My workplace doesn’t. Our policy says we must use company resources “primarily for business use”, and we aren’t allowed to access porn, do stuff that risks getting malware on the system, or do malicious stuff that could get the company in trouble, or reveal proprietary information. All of which seem like completely reasonable restrictions to me.
But I’m pretty sure doing a little internet shopping on your lunch break using company hardware is allowed. We have pretty strict nanny software, and every major merchant I’ve ever looked up has been allowed by that software.
I remember those days. We had company-provided phone booths on every floor. Our current rules are similar to yours.
So, the story that I actually opened this thread to share, then got caught up in discussions of staples and highlighters and unemployment benefits:
A particular fast food restaurant that I worked as a manager for for a while has (had? I haven’t worked there in a decade, and haven’t eaten there in longer) a pretty stupid and counterproductive policy: Voids.
If you “voided” a menu item, that was tracked in the system. That meant that if you hit the button for a chicken sandwich, but what they actually wanted was a chicken salad, you would highlight the error, and hit the “void” button, which would remove the erroneous item.
If a ticket was already totaled, it requires a manager void to take it off, preventing an avenue of theft, this was different and tracked separately, and should be kept low.
Now, someone at some point, realized that if there were a bunch of voids, then that meant that orders were not being take efficiently. So, they said that if someone had more than 2.5% void consistently, then they should have a re-training session.
Now, what that means in corporate culture is that anyone with voids over 2.5% should be disciplined for not following the void policy. It also meant that different district managers tried to make their numbers look better, so they wanted a 2% or a 1.5% or lower, which meant that at the store level, this was translated to a 1% or lower.
So, if an employee had more than 1% voids in the course of their shift, then they would be written up for a disciplinary violation of policy.
This means that, in the course of an hour, if someone rings in $500 in food, then missringing a single combo meal will put them over, even if it not their fault.
I would have a customer start to place an order, then change their mind. This would cause complete chaos and confusion, as the reg op would yell back to the sandwich person the changes to the order that were needed, then they would pull out a calculator to either open coupon or misc. charge them to the correct new total.
This caused orders to be made wrong, inventory to be completely screwy, and slowed down service.
In the middle of a lunch rush one day, I had someone start changing their order, and the reg op looked to me for guidance. I reached over and hit the void button, and said, “we’re ringing things in correctly today.”
So, that shift went very well, and I started my own shift policy of “Ring things in right” rather than the tribal of “Avoid the void.”
By ringing things in right, we increased our hourly volume by more than 10%, and decreased customer complaints about food made wrong to pretty much zero. The next time I ordered truck, inventory actually made sense.
This was a policy that I knew where it came from, what the goal of it was, and how it evolved over time to become a counterproductive policy. I had no problem violating it, nor requiring that the employees who worked my shifts violate it.
Then, after a few weeks of this, my district manager and general manager pull me into the office, and tell me that I need to write up these employees for having over 1% voids, and tell me that I will receive disciplinary action if my shifts continue to have high voids.
I tried to tell them that my policy had better results, but they weren’t really having it. By the end of the conversation, my keys were in the DM’s hand, and I was out the door to start a new career in catering.
The first couple of unemployment claims I had were easy enough to deal with. Pretty much the same, filled out a form, then on one I did get a call from JFS about it.
Then I had an employee actually lie about the reasons they quit, and about my operation and policies. Fortunately, I did have enough documentation to reverse that one on appeal, but it did get me to even more thoroughly document everything.
Other than attendance, phone usage is my biggest source of disciplinary issues. Now I get that people think that they have a right to have their phone in their hand at all times, but when you turn your back on the dog you are working on to better concentrate on your texting, that is not acceptable, and I’m not going to wait until you injure or kill a dog to take action.
Had someone fight me over being fired for that, threatened to sue, and left nasty reviews on my business’s social media platforms. After she had a conversation with my lawyer, she took the reviews back down and I haven’t heard anything else from her since.
Small employers hire HR firms a la carte for such. It only costs $55 to get a professional HR person to represent you for an unemployment claim for the first round, and not all that much more for an appeal, depending on whether there is a hearing, which is not always the case. In fact the only hearing that I ever had to go to was the one where initially benefits were granted, but were then overturned at the hearing, where I brought affidavits from several of my employees showing that her claims were fabrications.
Given that about half of the employees that have chosen to file unemployment have also appealed their denial, I don’t think it is all that intimidating. They want to be able to sit around and collect unemployment without having to work, and they have the benefit of not having anything else to do than to file claims and show up for hearings, while the employer actually has a business to run and doesn’t have time to show up for an appeal hearing that is not scheduled at your convenience.
And of course, you were then fired for what you would call “for cause”.
