Yup, we have the internet rule. I promise I was watching the Washington Capitals online last night because I thought it might have an influence on world financial markets.
On the night shift, no one bothers wearing their badges either. Although, we do have to carry them to go from floor to floor, enter and leave the building, and get access to the night shift area.
I worked at a standardized testing center which didn’t allow phones with cameras, this was around 2005, pre smart phone, but almost every new phone had a camera. I was a supervisor but kept my camera phone well hidden and only used in the bathroom.
At another previous job in financial services, you were supposed to declare any outside jobs. Now, I can understand a conflict of interest if you’re working for two finance firms, but a lot of people were recent college graduates and held minor jobs on the side. One guy worked as a bartender in a popular nightclub, not for the money really but to meet women. Another guy played in a bar band. Heck, even the manager raced motorcycles and worked as a part time motorcycle mechanic.
When I first started working in the stone ages (our office had ZERO PCs in 1986), the rule was NO use of work equipment for personal business. If you had to make a phone call (this was before cellphones, too), you were expected to take the elevator down to the lobby and use a pay phone. I remember an ethics training film, where some poor schmuck got in trouble for photocopying his kids’ birthday party invites, and leaving the original on the copier! (The film didn’t comment in the idea of the poor kid sending out photocopied invites! :D) Of course, everyone violated those all the time.
Over the years we all got PCs, and then the internet. Now, the rule is more reasonable, saying “reasonable use” that does not interfere w/ work duties is allowed. Applies to phone, copier, or internet. There are specific exclusions: porn of course, chain letters, personal e-mail and social media (which I think is blocked anyway), no downloading of audio/visual files, no plugging personal drives/devices into the computer. But nothing to preclude my checking into the Dope!
I’m pretty sure our dress code still forbids the wearing of open-toe shoes without stockings or panyhose, with no mention made of an exception during hot weather.
No actually the last two companies said “reasonable” personal use was Ok: no going to sketchy sites, dating prono, etc, no downloads, etc, pretty reasonable. No social media was a common one. In other words, you could buy something on amazon or check your ebay auction, and of course LinkedIn was Ok.
It’s actually by far the most common. “Cause” is hard to prove and is subject to lawsuits. “At will” is almost impossible to sue, unless it’s racist or retaliation for whistleblowing etc.
That needn’t happen. The button would be routed to local EMTs, who could pick up the elderly relative and assess for injuries. That is probably the best option, anyway, so if the fall was caused by a stroke, or a bone is broken, they can take the elder to the hospital immediately. In my experience, EMTs are happy to do the pick up elders and assess service. Have a number at the office – manager? HR? other? posted in the home and on a bracelet on the elder’s wrist so you can be immediately notified.
Granted, and one time the paramedics beat me home, and broke the back window getting inside. Another time I reached home just as police were about to break down the door. It turned out there that Mom had pushed the button by accident and could not hear the emergency operator ask if she needed help, so they notified police.
Yes, I had a regular caretaker coming in, but it was on a charity program and we were only allowed four hours a day. So the three hour gaps before and after, I had no choice but to leave Mom by herself. Obviously, as we were renting tenants, it would not be optimal to have rescue squads breaking down doors every two weeks or so.
It wasn’t a pretty picture, and it’s all over now. Anyway, it’s not really relevant to this thread.
It’s actually not. Well, unless you are counting layoffs and other terminations where unemployment of severance would be expected.
It’s easy to prove cause. Keep an attendance record, keep metrics on performance, keep track of disciplinary actions. It may be hard to prove for lazy or incompetent businesses, but anyone with a lick of sense will follow proper procedures in severing employment.
I’ve had ex-employees try to collect unemployment on me on a few occasions, and when I show the agent from Jobs and Family Services my records on what led to their termination, they deny the claim, every time, because I fired them with cause. (One quit and tried to collect unemployment. I’m not sure why she wasn’t just laughed out of the offices.)
If I told them that I fired my employee because it is an at will state, and I don’t need cuase to fire them, then they would authorize the unemployment payout, and my unemployment insurance would go up.
Termination for cause is serious business. Employers and employees have many reasons for parting ways, but employment termination for cause is not a desirable outcome—for either the employer or the employee. Termination for cause generally occurs when an employee makes a severe error in actions or judgment.
Lazy, incompetence, or poor performance are not “cause”.
These are “cause” :
Violation of the company code of conduct or ethics policy,
Failure to follow company policy,
Breach of contract
Violence or threatened violence,
Threats or threatening behavior,
Stealing company money or property,
Lying,
Falsifying records,
Extreme insubordination,
Harassment,
Failing an alcohol or drug test,
A conviction for some crimes, or,
Watching pornography online.
Firing. *If you are fired because you lacked the skills to perform the job or simply weren’t a good fit, you should be able to collect benefits. If you are fired for misconduct, however, you will not be eligible for unemployment benefits. In California, misconduct makes you ineligible for unemployment benefits only if all four of these statements are true:
You owed a “material” duty to the employer. This means a duty that is properly part of the job (this can be, for example, showing up for work and performing your job duties).
You substantially breached that duty (in other words, you didn’t perform the duty). A minor or one-time transgression isn’t enough to disqualify you from receiving benefits.
Your breach of the duty showed a wanton or willful disregard for that duty. In other words, you weren’t just careless or thoughtless but, instead, intentionally violated the duty or showed a reckless disregard for the consequences of your breach of the duty. Inefficiency, inability to perform the job, or good faith errors in judgment don’t meet this standard and won’t render you ineligible for unemployment benefits in California.
Your breach of the duty must tend to harm the employer’s business interests.*
Like an attendance policy, the way that I’ve lost most of my involuntary separations.
One, that is california, other states do vary.
And two, yes, you can document those breaches of duty.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. All I said was that if someone was terminated for the reason given by the poster, then that would not be for cause, and that they could collect unemployment.
Your claim is that cuase is hard to prove. I say that it is not, and that I have actually, on a few occasions, proved siad cause to the satisfaction of govt agencies, and didn’t get sued in the slightest.
You would only get sued for a “cause” should your cause not be properly documented or fraudulent.
Can you please let me know what point it is that you are trying to make here, I don’t even know if we are in disagreement, as I don’t know what it is that you are trying to argue.
We have sturdy step stools to reach the top shelves in the aisle. When stocking the bottom shelves, there is no sitting allowed on the step stools or the floors. Supposedly, it “looks bad.” Yet we all do it.
The only food allowed in the store is kosher food. Supposedly. You can bring in a ham and cheese pizza if it’s in a box and wrapped.
I agree. I ran a restaurant in California for seven years, in the late ‘90s and early 2000s. I had to terminate many people during that time. When someone filed for unemployment, I would get a letter from the unemployment office, with a form to contest it. I would write a paragraph or two explaining why I had terminated the employee, and that was good enough for the unemployment office. I don’t recall ever having to back up my statements with proof (though I was prepared to do so). The former employees’ claims were almost always denied.
Apparently, the former employees did not appeal the decisions. You would have been called to appear at the appeal hearing if they had.
Many large employers hire benefits management firms that routinely contest every unemployment claim and routinely appeal every claim that is granted. They know that the typical employee is too intimidated to file an appeal or to show up at an appeal hearing that the employer requests, so this is a successful strategy.
