?) city, & then they had to hear about it, so they probably didn’t know about it much in advance as concept to execution was only days/hours depending upon the city.
There is spite motive on part of the employer - not that that’s a bad thing.
Suppose a player goes to his coach and says, “I’m going to sit out this upcoming game, or skip this upcoming practice, and I dare you to cut me from the roster.” Chances are the coach will do just that - cut him from the roster, to send a message - not just to the player, but to all other players too.
Maybe it’s cheaper to hire and train new employees that will reliably show up to work than to keep the ones that won’t. Yes, it costs money to train new people, but it also costs money when you miss deadlines, have to pay other employees to do nothing because other things aren’t getting done or have to bring people in on their off day.
I’m not sure why you would suggest that replacing all these workers costs money but ignore the fact that them not showing up also costs money. That’s like suggesting that when the power goes out the factory saves money since they’re not using any electricity.