I dunno how your state operates but here in CA it is very hard to deny someone UC. You have to show theft or something , not just not doing the job right.
No, it was a voluntary separation. I quit. I did not even consider applying for benefits. Do you get benefits for quitting in California too?
I just told you the reasons that I have fired people, whether for attendance or for neglect that could cause harm to living animals. You keep saying “or something”, one of the “somethings” that you listed was failure to follow company policy.
ODJFS seemed to be completely fine with my reasoning. Maybe they are more reasonable than the unemployment policies and officers in your state.
In California, do you have to employ people who do not show up to work? Do you need to employ people who will cuase severe damage to your businesses reputation through neglectfully causing injury or death to a client’s dog?
I’ve heard some silly things about what they do out there, but if you are correct, and that firing someone for habitually not showing up for work, or firing someone because they repeatedly ignore policy and create a severe potential for harm, allows them to collect UC, then I’m pretty glad that I don’t live or work there.
What’s the payroll tax for unemployment out there? like 50%?
Texas has/had a condition where you could quit and still get benefits. I believe the only acceptable way to quit and still get them was “substantial change in hiring agreement”. I always assumed it was in place to prevent employers from slashing pay to minimum wage or sending you to shovel shit etc until you quit.
Violation of no camera without written permission rules are common in a couple of plants I work frequently. They’re in place to protect “trade secrets” ie against bad press and food safety. I’ve only seen it enforced once against a guy that had no business filming what he was filming anyways.
Under certain circumstances, like harassment.
"Keep an attendance record, keep metrics on performance, keep track of disciplinary actions. " you didnt say anything about harm to animals. Attendance is a maybe. if you have a policy that being late by even one minute twice is grounds for firing, no excuse, the EDD will pay out. It depends on your policy, how reasonable the policy is, etc.
*To determine whether the claimant’s absence evinces a willful disregard of the employer’s interests, the following questions need to be answered:
Did the claimant have permission to be absent? If not,
Was there a compelling reason for the absence?
Was the absence an isolated instance?
Were there prior warnings or reprimands for unexcused absences or other infractions?
Example - Permission Not Granted, Compelling Reason for Absence:
The claimant had been granted a one-week leave of absence. Due to flood conditions which resulted in increased plane travel, she was unable to get a return reservation. She wired her employer that she would have to return by automobile. Because of prior incidences of absence and tardiness followed by reprimands, the employer would not grant permission for the extra time involved, and sent the claimant a letter of discharge. The claimant was not intentionally disregarding her employer’s interests. To the contrary, she was doing everything within her power to return to work. The discharge would not be for misconduct… If the absence is unexcused and the reason for the absence is noncompelling, the discharge would be for misconduct.
On the other hand, if there is a compelling reason for the absence, there is no willful disregard of the employer’s interests. It is understandable that an employer would want to have more dependable employees; however, if the absence is due to a compelling reason, the absence cannot constitute misconduct, provided that the employee properly notifies the employer of the intended absence, or has a compelling reason for failure to notify the employer.
“Compelling reasons” as used here means substantially the same as good cause in a voluntary leaving context, i.e., did the claimant have a real, substantial and compelling reason of such nature that a reasonably prudent person, genuinely desirous of retaining employment would have acted in a like manner? Common examples of compelling reasons for absences are:
Injury or Illness.
Taking care of family members who are sick.
Loss of private transportation and there are no reasonable alternatives.
Being subpoenaed to court…
If the discharge is due to tardiness, it is therefore necessary to ask the following questions:
Did the claimant have a compelling reason for the tardiness? (If there was a compelling reason, the tardiness is excusable.)
Was the tardiness an isolated instance?
Would the tardiness only have minor consequences or would the tardiness cause foreseeable substantial injury to the employer’s interests?
Were there prior warnings or reprimands for tardiness or other violations of employer standards?
Compelling Reason
If the claimant has a compelling reason for being tardy, his or her discharge is not for misconduct, despite prior warnings or reprimands, according to Title 22, Section 1256-40(d)(2), which provides:*
So absences or tardiness is a “it depends on facts and circumstances’. A “one size fits all” " if you are late three times you are fired” won’t fly in CA, as for as UC goes.
You also mentioned performance, and that is not usually considered for cause in CA.
Which is utterly irrelevant to your claim that they fired me with cause.
I didn’t say it was a fully comprehensive avenue of everything that anyone has done, it was an example of things that I track and document. And I haven’t had employees cause harm to animals, but I have had employees do things that have the potential to harm animals, by not following the policy of not having a cellphone in their hand when they are working on a dog.
My policy was ripped off of another company that I worked for and then made much more generous. Complete with 15 minute grace periods, a generous point system, the ability to work off points, and a probation system if they go over, to try to find a way to work with them to stay employed, rather than just terminating them the moment that they get too many points.
