You are probably thinking of the thread where I claimed that by some subset of definitions, “hispanic” included Brazillians. I cited and linked to an online dictionary which backed up my claim. I then offered to stipulate for the sake of argument that “hispanic” did not include Brazillians.
cite:
I should also note that I did not put Dante on my ignore list as a result of that thread. In a different thread, he accused me of “moving the goalposts” but was unable to back up his claim.
Not that any of the above likely matters to you, since you are probably* not the type of person to let actual facts get in the way of your desire to hate.
*When I use the word “probably,” I mean the normal English sense, and not the Fear Itself / Guinistasia definition.
I’d originally decided to let his response stand as is. Then I realized it does call for an answer.
This very thread is full of the cites he claims to be demanding. There have been several threads in Great Debates on the topic global warming that contain examples of the cites on tht topic.
While I could go quote-mining, it would be a waste of my time and everyone else’s, as b84 will merely handwave it away or make a semantic nitpick (“You claim I said ‘at anytime’ when it’s clear I said ‘at any time’ with a space in it!!”), and anyone who’s got to this point has seen him dump innuendo after innuendo on that woman who was the original topic of this thread.
While he might have actually had a valid point (as my first post responding to him admits), he’s converted this into an “All Brazil84, All the Time” thread. And i now leave off feeding him.
Hey brazil84, looks like ivn1188 is on your side! There’s a feather in your cap! All you need to do is get Rand Rover and curlcoat on board, and you’ve got a foursome for bridge. God, can you imagine being a fly on the wall in THAT room?
**Please note that brazil84 no longer interacts with me because he has to move his goalposts with both hands and has no time for typing.
That sounds pretty open ended. “any other reason” Just exactly what is “any other reason”?
Like you wore white shoes after Labor Day? You like the Yankees instead of the Mets? You smell funny? You have a creepy monobrow? What? What?
If there were no records, it didn’t exist (so to speak). If this person were a problem employee, surely it would be documented in her file - discplinary actions, counseling, warnings, something.
It just doesn’t look right. A supposed “star employee” goes in for (refresh my memory) a non-elective surgery. Not a nose job, not a boob enlargement, but to fix a potential serious health problem.
Now this “star employee” must have been on the payroll for a while, in order to “achieve star status”, as in a number of years. And yet, was somehow not covered (or something) for vacation/leave/health benefits(or something)?
I DON’T THINK SO.
If she were a crook or broke the “don’t be an asshole” rule, there’d be a record of it somewhere. Apparently there isn’t.
I’m not “on his side”. I am on the opposite side of people, just like you, who prance around thinking they have made telling points when they have failed to put together two logical sentences. It’s easy to just run around calling people trolls, but looking at your posts, the only thing separating you from a troll is that you actually think you’re saying something real, whereas a troll is just jerking people’s chains for fun. Hell, it actually takes more skill to be a good troll than you have shown so far.
Of course, I don’t know why I bother responding to the likes of you, because you’re not going to type anything more substantive than some variant of the Pee-wee Herman defense.
If you really are curious about what reasons for discharge can disqualify a person from collecting unemployment insurance benefits, you can check here:
Sure, and there is no reason at the moment to think her file is missing these things.
Sure it doesn’t look right. And it’s possible – indeed likely – that it doesn’t look right because the employee has failed to share some important pieces of information. Or has spun, exaggerated, or even lied.
You don’t know that. See my post above about TALX.
It’s possible, sure. But then it may be possible that she didn’t lie or exaggerate or spin. Both are equally possible. But I wouldn’t say it is likely. That is making an assumption, just as I made my assumption.
Right, I don’t know for sure, so I can only make statements based on things I know, and my own experiences.
Why is it sad? I could have just as easily “gone to the other side”, based purely on how it looks (an assumption).
Some people are wrongfully terminated. Some deserve to get the boot. Some manage to stay on, even when they should get the boot. The thing that makes it flaky is, there apparently are no Zales records pointing to this person ever being a problem before. Where are they?
Asked and answered earlier in the thread. There’s no reason for Zales to release employee records to the press, and many reasons to keep them private. If they are discovered as part of a lawsuit, then you might get to see them.
Imagine, though, that you got fired, and the company that fired you posted a full-page ad detailing your employment record. That would be a dick move, right? Zales is playing it conservatively, knowing that in most places any bad PR will blow over. It might be that they don’t have anything, as you say, but the lack of public information does not prove that there isn’t any.
