If this were just a personality conflict with the new manager, I would want to know how she had “interfaced” with previous managers. If her record had been a good one up to now, then I would take a harder look at the manager. If shere were violating some policy, did her previous managers know about it? If so then there was a precedent set. To suddenly get canned for doing what previous bosses had either condoned or turned a blind eye to, is not how you do things. You give warnings, you counsel, you say “stop doing that”.
You like to talk about all your experience in this stuff. I have some too, as a local union rep. If this this new manager simply fired someone for something and didn’t document it, or fired someone for something that had been allowed before (either explicitly or implicitly), if this manager fired someone for a simple personality difference, I’d be in a very good spot to get the lady hired back and the manager domoted or fired.
Not rogue, just incompetent. Most managers don’t run into this kind of thing that often (maybe ones in retail do) and without training and very clear guidelines they might violate the law without intending to. I’d guess that management training is a victim of the economy, as well as HR. When I had to do a performance improvement plan for someone, it was a big help to have lots of HR people in my building. I doubt this manager had that advantage.
Maybe true, but that doesn’t explain why she didn’t get a copy of the write-up, before she got fired. I’ve read of several cases where the fired employee acknowledges the reason for termination but disputes its validity. Saying she wasn’t given a reason is odd.
You mean from her lawyer? I can see why Zales wouldn’t say anything except in the most general sense. I know of issues with principals in our school system where the actual reason for firing or demotion (which I got through back channels) never came out officially.
But, given that she didn’t do anything that would justify immediate termination, even if an employee was on report why would she be fired just before a serious operation? Even if a case for termination were winding its way through the company, why not wait? I can think of two explanations. One, the manager incorrectly thought that she would be saving the company money by firing her before the operation. Two, the manager had it in for the employee for some reason, and thought she didn’t deserve getting her operation paid for. Can you think of a good reason for this awful timing - especially bad in a customer facing retail operation.
Many employers act like this all the time. Yes, it’s often a crappy thing to do, but the question I’ve been focused on is whether this woman was fired because she requested medical leave.
What you’ve said so far is is consistent with my experience too. I’ve been going on the assumption that this woman is not a union employee. There is no mention in the article that she’s in a union and the vast majority of retail salespeople in New York are not in unions.
Workers in most unions are much better protected against the kinds of unfair discharges which plague non-union employees. Of course, the question of whether this woman was fired for an unfair reason is different from the question of whether she was fired for requesting medical leave.
You can call it whatever you want. It does happen sometimes that incompetent managers break the law without knowing it. However, it’s unusual for such a discharge to take place from a big employer.
Where does it say she didn’t get a copy?
No, from the article.
The vast majority of private employers in New York tell people (at the time of discharge) a reason for discharge. That’s just how things are done.
For one thing, her DM might not have been aware that she had requested leave. For another, her DM might not have cared. For another, her DM might have thought that, given that the decision was made to fire her, it would be better (from a risk point of view) to do it before the medical leave than after.
I mean, suppose this woman had gone out for surgery and come back a couple months later and was fired the day she got back. Would the people who are outraged at Zales be any less outraged? Of course not.
Assuming that Zale’s had a legitimate reason to fire this woman, when and how do you think they should have fired her?
That’s the “million dollar question”. Simply requesting medical leave is not a good grounds for dismissal at all. If shere were flatly denied, she has choices - accept that decision and defer the operation, file some sort of protest or appeal, argue (respectfully), or ignore it (insubordination) and take the risks. If she was told “this is not a good time could you do it later”, then she could go along with that too. If she were fired for requesting leave, and only for requesting leave, I would call that the same as firing for unfair reasons. Many employees are not union, and the place they work is not a “union shop”. Yet, if you have good people, you want to keep them. So, companies can and often will voluntarily set up their own “employee safeguards”. It’s good business.
If someone gets fired for simply requesting leave, then Zale’s needs to re-examine their policies and procedures.
And I wouldn’t. To be sure, it’s unfair to fire somebody just for requesting medical leave. But here’s a hypothetical for you:
Suppose she was fired simply because she had a personality conflict with her boss. Do you agree that would be unfair? And if so, do you think (assuming it were proven) it would or should evoke the same level of outrage as with a person who is fired for requesting medical leave?
Do you think a person should be able to sue their employer if they are fired simply because they cannot get along with their boss?
We’re only talking one instance here. The company I worked for was far, far, larger than Zales. Large companies with many satellite offices do not necessarily have uniform application of policies.
