Man Fired For Taking Off To Be With Dying Wife

[hugo]

Watching a perfectly healthy loved one having his head cut off ain't a bowl of shakes either.

[hugo]

Watching a slightly disturbed loved one deciding to have elective surgery to attach his left knee to his forehead is a bit disturbing.

[ImWithStupid]

The employment agreement is between the employee and the employer. There is no need for government to be involved. An employee can quit at will. Employers should have the same right to fire at will.

 

I don't know about the rest of the country but in Nebraska, the employer doesn't legal have to have a reason to fire someone but in civil courts they can be sued for wrongful termination.

[TheJenn88]

The fact is just like a employee can leave at will an employer should be able to fire at will. Anything else is a violation of natural law.

 

You dumbshit, we're not arguing the validity of what you're saying. If employers didn't have the right to fire, there would be quite a few more people with jobs, don't you think?

 

The concept that a few of us are trying to get into your head is compassion, love, and letting that go. Are you so detached that (I think you're married?) what should have been one of the best days of your life - your wedding - mean less than a salary? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you didn't stand up on an alter upon your job offer, and promise that your job would be sacred to you for the rest of your life. This man's wife was a PERSON - a person who was loved, and her husband had to watch her wither away.

 

You're not even rebutting to the emotional side of this argument. You just keep spewing this shit about it being an employer's right to terminate an employee. At least just do us the courtesy of telling us how you feel about it from the fired man's point of view. What would you have done if it was your dying wife, who had but a few days left? Because if you can tell me that you'd still go to work and not stay with your life, then you have no right to lecture me about values.

[hugo]

You dumbshit, we're not arguing the validity of what you're saying. If employers didn't have the right to fire, there would be quite a few more people with jobs, don't you think?

 

The concept that a few of us are trying to get into your head is compassion, love, and letting that go. Are you so detached that (I think you're married?) what should have been one of the best days of your life - your wedding - mean less than a salary? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you didn't stand up on an alter upon your job offer, and promise that your job would be sacred to you for the rest of your life. This man's wife was a PERSON - a person who was loved, and her husband had to watch her wither away.

 

You're not even rebutting to the emotional side of this argument. You just keep spewing this shit about it being an employer's right to terminate an employee. At least just do us the courtesy of telling us how you feel about it from the fired man's point of view. What would you have done if it was your dying wife, who had but a few days left? Because if you can tell me that you'd still go to work and not stay with your life, then you have no right to lecture me about values.

 

I'm not interested in the emotional side of the debate. I am much more interested in pusuing liberty for the poor, downtrodden corporations throughout our land. Many employers have many restrictions placed on the right to fire. Just try being an employer of any size and fire someone because of age, race or gender. Get a brain.

 

I don't know all the details but it seems possible that someone suffering from end stage brain cancer may well be dumber than a piece of Tuesday morning toast.

[Quarky1.0]

I'm not interested in the emotional side of the debate. I am much more interested in pusuing liberty for the poor, downtrodden corporations throughout our land. Many employers have many restrictions placed on the right to fire. Just try being an employer of any size and fire someone because of age, race or gender. Get a brain.

 

I don't know all the details but it seems possible that someone suffering from end stage brain cancer may well be dumber than a piece of Tuesday morning toast.

 

By firing someone for wanting to be with a dying loved one, they have caused the individual emotionally damaged and thus unable to regain employment in the short-term, thus by the fascist manner his ex-employer has treated him, they have in turn contributed to the poor and have also contributed to the erosion of liberty in society. Thus damaging the social fabric as a whole.

[Lethalfind]

The fact is just like a employee can leave at will an employer should be able to fire at will. Anything else is a violation of natural law.

 

Once again you're wrong, you're new name should be OftenwrongHugo...

 

Family Medical Leave Act.

 

"Synopsis of Law

 

Covered employers must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following reasons:

• 
  [ ]for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee;
  [ ]for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care;
  [ ]to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or
  [ ]to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition. "

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/

 

Another act that says an employer can't fire for whatever reason he wants is the , Americans with Disabilities Act. You as the employer might be tired of dealing with the man in the wheelchair with no legs, but you can't fire him because of it AND if you do fire him for something else you better make damn sure you can support it when and if your accused of mistreating a disabled person...

[sixes]

You two should get a room.

[Lethalfind]

You two should get a room.

 

I wouldn't want to be that close to him.

 

The fact he lives in Texas is one more reason for me not to return there.

[hugo]

Once again you're wrong, you're new name should be OftenwrongHugo...

 

Family Medical Leave Act.

 

"Synopsis of Law

 

Covered employers must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following reasons:

• 
  [ ]for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee;
  [ ]for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care;
  [ ]to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or
  [ ]to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition. "

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/

 

Another act that says an employer can't fire for whatever reason he wants is the , Americans with Disabilities Act. You as the employer might be tired of dealing with the man in the wheelchair with no legs, but you can't fire him because of it AND if you do fire him for something else you better make damn sure you can support it when and if your accused of mistreating a disabled person...

