You’re asking the questions in the wrong way. We’re not talking generalities, we’re talking the specifics of this case. Even if others lie, that doesn’t mean this woman is. The facts of her employment, awards, firing and surgery are not in dispute. They are proven. If any of those facts were wrong then Zales should say so. I see no spin or exaggeration in her story.
I would like to hear Zales side, they refuse comment. It’s been long enough to get their story together. It’s already out in public, they gain nothing by keeping quiet.
That’s ridiculous. It’s not like that woman is your mother or something. You don’t know her from Adam, and the assumption should be that she’s a typical human being who is prone to spinning, exaggerating, or even lying about the facts of a dispute to which she is a party.
Let me ask you this: Why do you think this woman is different from a typical human being?
That’s even more ridiculous. Essentially all you have is her word to go by.
That’s incorrect. There’s a lot of potential downside to making a detailed public rebuttal.
Anyway, it’s a simple, reasonable question:
Do you or do you not deny that it’s common for large employers to have policies against making the sort of response you describe?
So you think she made up working at Zales and everything else? That really strains credibility.
All the facts that are not in dispute point toward Zales being in the wrong.
Yeah, it’s common to have such policies. So what?
It has no bearing on the fact that this woman’s story can’t be made up, too many facts that are too easily verified.
Probably not. I would guess that she probably did work at Zales. That’s not the sort of thing people spin, exaggerate, or lie about in situations like this.
Not in dispute by whom?
So you can’t infer anything from Zale’s failure to respond. You earlier claimed to have “no doubt” that Zale’s would respond with documentation if this woman’s story were untrue. However, if they have a policy against making such responses, then your claim was false.
Oh, and by the way runner, I still would like to know what is special about this woman, i.e. why is she exempt from the general principle that most people tend to spin, exaggerate, and/or lie when they discuss facts about a dispute to which they are a party.
Because too much of her story is too easy to verify. Do you think she did not work at Zales? Didn’t make millions in sales? Didn’t get fired? Didn’t get surgery?
It seems to me that would apply to just about any story regarding the facts surrounding a dispute. For example, if somebody describes a car accident they were involved in, there are basic facts which are probably true. e.g. that both parties were driving cars; that the crash took place at a certain location; and so on.
Obviously I can’t say which parts are definitely true or definitely false. Nor can I say whether the woman is omitting some important piece of information.
For example, when employees such as this person are discharged, the employer normally tells them a reason. That’s a good starting place to start learning the employer’s side of the story. And deciding whether the offered reason is pretextual. Here, that information is omitted.
The story, as posted seems to fail the logic test. Corporations with 10,000 employees (tend to) have pretty good procedures in place to make sure that they don’t break laws, and so that people that make them money aren’t fired unneccessarily. Assuming the lady in the story is a star performer, why would they want to fire her?
This is not to say that it didn’t happen, the basic motivation may well be the medical care required, perhaps somebody in the regional office screwed up her medical coverage and firing her was a way of hiding it, maybe her supervisor has been given certain targets to hit, and firing her (even if unjustified) helps to hit those targets, so s /he oversteps the bounds of what he is supposed to do (no difference in actions, but difference in how we should perceive the company).
The upshot is what has alreay been posted, we have only heard one side of the story, we should reserve judgement until we know the full story, and nobody should be condemned until such time.
I don’t know about that - WalMart has gotten stung on many occasions because individual store managers make individual actions (class action lawsuits for gender discrimination, hiring illegal workers to clean the stores, not paying overtime).
The problem with retail - and in particular this sort of ‘small store’ retail is that the managers are often … terribly mediocre. They come in and run their store, keep inventory, keep a schedule up. They really don’t read every procedure manual update coming through - and the district manager stops in every few weeks. For the most part there aren’t issues - keep your store open and staffed and keep track of your inventory.
The bigger the footprint, the more likely the store manager has taken a course on business law and maybe even carries an MBA. But a person running a Zale’s probably hasn’t taken a business law course.
I went to college with some people who were working on their B.A. and doing very similar jobs - they were already managing small footprint retail locations without any college behind them.
My SIL works for Zales and I printed out the article for her to read. She is in a different region and is one her stores top sellers. She was diagnosed with gout and had her doctor send a note that she needed to spend a few days off her feet. Her manager kept “losing” the FAX, wouldn’t accept a doctors call to verify and kept calling her at home to come to work.
She also only gave her 1 day off to come to my son’s Bar Mitzvah (1000 miles away) even though she requested the time off two months in advance. The manager gave in a gave her extra time- the day before the ceremony when it was too late to get a ticket or drive.
Zales may be a great corporation, but individual managers may do a lousy job. FWIW my SIL documented and reported to corporate and the manager got a smack down, but ultimately it didn’t change much.
I can tell you from personal experience that it’s very unusual for a large employer to flagrantly retaliate against someone who, for example, requests FMLA leave. It does happen but it’s quite unusual. What is more common is retaliation which is concealed. I’ve seen that happen many times, where a person comes back from medical leave; things just aren’t the same; and the employer takes a few months to set up a good case for a discharge.
I’ve also seen a few cases where an employee who sensed that he or she was about to get fired put in a request for medical leave in order to set up a retaliation claim. That’s unusual too, but it does happen.
I realize that you don’t have any reason to accept the words of a stranger over the internet; and that you don’t have any reason to put weight on what I am saying, but you should keep that same principle in mind when you evaluate the claims of this employee.
Overtime violations have become pretty unusual among large employers in the last 5 or 10 years. Gender (and other) discrimination is rampant among employers large and small but it’s usually concealed and difficult to prove. I don’t know about hiring of illegal workers among large employers. It’s pretty common among small employers in some industries (food service and computer consulting come to mind).
That’s true, which is why it’s very common for big employers to require that discharges be approved through HR and/or a district manager. In this case, it was apparently a district manager who made the decision to discharge the employee.
Brazil, why do you do this to yourself? I got tired of it after the 10th go-round or so.
The idiots are just going to be idiots. They will pounce on anyone who doesn’t come in to a thread like this with 110% support for the RO object of pity du jour. Not only do they not care about reason and logic, they absolutely oppose it and vilify anyone with the temerity to use it.
I don’t know. I do know that she’s human. Most people – underclass or not – have a tendency to spin, exaggerate, or even lie when they are discussing the facts of a dispute to which they are a party. This same principle applies to corporations.
Do you agree with this or not?
If “dick” = someone who is frequently skeptical of peoples’ self-serving claims, then yes.