There has been no mention of any reason for her firing from her lawyer. As I said, they usually refute the given reason, not ignore it.
of course from the article, but quoting the lawyer. Do you really think that the HR and PR people in Zales would or should reveal personal performance information to the press?
You misunderstood me. The people get told, but reporters do not. Nor should they.
You mean the DM would not be aware of current staffing levels, and would not have to approve the leave? Sounds unlikely. She knew the employee was home, didn’t she? She might not have known the reason (since medical stuff is usually confidential) but she would have known. As for not caring or thinking firing before is better, you might be right, but I still consider both options signs of incompetence. The employee might never return due to her health problems, and Zales wouldn’t have an unemployment issue. I know very few managers who enjoy firing people (I sure didn’t) and having the problem maybe fixing itself would have been ample reason to delay. Maybe her attitude would have been a lot better when she came back.
I don’t know about Zale’s, but places I’ve worked have had performance improvement plan systems. This might be pro forma when the person is a slacker, but I think that a person who clearly contributed to the bottom line of Zale’s would get at least some chance to improve. If she was on one, it hasn’t come out.
I’d have waited until she returned, made my expectations clear, and monitored the situation. AND WRITE EVERYTHING UP! If they did, they sure didn’t share it with the state, did they?
Who knows, maybe the DM thought Blondie offers an accurate view of how management is done.
That’s not my experience. When I speak to unhappy former employees, getting the employer’s official reason for discharge out of them is often like pulling teeth. For some reason a lot of people have a difficult time saying “when they fired me, they accused me of _______.” Do you agree with me that the vast majority of private employers in New York give a reason for discharge at the time of discharge?
Of course not. Why would you think I would think that?
A lot of the time, no. For example with FMLA leave, the DM often has no input or control at all. Even if a department is completely short-staffed, a large employer cannot deny a legitimate request for FMLA leave.
In any event, even if the DM is told, it doesn’t necessarily happen immediately. With a big company, if an employee writes a letter to HR requesting medical leave, what typically happens next is that HR will send an FMLA or other leave application form back to the employee and wait for a response. If this woman sent a letter in a week before she was fired, it’s completely possible that the DM had no idea she had just requested time off for surgery.
Can you show me in the article where it says this employee had absented herself before her discharge? I didn’t notice it.
I’m a little confused. Are you saying that if an employer has decided to discharge an employee, and the employee requests medical leave, the decision should be rescinded and the employee should be given another chance?
The above are the two articles cited in Post 1 of the thread.
Now just taking these two articles at face value, she had requested leave. There is nothing wrong with requesting leave. It could be granted, it could be denied. Simply requesting medical leave is not terms for firing someone, in ANY company.
Supposedly, this employee had a good record and had received numerous awards. Supposedly, her new boss fired her very soon after she had requested leave. I have trouble imagining she just suddenly turned into a bad worker.
Did she have personality conflicts with previous bosses? I’m going to gamble here and say she probably did not. Did she have a personality conflict with the new boss? Judging from the articles, I would venture to say this boss was so new, there hasn’t been enough time to develop a conflict - ‘You’re joking — you’ve never been in my store.’
Something is either not right, or is being left out.
That still would not make it ethical. It could still be outrageous to one or many people. It could still be unfair, the outrageousness depending on how unfair it is, and the consequences.
Completely within the law? Sure it could be. Wrong, yet legal? Again, yes.
This could backfire on Zale’s in the long run. Customers may decide to spend their money somewhere else. The economy is not great right now, and a bad image on top of that would be painful. Employees may decide that there are greener pastures elsewhere. Managers extolling their people to be loyal and “give a little extra” might be ignored or ridiculed (you get the same level of loyalty that you give). The real stars of the company might see this as “handwriting on the wall” and jump ship, taking their accounts and customers with them.
So yes, it can be all legal and proper, and still be a stupid move in many ways.
I’m not sure what your point is. Why not try to answer my question?
Suppose she was fired simply because she had a personality conflict with her boss. Do you agree that would be unfair? And if so, do you think (assuming it were proven) it would or should evoke the same level of outrage as with a person who is fired for requesting medical leave?
So your implication that managers in large companies can be expected to follow all the rules is not supported.
I’m sure they do. Do you agree that a (bogus) reason is given even when it is proved in a court of law that an employee was discharged in retaliation for some legal action (like whistleblowing) for which discharge is illegal?