 

Do you understand the meaning of should? I am not arguing we don't live in a tyrannical sociakist society where government interferes in contracts.

[manicmonday]

Do you understand the meaning of should? I am not arguing we don't live in a tyrannical sociakist society where government interferes in contracts.

 

Do you know what your typing, or do you get your words off of wordofthedaycalander.com?

 

I'm dumbfounded you even know how to turn on a computer.

[TerroristHater]

By firing someone for wanting to be with a dying loved one' date=' they have caused the individual emotionally damaged and thus unable to regain employment in the short-term, thus by the fascist manner his ex-employer has treated him, they have in turn contributed to the poor and have also contributed to the erosion of liberty in society. Thus damaging the social fabric as a whole.[/quote']

 

Terminating this man is a violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (a federal law) which is sure to cost his former employer millions.

 

Down with the corporate opressors!!!!!

 

[Rockhard]

I and my friens will pray for Hugo to recieve what he truly needs to be a better person:rolleyes:

[Lethalfind]

I and my friens will pray for Hugo to recieve what he truly needs to be a better person:rolleyes:

 

OH GOD, another one that prays...

[TheJenn88]

OH GOD, another one that prays...

 

Dude, they were being sarcastic. And lighten up a little, eh? They don't all hurt you.

[Lethalfind]

Dude, they were being sarcastic. And lighten up a little, eh? They don't all hurt you.

 

That was a total joke on my part...

[hugo]

Do you know what your typing, or do you get your words off of wordofthedaycalander.com?

 

I'm dumbfounded you even know how to turn on a computer.

 

HAVE YOU EVER STUDIED NATURAL LAW? THERE ARE CERTAIN PRIMARY RIGHTS. ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT IS BEING ABLE TO CHOOSE WHO YOU ASSOCIATE WITH.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

HAVE YOU EVER STUDIED NATURAL LAW? THERE ARE CERTAIN PRIMARY RIGHTS. ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT IS BEING ABLE TO CHOOSE WHO YOU ASSOCIATE WITH.

 

Natural Law....Now I'm LMAO.

 

If our society actually operated on natural law, hugo no doubt would be the tribal bitch, passed around from one Alpha male to the next.

 

The only thing he'd be associating with is a gag reflex, the ever-present salty/metallic taste in the back of his throat and the nightly sensation of being split in two.

[Lethalfind]

Natural Law....Now I'm LMAO.

 

If our society actually operated on natural law, hugo no doubt would be the tribal bitch, passed around from one Alpha male to the next.

 

The only thing he'd be associating with is a gag reflex, the ever-present salty/metallic taste in the back of his throat and the nightly sensation of being split in two.

 

ROTFLMA@nightly sensation of being split in two...

lololol

now that is hilarious!

 

What makes you think he isn't already familiar with this?

[hugo]

Ignorant replies...as usual.

[hugo]

"Laws abridging the natural right of the citizen should be restrained by rigorous constructions within their narrowest limits." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:327

[hugo]

Discovering The Law of Gravity

To jurors in an employment-law case, some things are as certain as gravity. But they're often the very things that employers and their attorneys overlook.

By Alan L. Rupe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

uly 1982. Topeka, Kansas. Jury selection in an employment-discrimination case. The 103 degrees outside was cool compared to the heat I felt from these potential jurors. The temperatures in the jury box reached the flash point when I made a remark that was perfectly simple and legal.

 

 

My client, the "Mega Corporation," had fired a poorly performing employee with long-standing attendance and attitude problems. The employee then sued my client for discrimination. During jury selection, I explained the basic legal principle of "employment at will," that an employer has the right to fire any employee at any time for any reason, or even "no reason." To the court, the lawyers and my client, it was a simple statement of law. But a middle-aged woman in the front row raised her hand and asked, "You mean the Mega Corporation fires people for no reason?" The panel’s temperature began to rise. These people knew about American justice from cop and lawyer television shows: the Miranda warning, the right to an attorney and due process. And a feeling of disapproval spread through the jury box toward my client and me like prairie fire on dry buffalo grass. I had just discovered the natural flow of people’s beliefs in the courtroom; I had just discovered gravity.

 

Law school professors and knowledgeable labor lawyers had taught me that "at-will employment" is the law. And while the judge, the lawyers and my corporate client knew that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing meant nothing in an at-will employment context, it meant plenty to this Topeka jury panel. To them, some things were as certain as gravity: employees should be warned by their bosses about bad behavior; everyone deserves a second or third chance; and it is not fair for a company to fire an employee without cause. Trying to convince this panel otherwise was like trying to prove that Isaac Newton was wrong.

