The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
In Michigan, even if you got "fired", you go apply for unemployment and see how the system works out for you. In her case, since she wasn't given a reason, and I'm assuming there was no termination paperwork she signed, she wasn't fired, but laid off. She's got every right go get unemployment. The State will ask the employer what the terms of seperatation were and make the eligibility determination based on that.
Now, if you quit around here, you've got a much bigger problem. You have to prove that you were forced to quit for some reason.
That's crazy and assinine. Especially since she had pre-arranged the "time off".
So was she told she was "fired", or was some other term used. If fired, she probably must legally be given a reason, "a cause", otherwise it could expose the employer to wrongful termination lawsuits.
I would ask for vacation pay depending on what the employment policy handbook says and if they refuse to give it go the your state's Labor Commission and have them write a letter demanding your vacation pay.
They can only legally refuse vacation pay if 1) the employment policy first says it is not paid out and they have not done it for anybody else, or 2) she was fired for cause -- which they must tell her. If they don't tell her, then she was not fired for cause, merely "laid-off". In which case she can also collect unemployment.
She might also consider having someone pretend to be a prospective employer and call up the former employer and see what they say. Make sure to record it. If they say anything negative, even if true, that can be used as leverage against or to sue the former employer.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
Depending on where she lives, and a few other factors, your friend may have excellent grounds for legal action. In any case, she certainly has grounds to publicly disclose this abusive treatment on the various popular websites that other candidates might view before working for this company.
A sleep-deprived mind is not a very creative one, and stressed workforce is not a loyal one. Also, extra work means that the delivery-date moves (without a funeral it's not a deadline), not that one works extra late. Being tired means that you'll not perform at your optimal the day after.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Another possibility is gender discrimination if there are no other women at her place and she was the one who got the ax.
Consider though, if she is salaried, and not an hourly employee (exempt vs. non-exempt), then the way the law works is that if the employee has ANY clock requirement, either hours worked per week, or has to keep track of time, or logs of their time, then they are supposed to be non-exempt. So, if what you are saying is true, and she can document it, she might have a case with the Department of Labor for time and a half overtime.
Reason I know this is because my wife went through some training with the Department of Labor on how to classify employees properly. She is the Director of Finance for her company.
She will have to consider if the fight is worth the employer not giving her a reference while looking for another job.
This is unethical behavior from incompetent people.
If not lawyers, she should file a written complain in the labor court in that state. Let those government officials ask them few questions, at-least that moron will have to answer to his boss or his boss's boss.
She had already put in 46 hours that week, bringing the total to 50. The next day, at 10am the crew was told they must work until 11pm; my friend refused - indeed she had a doctor appointment that she had scheduled far in advance for 6pm (ie, outside the normal working day). The following day she was fired
She should be thankful that she doesn't have to put up with the insnaity any more.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
In my world (which is Aus) it's pretty much unlikely to happen as the company would simply be sued - or more likely settle out of court.
There are statutory lengths of notice (or payment in lieu of notice) and warnings need to be shown to have been given if someone's position is terminated other than by making their position (not the person) redundant. e.g. you can get rid of an Analyst Programmer by saying we don't need that many Analyst Programmer's any more - but you have to get rid of the last one employed, so you can't use it as an excuse!
If I was your friend I would write to the company formally (registered mail, keep a copy) suggesting that, as they do not require her to attend work any longer would they please pay her notice, unclaimed holiday pay etc. immediately - or, if there is a misunderstanding contact her immediately.
By doing so she is ensuring that she has evidence of the situation (otherwise it would be easy for them to simply say she just stopped coming into the office).
Above all she should be calm and not abusive, and make no threats. Until she has evidence then threaten legal action.
“Education is not the piling on of learning, information, data, facts, skills, or abilities - that's training or instruction - but is rather making visible what is hidden as a seed” “One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”
Mrs. Wife recently ordered some glasses from Boots. Like all opticians, the money isn't to be made in the original prescription lenses and her choice of frame, no sir, it's in the upsell of all manner of things that they push on you. It's a bit like ordering a coffee from Costa and before you even think of what size of cup, they immediately ask you "medium?" to which most people instinctively say yes. That purveyor of shite coffee, Star*ucks never let you know you can order a "short" cappucino which isn't much less than the smallest size they list on the board but it's always quite a bit cheaper.
Anyway, Mrs. W opted for the usual upsell of light-adjusting lenses, protective this, protective that and a new one she never heard of, called lens thinning for ta-ching, £50. She got the new glasses and saw no difference compared to the original lenses she had earlier. So she measured it and yes they're slightly thinner in places but only maybe 2.5mm compared to 3mm. They make no difference to what she sees and they really don't weigh much less than what she had. If they do, it's in milligrams.
She was in Boots the other day and spoke to the bitch that sold them and asked her to explain what value she was getting for £50. Of course, she couldn't justify it but what ho, they've got the £50 in return for naff all. Downstairs, she bought some face creams and one thing led to another. Now, if you buy face creams, Boots give 5 loyalty points to the £. They checked on the glasses and noticed she was only give one point to the £. Spend less, you get more, spend more, you get less. The cosmetics assistant was pissed off as well as she worked in the optician department a little while back. She confirmed the £50 upsell is pointless (literally) and she wrote down the name and address of someone to write to and it's not the usual customer service contact details on the reverse side of the receipt. So we're going to write to them. They can of course, say no, which we expect, but if they do, they lose a loyal customer.
Beware of upselling, that's all.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
I had an eye glass company attempt to sell me some coated lenses verse the regulars. I didn't see the point, as I'd never used that before, so I said no. I wasn't spending that much money on some coating to reduce glare.
They couldn't get off it though. They talked about it the entire time, and had pictures of what the difference would be. I even pointed out that I had never seen any glare as bad as those images. Until I got my glasses. I was sure they intentionally made them worse to get people to buy the coating.
I compared them with both my old pairs of glasses, and I still think that the glare on the lenses I bought from them is worse than any I've ever seen. I really think that they give you lower quality if you opt out of that option, so that you change your mind and get the coating in the future.
I didn't change my mind though. I've never been back, and I won't. I will only buy from people who don't try to pressure me, and for reasons like that which I've experienced.
Uncoated glass reflects ~4% of the light hitting it and you get the 4% reflection on both the incoming air-glass transition and the outgoing glass-air one on the other side of the lens. More layers of coating are a diminishing return factor (and mostly important for things like camera lenses/telescope/binoculars where you can easily have a dozen or more air to glass interfaces); but no coating at all is horrid.
If the pair where you refused to get any coatings put on were much worse than your prior pairs; then it's almost certain that what you bought before had a basic anti-glare coating and not none at all.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00 Last Update: 22-Jul-17 6:11