Key words being, “for me”. Unfortunately, you don’t get to decide how debates work around here, kiddo.
So if, in a messageboard debate, I wanted to communicate that her firing was probably justified, but NOT that her firing must have been justified, what words should I use?
I’ve read your posts a time or two, and followed arguments and/or debates resulting therefrom. I’ve no doubt that I am interpreting your post #5 correctly.
You’re the lawyer; you tell me. All i know is when somebody says, “it is probably is justified”, they are not interested in the facts. brazil84 position was clear; yours, less so.
It’s not as if this woman has simply journaled the story over the internet. There was at least one reporter who presumably attempted some form of fact checking, and attempted to get an countering story from Zales. There was a photo of the woman with her numerous awards, and again the reporter presumably looked at closely enough to assure that they weren’t photocopies of her highschool diplomas or other totally bogus crap.
Still you say it is more likely the woman is simply making this up to cover up some legitimate reason for her firing. I’m curious as to why she would go to the media if her employer could disprove the story.
I still think it’s considerably more likely some jerk idiot manager simply treated her like a disposable drone and fired her to cut costs.
I do recognize that “likely” != “must”. But since I would say there is more evidence supporting her story than not, I would argue that your bias is showing.
To be fair though, Bricker, brazil84 has a history of being a moron. You’re much more eloquent and capable of putting together a more persuasive argument, that actually makes SENSE.
It may sound biased against him, but I guess what I mean is, well, you’re more intelligent, and able to get your point across. He is not.
It was already (the sole entry) in the “controversy” section on the Zales Wikipedia page when I looked up how many stores they had this afternoon.
I didn’t say anything of the sort. However, in a company with 10,000 covered lives, you’d need to offer an employee health plan with an unrealistically high maximum annual/lifetime benefit before a single employee’s non-chronic health condition could possibly impact the cost of the plan.
By unrealistically high, I mean “previously unheard of”.
Notice he leads in one way and when called his responce is I did not really say for a fact that it happen the way I implied it.
Words and writting are my weak suite, so often I do not post. I would suggest that old 84 sharpen his writting skills or expect to be questioned about what he has posted.
In my working life I have seen large companies make stupid mistakes that were hard to believe. This sounds like it could be one. Me I think it was, but I may be wrong.
I think his writing skills are just fine. He hints, he implies ,he dances around what he’s really thinking, we can all see what he’s getting at but he leaves himself some wiggle room to claim he was misunderstood.
Yes, absolutely. brazil84’s writing skills are excellent. He knows exactly what pin he is dancing on the point of. His learning skills are another point entirely.
:shrug: I get to decide how I will use and interpret the English language. If you wish to invent non-standard interpretations so that you can pretend I said something different from what I actually said (and meant), I can’t stop you. However, I call that “strawmanning” and I do not engage with people who do that.
Here is my post #5:
There is nothing in there where I say that it must be some other reason.
I don’t engage with people who misrepresent my position, i.e. strawman me. Goodbye.
Actually that’s not exactly what I said. But in any event, the irony here is that a couple morons essentially concluded that the employer is in the wrong (whereas I stayed open to the possibility of either side being in the wrong). So it’s not me who is “not interested in the facts.”
People fool themselves all the time in these types of situations. Employees and employers both. Besides, if her discharge is unrelated to her (alleged) request for time off, it might not be the case that the employer can prove it.
So basically you are saying that this employer went completely against its financial interests by letting go a star salesperson AND opening itself to a possible lawsuit AND potentially generating bad publicity. It’s definitely possible, but there’s also a very good chance that that’s NOT the case.
Thank you.
I am “biased” in the sense that I am assessing the situation through the filter of life experience. Over the years, I have learned that most people are not capable of telling a story like this in an objective way. Most people lie and exaggerate and paint the other fellow out to be much more of a villain than he or she deserves.
Just look at this thread – Frank clearly twisted my words and yet he cannot admit it to himself or to others. Instead, he casts me as the bad guy. That’s human nature. Most people cannot think critically or assess their own behavior objectively.
Here’s an experiment for you: Interview 100 people who were in car accidents and ask each one “who was more at fault - you or the other guy?” I feel confident in predicting that a lot more than 50% of the people will state that the other person was more at fault.
The other experience which informs my “bias,” such as it is, is that through my job I have personally witnessed many claims very similar to that of this woman.
I don’t understand your point at all. Assuming that large employers sometimes discriminate on the basis of possible health insurance claims, would you agree that the victims of such a practice are individual identifiable people?
I am happy to answer reasonable questions about what I have posted. But that’s not what happened here with Frank. He clearly twisted my words and it would appear that his little mind has fallen victim to Emerson’s hobgoblin.
That’s nonsense. I am happy to state what I am really thinking, which is that there’s a pretty good chance this woman’s job ended for reasons completely unrelated to he request for medical leave.
That’s my position, nothing more and nothing less.
I’ve been burned enough times in my life that I know better than to come to a more definite conclusion based on the limited evidence available.
On the other hand, morons like guinistasia are (apparently) quick to conclude that one party is a “cuntmaggot.”
No, I leave myself wiggle room because I am smart enough to see that there is not enough evidence here to come to a definite conclusion.
Lets go through the evidence.
- She’s a top performer-5 diamonds, 1 for every 1 million in sales
- 12 commendations
- All this in 4 1/2 years
- Needs surgery for aneurysm
- Fired within 1 week of revealing need for surgery and time off
- Zales drags their feet on COBRA coverage, does not inform her of her rights under COBRA
- Zales gives her coverage in 1 day after being contacted by the newspaper.
- Termination for gross misconduct is the only reason an otherwise eligible employee can be denied coverage. COBRA FAQs
The timing of her firing is extremely suspect.
I’ll say it right out. I think Zales is engaging in the usual short sighted corporate idiocy that’s far too prevalent these days.
(Essentially) her claims. Moreover, the dates of the commendations have not been revealed.
Her claim.
Her claim. Besides, employers have 60 days to fulfill their COBRA obligations. As far as anyone knows, this woman was discharged a few weeks ago. So the employer would apparently not be in default even if the COBRA notification were sent today.
I have no problem believing that an employer would go above and beyond its legal obligations after being contacted by a newspaper or insurance commission. But so what?
There’s no evidence that the employee was denied. So what does it matter?
If you accept everything the employee is saying, sure.
And I think you are being an idiot for accepting this woman’s version of events with little or no skepticism.