I agree with you on this point. Also, some managers see a leave request as an indication of disloyalty.
But the thing is this: If we are accept that the manager is a human being, we should also accept that the ex-employee is a human being. Which means there is a pretty good chance* that she is spinning, exaggerating, or even lying to put herself in a better light and to put Zale’s in a worse light.
*When I say “pretty good chance,” I mean it in the normal, English sense of the phrase. As opposed to the Fear Itself / Guinistasia definition.
I believe post #31 (and the ensuing discussion on page 1) is the reason for brazil84’s disclaimer. A few posters interpreted the phrase “pretty good chance of X” to mean “X is necessarily true”.
It’s ironic that you should say that, because often it’s firing people without sufficient thought or consideration that causes these sorts of problems in the first place.
This thread has put our saleswoman as either wronged star employee or possible felon. But people can be justifiably fired without committing criminal acts.
One problem sometimes faced by managers is the star performer who is a jerk. They may perform exceptionally at their assignments, but drive other workers away or gain sales at the expense of the other salespeople. Management professors (like Robert Sutton in “The No Asshole Rule”) argue these people cost the company more than they gain and should be purged.
If that were the case here (and I’m not arguing it is as I have no evidence that it is so), then our saleswoman’s facts (awards, etc.) could be all correct yet still fired for (good) cause. Even if she were given this cause on termination (and previous reviews), she may believe it was a cover for a dishonest termination.
But as said, we’ll probably never know. I don’t think I’ve EVER heard of a company publicly discuss a (non-executive) termination except as part of a lawsuit.
I just read through the reader comments on this. Of 160 comments, only one person (plus one sock) supported Zales, with spurious arguments. She claimed to work in the same mall, and claims to know the fired lady and others who work there. Supposedly the firing was done for being overly aggressive and doing things like selling maintenance agreements without consent and claiming jewelry was gold plated when it wasn’t. However it seems hard for me to imagine that someone with $1M in sales can do it without return business.
Also, copies of any formal writeups are given to the employee, at least in large companies. It is hard for me to believe she was on some sort of performance improvement plan and getting awards at the same time. It is also hard to believe that even if she was on a plan or was being warned, she’d be fired a week after asking for leave. That’s just evil.
The interesting stuff is on the last two pages of comments. The rest of the comments are calling for a boycott of Zales and possible demonstration against them Memorial Day.
I like the No Asshole Rule. Some people are just. not. worth. it. I’ve had to work with a few (fortunately only a few), and when you really really look, they usually weren’t such stars after all. They had just managed to convince someone that they were. I had one of them try to steal MY work once, but I was already wise to the situation and set her up. I sent a “pre release” to my bosses, and left a really awful pile of garbage on my desk for her to steal (and she did). BUSTED
And then there was the office bully who constantly disrupted work and made a habit of physically threatening people.
As for this lady, I don’t dare claim to know more than anyone else here. but on the face of it, I’d have been leery of firing her. I’d be very very sure I had all the CYA’s and “Pearl Harbor files” in place, just in case.
Sure at the time of the writeup. But down the road, after the employee’s job has ended, many employers will refuse to provide copies of this sort of stuff.
Which is probably a pretty good strategy on the company’s part.
I’ve seen it happen many times that an employee was discharged for legitimate reasons despite being a star performer or an employee of the month or something.
I’ve seen stuff like this happen many times too. Sometimes the official reason for discharge is a pretext. More often than not, it isn’t. With big employers, anyway.
Anyway, reading between the lines of the articles, it seems pretty clear that the employer here will be able to offer a legitimate reason for the discharge and it will be up to this woman to show that the reason is a pretext.
What’s suspsicious to me is that none of the articles contain this official reason. For example, the woman could have said “when they fired me, they told me it was for violating the employee discount policy, but I never did so.” Or something like that. Usually when that information is not disclosed, it’s damaging to the employee. (Of course here, it’s hard to tell if the reporter even asked that question.)