I didn’t claim it was. I have no idea what kind of point you are trying to make here.
Yes, I also mentioned performance as one of the things that I document and track. I did not say that performance was one of the things that I terminate over. It is, however, what I base pay on, and I have had people quit because they didn’t think that I paid them enough, so I have documentation explaining exactly why they make what they do compared to other employees and my sales.
The only things that I have had to term anyone over is cellphone usage and excessive absenteeism.
I would also like to point out to you, once again, that I am not in california, so what california has to say about labor laws is completely irrelevant. My state’s Job and Family Services has no problem with my practices, even if California’s would.
We are forbidden to have our phones when we’re on the clock. This is crippling, because the corporation has an app for coupons and the weekly sales ad. The stores no longer keep paper copies of the flyer (or if we do, I have never seen it) but we can’t just look at the app to tell customers what’s on sale or what coupons are on the app. It changes too frequently to memorize it.
We are far too busy for anyone to have time to check their social media, so the rule hurts more than it helps us. Maybe smaller, less successful stores have a reason, but not us.
And slackers who want to find an excuse to take an unsanctioned break don’t need a phone to create a diversion.
Quite a lot of places prohibit photography, but now that Smartphones are ubiquitous that means not taking the thing out with intend to take pictures.
Internet usage has been a problem with many employers, given that studies show how much time people waste on non-work surfing in a work day. Some employers allow “reasonable” private usage, some forbid it completely to avoid having the define what is or is not allowed. I don’t know if there are many of the latter now.
Overall, I can’t recall any stupid regulations, and I have worked inn everything from factories to offices, but not in the USA. I noticed the comments about electrical appliances; I would understand that a company would restrict or prohibit them. The problem is a potential fire risk, especially if using distributors, and also the increase in power consumption. Kettles and heaters are heavy users. crisj But - space heaters? The employer should provide a warm work area.
One case I heard of, somewhere in Europe, was of a woman who tried to recharge her electric car from an ordinary AC outlet at work.
Not currenly, but I have. In fact, company computer policy was:
it is OK to use the computer for personal use but avoid high-bandwith stuff please. If you’re watching videos don’t complain that “the network is too slow”.
it is definitely not OK to use it for illegal activities or to watch porn.
it is OK to load any legal software in it so long as you can show you have a license. This includes games for those who have been issued a laptop, as we would rather people don’t travel with two of those. You may want to put your games and music in a ¡n external hard drive. And yes, the games need to have the proper license too.
business use always takes precedence over personal use. This is a firing matter.
if you use for company business a program that the company hasn’t provided, let us know. We want to know what you use and why, because it may be useful for others.
That company made a payment to Irfan Skiljan that should have been enough to keep him fed for a couple of years, after IrfanView took its computers by storm due to #5.
People were actually a lot better about not abusing computer access in that company than in any other where I’ve worked. Amazing what treating people like grownups and being reasonable can do.
I’ve seen that at the standardized testing centers I’ve worked at and most of the workers were temps who worked a few projects in the summer. The computers were rented, so they didn’t allow eating at the desk. Guess they didn’t want crumbs getting into the keyboards.
Especially in comparison to a lot of these stories, my company is incredibly flexible. But there’s one thing that drives me nuts here… the number of available parking spots does not match the number of employees. So unless you come in very early, it becomes extremely difficult to find any space at all. If you park on the street, you get in trouble. Some folks have started creating their own parking spaces alongside curbs, which will get you in trouble (seems like a terrible idea anyway…)
So how does the company respond? They designate the 10 spaces closest to the entrance for electric vehicles. If you’re a non-EV owner parking in an EV space, you get in trouble. If there was an abundance of parking available, who would even care. I don’t mind the walk. But the fact that they specifically carved these out for a very small percentage of people when we’re so starved for parking is a definite frustration.
Tell me about it! Same problem where I am. They’ve increased headcount ( from other locations ) and when our shift comes in there are negative parking spaces, no matter how early some of us might arrive. We’ve complained over the course of 5 years, their responses ranging from lip service ( “we’ll see what we can do” ) to flat out stonewalling.
Their recent “fix”? They added a half dozen more handicapped parking spaces ( in addition to the several other existing unused ones, More vanpool spaces ( again, in addition to the the existing ones, some of which always went unused ) and a couple of pregnant women only ones. Keep in mind, these “added” spaces were taken from previously regular parking spaces…there was no expansion.
At the beginning of our shift there are as many vehicles along the curbs, parking island end caps, and perimeter than than are in spots. Parking now becomes a question of getting there early enough to snag some of the least “illegal” spots, and then going back up to the parking lots to re park our cars legally after the previous shift leaves.