You said that you were surprised that no reason for discharge was given, and I asked if you meant from her lawyer, and you said no, from the article. I took that to mean distinct from the article quoting the lawyer - in other words, from Zale’s. So, did you actually mean that your were surprised that the lawyer didn’t give the reason?
Of course, but the manager is informed.
The article SteveG1 just quoted again states that she informed her manager of a problem, and that a week later the regional manager fired her. Would an RM fire someone without input from the direct manager? HR, which I assume would be involved, knew. There was a week during which a firing decision - if one were actually pending, which is supposition on your part - could be delayed or rescinded.
My bad. She was home when HR told her tough shit about her having to reschedule vital surgery. She had requested the leave, but she hadn’t gotten it yet.
It depends. Say an employee is about to be discharged for erratic behavior, and it is discovered that the employee has a blood clot in the brain which is causing the problem. Do you think the employee should still be discharged?
We don’t know how long the supposed bad behavior was going on, or even what it was, so it is hard to say if it could have a medical cause. Either there was some shift in behavior or this woman was getting awards while being a performance issue. All we have is her testimony (not under oath) that she was surprised by the termination.
did you ask if it was legal, what they did? I answered it might well be.
Did you ask if was wrong to fire someone over what now? Personality conflict? I think I answered that it is wrong. It might be legal, but wrong.
Since this is The Pit, I will ask you something. Where did you get this personality conflict bullshit? It wasn’t mentioned in the articles anywhere. Even if it were, it would be a bullshit reason. Look. This lady had multiple awards. She had some sort of east coast record for sales. No one seemed to have any problem with her. So, did you pull this personality conflict out of the air, or out of your ass? She had a NEW manager. I question, was there enough elapsed time to have a conflict? Apparently according to the article, the manager had never been to her store. Apparently he takes over out of the blue, and fires her out of the blue. SO here’s what I think happened, taking a wild ass guess. The new boss, or some HR person decided to play “bottom line” here. It’s cheaper to fire her than HONOR their commitments. Laid off means paying unemployment. Keeping her means co paying health insurance. Firing her on some bullshit excuse (the “It’s better this way”) means she’s fired and they don’t pay squat.
There was no “you fail get out”. There was no “I don’t like you get out”. What the fuck does “It’s better this way” mean? When you rire someone it’s ususally for a better reason than “It’s better this way”.
We ALL, employee and management alike, have to work with some people whose personality we don’t like. We all have conflicts occasionally. So fucking what.
I have a legal question here for brazil84. My understanding of the law is similar to SteveG1’s in that being laid off means that someone is eligible for unemployment benefits but that being fired means that you aren’t eligible. I always thought that you could lay someone off for any reason (besides the ones against state or federal law). In other words, you could lay someone off for having blue hair or because their name started with “A” but that you could only fire someone for cause (actions and not simply, “I don’t like you”) and that this documentation had to be provided to the unemployment office and they had to agree with your reason before they would withhold unemployment benefits. This prevents a company from firing you for a bullshit reason and then you having no unemployment. I know a few people who have been fired and been able to get unemployment benefits because the company couldn’t provide any documentation to the unemployment office supporting the various causes.
If my understanding is correct then it would illegal to fire someone for having a personality conflict with the manager but it would legal to lay them off. Is that correct?
Can't speak for other states- but in New york you can receive unemployment even if you were fired.The terminology doesn't matter - the reason does. The way it works is that you file for benefits, and if the company challenges your right to receive benefits, they have to show that they fired you for a reason that makes you ineligible. A personality conflict could go either way, just because "personality conflict" can include anything from disliking someone to insubordination. Violating a company policy can make you ineligible for unemployment, so blue hair can also go either way.
I don't know if Zale's fired her to avoid paying for the insurance or not. I do find it odd that the article doesn't state the reason Zale's gave the woman for her termination *or* quote the woman as saying they never gave her a reason beyond "it's better this way" but that says more about the reporter than it does about anyone else.
I think of personality conflict as being just not liking the person and more of an attitude and not resulting in actions. You are right that actions that are insubordinate or unprofessional can result in that but I would view that as a separate issue since those can be documented.
You are absolutely right. Having blue hair wouldn’t have mattered at my last few jobs and I didn’t think of the (many) other positions where it would.
In Tennessee you can be fired and receive unemployment benefits. I was fired and did receive full benefits. A major factor is if the firing company agrees to pay benefits and even if the firing company denies the claim it can be arbitrated by the unemployment office.
TN is a right to work state, they can let you go for no reason whatsoever. You also have the right to leave at any time as well. “It isn’t working out” covers a lot of territory.