All the awards can be verified, if she was lying, Zales could easily show what’s true.
The timing of her firing can be verified as can the date of her doctors visit and when she informed Zales. Again, if untrue, Zales could have said something.
Zales could have easily given her all the info about COBRA in a timely manner, there was no reason to delay.
Zales proved that by doing so under the threat of media exposure.
You said there was a pretty good chance she was fired for other reasons. The only reason I can think of for firing a stellar employee is doing something very wrong=gross misconduct which would have made her ineligible for COBRA.
I never insulted you, why the personal attack?
I’m stating why I think Zales is in the wrong, there are points they could have refuted yet failed to do so leading me to think the points are true.
And when publishing the story, a newspaper has a responsibility to confirm facts as much as possible. Newspapers get contacted by people who think they were wronged every day. And the vast majority of them don’t pan out enough to put into print. This one made it into print. It isn’t certain something is there, but if the basic facts of the story can’t be confirmed (by talking to other store employees off the record for instance), they shouldn’t publish.
Sure, and if this woman files a complaint, for example, with the New York State Division of Human Rights, I would be happy to review Zale’s response and re-evaluate my position.
Legally, “timely” means within 60 days. Do you deny that this was done?
Of course there was a reason to delay – simple beaurocratic inefficiency.
You are accepting this woman’s claim that she was a stellar employee. She could have had problems in other areas, even assuming that she recently received all of these sales awards.
Here’s an experiment for you: Go down to the administrative court where they hold unemployment insurance hearings in your area. Start talking to employees who have been denied benefits on grounds of misconduct and ask if they were excellent employees or not.
There is plenty of misconduct which does not qualify as gross misconduct. For example, coming to work late with no good reason after a warning.
You insulted me by claiming falsely and without any support that I “dance around what [I’m] really thinking,”
As noted above, it’s common practice for large employers to decline comment on personnel matters. I wouldn’t read anything into that at all.
She has the awards, given to her by Zales that indicate she is a stellar employee. If there were other problems why wait until she needs surgery to fire her?
Just because Zales has 60 days on COBRA doesn’t mean they have to take it, the right thing to do is to expedite matters in all cases. Sadly, doing the right thing is rare in the world of Big Business.
Again, if any of what she claims were untrue I have no doubt Zales would say so with appropriate documentation.
You do dance around, why not just come out and say she was wrong and Zales was right? That’s what you keep inferring. I didn’t insult you nor did Guin yet you felt the need for name calling.
Taking 60 days on COBRA doesn’t mean that she wasn’t covered in the meantime. She has the right to coverage through COBRA. The paperwork is basically a formality. (Not that most people can even afford COBRA.) In other words, the “delay” by Zales is a non-event. We have had employees take the maximum time to sign up, we’ve had COBRA notices go astray (they need to go out certified and we’ve had employees that never picked them up, for example) and they have never EVER had a lapse in coverage. Insurance companies know how to do things retroactively. It’s simply not a big deal.
We had an employee a couple of years ago who had no previous warnings, written or verbal, no disciplinary actions, etc. who would have been fired had she taken time off to have surgery. Why? It was plastic surgery, she scheduled it during the holidays, she was reception, and she had taken a couple of months off earlier in the year for bariatric surgery. So yes, there are times when a surgery is pretty much the last straw. (She chose to quit.)
My mother has an aortic aneurysm that they aren’t planning on doing surgery on. There may be a lot of variation in the severity of the problem which might make getting at the truth of the “life or death” rhetoric a little harder.
You really don’t read for detail do you? From the first link in the OP (bolded to assist the reading comprehension impaired)
OK, now count on your fingers with me.
Starting with April 9 count back 5 months.
March
February
January
December
November.
It is pretty obvious that Ms Camilleri was given her award in November of 2008.
:rolleyes:
After my accident, when I quit the job I would not return to, they went over my COBRA coverage that day, did the paperwork and had the process completed by the next day. Until I was told, I was unaware that the coverage was retroactive if needed. Maybe the woman was unaware she was still covered.
You called her a moron and me an idiot. Nothing about past history, just a direct attack.
As for what I bolded: Don’t ask a question you don’t want answered. You may not like the answer.
Sure I do. But since you know the case so well, please state the month and year of each of the woman’s awards. And please tell me if you have any evidence to back up your claim besides this woman’s statements.
Seems to me that at the very best, we know the date of one award. And even that would appear to be uncorroborated. But I must have not read very carefully. So please fill me in. Thank you.
And even if it could be argued that a hypothetically overworked Human Resources department (which I have as much right to hypothecate as does Sergio Mendez’s brother-in-law to suppose that there are other, more sinister reasons behind a firing) might take the sixty days to produce COBRA paperwork for the average terminated employee, would it not make sense to expedite the process when the circumstances surrounding her termination indicate that she is due for elective surgery to correct a potentilally fatal problem?
Actually, as I’ve noted, Brazil84 does have a point of sorts – we only know one side of the story, and obviously someone in the midst of filing legal grievance is not going to produce any negatives regarding their own position. However, to suggest that one person might have been rightfully terminated without any evidence backing that suggestion other than that the suggestor works with unemployed people who often falsify their own cases, is to engage in stereotyping of the most blatant sort. We know that some “global warming skeptics” hold their view because they are being paid by Big Oil to do so. Applying the same logic, we would need to presume that our friend who so avidly holds to the position that Ms. Camilleri must have been terminated for cause holds his views on AGW owing to payments from Big Oil. If this is not true, as I assume it is not, it disproves his contention here.
I’m not sure I would call it “stereotyping of the most blatant sort,” but whatever you want to call it, it’s not an unreasonable inference. Let me ask you this:
Suppose Jane Smith (a total stranger to you) claimed “X” to you without any sort of proof. Suppose further that 100 people had claimed “X” to you in the past, and upon investigation, you learned that 85 of those people were lying. If you had to guess, would you guess that Jane’s story is true or false? And if you guessed it were false, would you be engaged in blatant stereotyping?
Would you mind providing a few examples of this? Thank you.
Same question I asked Frank:
Please either show me where I claimed that Ms.Camilleri must have been terminated for cause or admit that I made no such claim and apologize.
The thing with COBRA coverage is that you don’t need to wait until you’re fully signed up with it before seeking out medical services. The coverage is retroactively applied to the date of your terminated employment as long as you sign up within a certain time frame (63 days or something like that), and you can get reimbursed for any covered services you received. So in this case, the woman in the OP could have still had her surgery on schedule, signed up for COBRA, and gotten reimbursed in accordance with her insurance coverage.
Of course, it’s very likely that she didn’t have that amount of cash on hand to front for the surgery while waiting for Zales to get around to sending the COBRA paperwork. However, Zales would end up paying for this surgery either way under this scenario, so if she was in fact fired for the cost of her surgery (which is illegal, btw), that makes this decision even more retarded.
Also FWIW, a company the size of Zales is almost certainly self-insured, so Zales would be paying for the full cost of the surgery, not an insurance company.
God forbid you should apologize for falsely claiming that Guinistasia did not insult me.
Since you are in hair-splitting mode, I will point out that what I said was that you were being an idiot. But I’m not going to play games. I admit that I insulted you. But only after you insulted me.
If you define “moron” as someone who argues aggressively in favor of unpopular views, then sure.
But let’s do this: How about you quote me at my most moronic?
Fine, feel free to go back to my question from before:
Do you deny it’s common for large employers to have policies against making the sort of response you described earlier?
And another question:
Do you agree that when one party to a dispute describes the facts of that dispute, it’s common for that person to spin, exaggerate, or even lie about what happened?