By the way, assumptions aren’t merely 6 one way, half a dozen the other. Zales is a giant corporation that brings in a lot of money. They have decades of experience with these sorts of things, and they are going to be pretty rational about risk v reward in the press and in court. An assumption that Zales is probably right isn’t unwarranted or just a guess. Imagine if I were to play some 1 on 1 vs Michael Jordan – if I assumed I would win, and you assumed MJ would win, your assumption is probably better. In this case, you both have arguments as to why your respective assumptions might be correct. Neither of you has made an iron-clad case, and neither side can pull an “end of story”, because it isn’t that simple.
I happen to have personal experience in this area with claims similar to those of this individual and I feel comfortable saying that more likely than not, she was not discharged because of her (alleged) request for a medical leave.
Of course, it’s unlikely that you have experience in this area, and certainly nobody should hold it against you if your position is that it’s a tossup. But earlier, you seem to have reached a conclusion that the employer is in the wrong.
There is a third option, which is to conclude that it’s not “end of story.”
Why leads you to believe that there are no such records?
But the (former) employee is entitled to copies. Zales’ lawyer says they have records but won’t release them. Zales tried to block her unemployment claim, knowing they would have to provide records to back it up and didn’t. It’s now public that Zales is claiming she was fired for misbehavior(that covers a lot of ground, why not a specific reason?) yet won’t show the records they claim to have. Now that the reason is public, there’s no need for secrecy. They could prove thay are right by releasing the records.
Not only that, but a savvy plaintiff’s side employment lawyer is always looking for the opportunity to assert a retaliation claim. If Zale’s were to break policy and publicly disclose embarrassing information about this woman, a smart lawyer would allege that it was done in retaliation for asserting her rights and assert a second, independent cause of action against Zale’s for retaliation.
That makes sense too, because if there is something in her file, and Zale’s made it public, that could be considered “retaliatory spite work”.
I guess the only question left for me to really ask is, if she had indeed been a money making star employee, why not cut her some slack? If she was trouble all along, why wait until now to fire her? I can accept the “straw that broke the camel’s back” argument because sometimes that’s exactly what it is. But, who the hell knows.
You are assuming that every manager at Zales knows and follows the rules. I know of a case at a company much older and bigger than Zales where the manager totally screwed up on maintaining the proper documentation. Of the course the company is going to stand behind the manager, publicly at least.
Of course Zales won’t - and shouldn’t - make anything public. However I’d suspect that if she was fired for misbehavior there would be at least one written warning, which she would have a copy of. Did she lie to her lawyer about this? If there was one, why wouldn’t Zales give her lawyer a duplicate copy of what she has already?
The thing that really stinks is the timing relative to her request for sick leave. Did they internally increase the severity of any warnings or issues to justify not paying for her surgery? Did some moron manager think this was going to save money?
I believe what ivn1188 is saying is that it is likely the manager knew and followed the rules. An second or third hand anecdote does nothing to refute that.
If she wanted to pursue a claim against the company, and she had received such documentation, clearly she wouldn’t make public via the press said documentation, nor elaborate on any reason she may have been dismissed that isn’t related to the alleged violation. The only thing we know is that she hasn’t told the press that the documentation exists, which makes plenty of sense whether or not her case has merit.
Great questions. These are the types of things that should come to light in a hearing, and can’t be assumed to be necessarily true or false until then.
We don’t know the details, but based on my experience, I would say the two most likely possibilities are (1) she had a personality conflict with the new DM; and (2) she was violating some policy all along and the new DM decided to crack down.
Personally, I’ve seen it happen many times that a rogue manager screwed up in this way. It’s unusual at large employers, but it does happen. However, if I had to bet one way or another, I would put my money on Zales. It’s just a lot more common for disgruntled former employees to spin tales than it is for rogue managers to flagrantly violate the law.
There are a couple potential advantages in this, the main one being that the employer wants the ex-employee to be as in-the-dark as possible when she swears out her EEOC/human rights charge. With a little luck, she may swear to something which is contradicted by a document. A lesser advantage is that you want to make it difficult for the ex-employee’s potential lawyer to evaluate her case. If the potential lawyer has doubts about the case (and any competent lawyer knows to be skeptical of these sorts of claims), then he might tell the ex-employee that she needs to pay some money up front for representation. Which makes it less likely that she will retain him and less likely that she will file a charge or lawsuit.
To me what really stinks is the omission from the story of Zale’s official reason for discharge, which almost certainly would have been told to this woman before now.