Ah, that calls for different pills.
Since she went to the media and since there was an article, shouldn’t someone, somewhere maybe have asked the question about how COBRA works before running the article?
I’m sure this post will be ignored just like my earlier ones on the subject.
What is truly unnecessary is any notion of moral “oughts.” Especially if it values individual wellbeing over the production of wealth. What is right consists entirely in who is judged to be telling the truth - all questions of illness, bureaucratic bumbling, or vengeful cost-cutting aside.
I don’t like it, but it’s the way things get done.
Why ruin a great story with the facts? Then all the peoples wouldn’t get all hepped up. Then where would we be? Stuck with White House Portuguese Water Dog stories…
Yep, and for that I fault the media outlet/reporter. The story is shoddy on many levels, frankly;
-
It quotes the son as saying “They’re turning my mother’s health coverage back on today”; if Zales did that, it was a magnanimous gesture on their part. You can argue that they did it because they knew they were in the wrong, and that may be true. The point is, if Zales continued her health coverage, she had no need of COBRA information to have her surgery, and that entire aspect of the story becomes moot.
-
The reporter says Camilleri had “nearly a dozen” commendations from Zales. That’s either lazy reporting or the reporter’s bias showing through. Camilleri had 11 commendations. Say that.
-
If the reporter made any attempt to talk to Camilleri’s doctor to confirm her statements regarding her condition, we don’t know about it. Maybe she did, and maybe the doctor refused comment. We have only Camilleri’s word (and the word of her son) to judge how serious her condition is/was.
-
The quote from the New York Insurance Department official is framed to make it appear they pressured Zales (at the behest of the newspaper) to get this resolved. A literal reading of the quote, though (“We’d put pressure on the relevant parties to do the right thing”) shows that the official is indicating what his department would do in a hypothetical situation – not what they actually did for Camilleri. My guess is, the NYID did nothing here, because there was nothing to do.
-
Finally (and this may be just a journalistic bias on my part) the paper/reporter seems very self-congratulatory on their role in getting Camilleri covered by COBRA (which was never in question anyway).
All in all, it was a terrible piece of reporting, with no apparent fact-checking done at all.
Probably* my biggest gripe about the article is that, as far as I can tell, it omits a critical piece of information, specifically what the woman says was Zale’s official reason for discharge. The woman should have been asked something along the lines of this:
“when you were let go, what reason did they give you?”
or
“what did they accuse you of doing wrong when they fired you?”
Her answer should have been printed, in my opinion.
- when I use the word “probably,” I mean the normal English use of the word and not the Fear Itself / Guinistasia definition.
Count me in with the folks who say there has to be more to this story.
I can’t imagine that any company would fire a proven performer for a medical claim. From the details in the OP, sketchy as they may be, it would seem that any savings would be wiped out by loss in sales. And firing someone *because *they need surgery seems actionable. Any savings would be likely be spent defending a lawsuit, even if they were successful.
As I understand Cobra, she’s covered on her original plan for a number of months, so long as pays the premium. Her not getting the paperwork immediately would not mean a gap in coverage.
Even if I am to belive that Zales is an evil company, the story, as written, makes no sense.
I notice that Guin hasn’t come 'round these parts now that cooler (and fuller) heads are posting. A new shiny RO-worthy object probably has her attention.
Since we’re sharing observations, I notice that you are really creepy.
This is what makes it stupid to reflexively blame Zales. Even if you presuppose the “evil” nature of corporations, assume they don’t care about the bad publicity, the possibility of a lawsuit, and just plain don’t give a shit about anything other than increasing the bottom line, firing that woman did not make any sense. It’s illogical no matter what point you start from.
While I’m not making much of the why she was fired, it could be logical if it had been caused by the bad economy, and I do remember the case of Circuit City firing all their most trained and experience salesmen to save money. The timing of the firing is still damming IMO regarding health issues, the thing that I would still wonder is if the manager that fired her was aware of the possibility of her firing could be a violation of the FMLA.
BTW, from personal experience I can report that in a perfect world one could depend on health promises like Cobra, but this is not a perfect world.
I’m still here. I simply have nothing new to add at present. Unlike others, snide generalizations.
You didn’t have anything to add before you started this thread, but that didn’t stop you.
You are assuming that the manager is operating in a logical manner. Of course, one always hopes this is the case, but there are many exceptions.
I have seen managers scheme ways to fire people for people younger than them, prettier than them, for having a different religion (yes, I know that’s illegal. So do they, but they’re doing “The Lord’s Work”), different skin color (yes, I know that’s illegal, too), having hobbies they don’t approve of, political views they don’t agree with (yes, also illegal), a different taste in clothing, for buying a car better than the manager’s, for smoking, for having pets, for not donating to the manager’s favorite charities, and yes, for having the audacity to get sick or injured. Little or none of it makes sense, but managers are human beings and some of them make decisions based more on emotion and prejudice than reason.
As for the OP - it looks suspicious to me that she got fired at the same time as this health problem required time off, but we don’t know all the details.
Yep. I’ve seen this, too, and that’s why I’m withholding any judgement on this situation. It’s entirely possible the new regional manager fired the woman because it would provide a short-term boost to his/her sales/expense ration (a scenario **GIGObuster **has mentioned). Stupid and short-sighted, but that kind of stuff happens a lot.
And you did?
[sub]What the hell do you do-follow me around from thread to thread?[/sub]
This doesn’t make any sense.
No. But every post I read of yours is just brimming with ignorance, so, good doper that I am, I’m fighting it.
You can fight fire with fire; but, fight ignorance with ignorance? Not so much.
Companies don’t always act in their own best interests. They care about covering their asses and acting out their culture as much as the bottom line, and quite often, more. Corporate managers care about getting bonuses, implementing policy, justifying their actions whatever the cost to the company or anyone else, and failing that, covering their own asses.
Actually, I’m assuming the superiors to the manager who did the firing are operating in a logical manner. They likely would have remedied this mistake if there was no problem with this star employee.
Yes, and this situation is about as far from covering one’s own ass as one could get.