 

"Have you ever tried to quit a job and your employer told you that you had to stay?" I asked the woman.

 

"Well, no," she replied.

 

"Have you ever given your boss a letter of resignation and she told you that she would not accept it and to get back to work?"

 

"No, and she had better not," blustered the juror. A new gravitational pull was discovered.

 

"What applies to you as an employee also applies to your employer," I explained. "Employees can quit a job anytime for any reason, whether that reason is more money, better hours or less work. And employers have that same right. At-will employment works both ways." And suddenly, the jury got it. The gravitational pull was reversed.

 

After trying employment cases for 32 years, I have become an expert on gravity. Two other examples illustrate the force of a jury’s gravity:

 

The notion of refusing to tell an employee the reason for termination is "anti-gravity." Because of possible liability issues, legal treatises and lawyers often advise employers to decline to give an employee a reason for being fired, or to provide only a general reason. A jury’s gravity, on the other hand, is that the employee should be terminated only after the specific reasons for the job action have been explained and the employee has been given an opportunity to correct the problem. A jury’s gravity is that "no firing should be a surprise." There is probably no case harder for a trial lawyer to defend than a "no reason given" termination employment case. To win one of these cases is to defy gravity.

 

In a sexual-harassment lawsuit, a jury’s gravitational pull is always away from knowledge and power. Take the following example. A longtime male supervisor who golfs frequently with the company’s CEO is accused of making crude, suggestive comments to a young, attractive female employee. The woman reports the conduct to the company’s human resources director. The CEO investigates the complaint and personally interviews the woman. The supervisor keeps working. The female employee is moved to another department. She quits and files a charge of discrimination within a few weeks.

 

The jurors’ gravity in this case? Employees who complain are punished; the company did not conduct a fair investigation; and the company will always believe the boss’s buddy. The jury will be offended by the more knowledgeable, more powerful company and its behavior. That gravity will cost the company in the courtroom. While the defense attorney may strive mightily to prove otherwise, gravity is going to bring that employer down to earth, hard.

 

Human resources executives and lawyers must work carefully and cooperatively to make the company’s practices mesh with accepted legal principles and "gravity." Workplace tools such as progressive discipline, a code of conduct, job descriptions and specific policies that ensure fairness and consistency generally follow accepted legal principles and jury gravity as well.

 

Telling a jury that the company followed its own policies and procedure may simply not be enough, however. Showing a jury that the employer took care in designing its policies and procedures, followed those procedures closely and was fair and consistent in dealing with employee issues is essential. One of the best ways to ensure that the flow of gravity favors an employer is to design policies governing probationary periods, progressive discipline and the circumstances under which employees will be terminated. A "code of conduct" that sets out the company’s expectations of behavior may also be seen by jurors as a good-faith effort to do more than simply what is required by the law and to ensure that employees have a decent place to work.

 

Meshing the gravity of people’s beliefs with the oftentimes anti-gravity of the law is absolutely necessary in today’s workplace, where jurors frequently second-guess day-to-day employment decisions. A well-written policy handbook, "codes of conduct," job descriptions, performance-improvement plans and regular employee evaluations all help employers deal with employees today and juries tomorrow. An employer’s best defense in the courtroom is one that follows the law but also acknowledges a jury’s gravity.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Ignorant replies...as usual.

 

I'm sorry. I tailor the level of the reply to the level of the original post.

 

In your case, it's always the same crap.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

"Laws abridging the natural right of the citizen should be restrained by rigorous constructions within their narrowest limits." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:327

 

You do have an unhealthy penchant for useless quotes don't you?

 

Do you ever have a valid thought of your own making or do you spend your entire existence hopelessly clinging to the asinine dream that someday, somehow, the Libertarian Party will somehow rise up and sweep the likes of you into political office?

 

You really are pathetic you know.

 

Keep puffing on that crack pipe hugo. It keeps you mildly interesting.

[hugo]

Ignore the blathering of idiots

 

From Yahoo encyclopedia (embolded words are my doing. I also added words found in parenthesis)

 

The Declaration of Independence is the most important of all American historical documents. It is essentially a partisan document, a justification of the American Revolution presented to the world; but its unique combination of general principles and an abstract theory of government with a detailed enumeration of specific grievances and injustices has given it enduring power as one of the great political documents of the West. After stating its purpose, the opening paragraphs assert the fundamental American ideal of government, based on the theory of natural rights, which had been held by, among others, John Locke, Emerich de Vattel, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (natural rights), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (practically plagiarized from Locke).–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I realize the worshippers of Lord Keynes prefer to ignore the ideas presented in the Declaration of Independence and the limitation of federal powers implicit in the Constitution. As you can see the worshippers of Keynes have nothing but insults. They cannot support their foolish positions.