So you really think that managements thought process in this specific case was “Hey, making up for taking this day off by working Sunday is a good solution. Let’s fire all 18 of them!”.
Whatever.
I think their thought process might have been “You disrespected meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!”
Because management is made up of people, and people act like irrational doofuses sometimes.
As between the business managers and you, which of you has the most insight into the business process, scheduling, costs, and cash flow?
Doesn’t matter if it was fair or not. It’s Tennessee. They can fire you for pretty much anything here. They say that some are protected by discrimination laws but I know that’s not true. They just can’t say they’re firing you because you’re Muslim or gay or whatever. They don’t have to say anything at all so it doesn’t matter.
Should people be able to protest unfair laws? Yes. That would be fair. But if your boss tells you if you take off work you’ll be fired there’s not much you can do about it. And I wouldn’t be surprised if BCI hired illegal immigrants either, lilke every construction company I’ve worked with or around. They just sub to people who hire them.
You know who takes time off work with less than 24 hour notice? Everyone.
You all never get sick, and call in that morning? That’s 1 hour notice.
There is a difference between “I’m barfing on my shoes. If I come in, I’ll barf on your shoes. I’m not coming in” and “I’m going to be gone tomorrow, along with 17 other people. That’s a problem? Well, we’re doing it anyway.”
Thumbing your nose at management is never a good idea. Management taking the nose-thumbing as a dire insult is sometimes a good idea and sometimes a terrible one. Most of the time, I think most workers should be given multiple chances. But some rule breaking is worse than other rule breaking. Some irresponsibility is worse than other irresponsibility. Some compromises by management would hurt more than other compromises by management. And some absences are avoidable and some are not avoidable.
This wasn’t just “thumbing your nose”. This was a deliberate “I am not going to show up to show how indispensable I am”.
And it turned out the indispensability was only in the worker’s mind.
Using the politics of the situation as justification, in either direction, is a mistake. And if that was the driving reason behind the business’s decision, that would be foolish.
OR it could have been, “I need this done today not Sunday. If you refuse to do it I’ll find someone who will.”
Yep, I already acknowledged that. The company might have been making a decision based on real facts and business realities. Or they might have been making a decision based on “How dare you not listen to me! I’ll show you who’s boss!” without actually taking the business realities into account.
We don’t know. Both are very plausible. I’ve seen management decisions based on hurt feelings and spite a lot, and I’ve seen management decisions based on good evidence and business realities a lot.
If you’ve never seen a business decision made based on the emotions of someone who should know better, you’re lucky or not paying attention.
(post shortened)
It appears that these ex-employees were convinced to make a bad decision based on hurt feelings without actually taking business realities into account. They were going to show these employers, and the voters, that U.S. business can not function without them. Oops.
Who should these ex-employees hold responsible for their current situation? The community organizers who convinced them that wouldn’t lose their jobs just because they walked out en masse, or the employers who hired them with the understanding that they would provide a days work for a days pay?
It’s not fair, but not because of the stated reasons. Taking off to go to a political rally is not something that shouldn’t be a fireable offense. I’m not sure why we’re letting the anti-immigrant Trump supporter set the narrative here.
The issue here is that these immigrants were fighting for their own rights, after the President of the United States had just attacked them. They had, in order to avert monetary loss, set up a way to try and solve it. Their employer, who employs immigrants, did not care about them enough to care about their rights or try anything.
So the result is that immigrants now know they have no power to resist any evil that is thrust upon them. They have to just keep their heads down and take it.
And that is what is unfair. It is unfair that we live in a society where even the liberals treat the immigrants as a “them” who we don’t have to care about. We treat them as being evil for fighting for themselves.
And it is unfair that other workers didn’t join with them in solidarity. It’s unfair that their fellow workers voted for and made President someone they knew would try to remove them.
It’s unfair that these immigrants are not as equal as everyone else.
I thought this entire thread was about the restaurant in Oklahoma that had the exact same thing occur. As far as I can remember, the employees knew they might lose their jobs and weren’t happy about it, but none of them said it was unfair. That restaurant has a very firm no-call no-show policy.
Any time employees attempt to take a stand and an employer is involved, termination of employment is a risk. It’s up to the individual to weigh that risk against their desire to make whatever statement they feel would be made.
But unless Bradley Coatings, Inc. has a simple and fast way to train team leads, they’re going to suffer for at least a short while. Sucks to be everyone involved, but these things happen.
Even if we do not dispute that characterisation, they are still responding to the President’s attack on them by attacking an innocent third party. Their former employer has no obligation to give them continued access to the business, knowing that they deliberately exploited that access to hurt the business to send a message.
They weren’t fired over political activity. They were fired for not showing up for work.
Spoken like someone who has never supported himself or loved ones with a job. Walking out on your boss because your coworkers are getting a raw deal looks great in the movies, but doesn’t put food in your kids’ mouths.
I wouldn’t be especially surprised if some of those people were quietly rehired after the fact. Boss made his point, they didn’t get paid for a while, now come back and don’t do that again sort of thing.
:smack: :rolleyes:
puh-leez
I honestly doubt that many who participated in this protest were intending or realized that they were actually hurting their employer. And for many larger employers with smaller numbers of workers taking off no harm was done. They may have honestly believed (likely incorrectly) that making it up on a Sunday would be no harm no foul to the business.
I couldn’t answer the fair or unfair though because I do not know if this is the action that would have been taken for any and all unapproved days off by an established employee with no past problems.
If standard operating procedure would usually be first infraction is met with a warning and impact on the next performance review and notice that any further infractions would lead to dismissal (which seems “fair” to me) but this time was met with a one-strike response … then not fair. If OTOH this is what is done for any unapproved no-show then “fair.”
The whole point of the protest was to show the employer how dependent they are on the employee by not showing up for work and “hurting” the employer.