Ilovewater Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 To me, if that means going in sick to a new job and being sent home (probably pretty quickly) that's the risk I'm willing to take to protect myself. Most states are "at will" employment, which means they can let you go at any time for no reason at all. But being new a job is even MORE pressure to perform IMO. I've gone into work throwing up in my garbage can until my assistant showed up. I've gone in so sick I had to have help standing because my kidney infection was out of control. I go in sick. THIS is a different work ethic then most maybe...I don't have someone to help me out if I lose my job. Well, this is going to depend on what your job is. If you work in the healthcare field, and you come into work extremely sick, you're more likely to be reprimanded by your boss because you're putting other people's health at risk. In fact, one of my friends was "written up" for going to work sick at her hospital. It may be ok for you to go in sick, but that is not appropriate everywhere.
Kamille Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 This thread made me look. I'm happy to report that I live in a province where it is considered illegal to fire an employee who takes a legitimate day off for health reasons (as documented by a doctor). Yay states protecting citizens against the vagaries of the market!
azsinglegal Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 This thread made me look. I'm happy to report that I live in a province where it is considered illegal to fire an employee who takes a legitimate day off for health reasons (as documented by a doctor). Yay states protecting citizens against the vagaries of the market! Most US states are "at will" so they can let you go anytime for any reason. BUT...most companies have policies where you have 3 strikes and you're out. Most are verbal warning, written warning, then firing. I know everyone freaks out when they hear a state is "at will employment" but I've never experienced anyone being fired "just because". I believe most companies try to keep their employees that are trained as it costs more to recruit, train and retain a new employee then coach/counsil an existing one. In this case, at not even 2 weeks, they didn't have enough invested to really try to keep her. Which is sad because knowing the interview process it can be very lengthy.
Els Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 In my experience, employers give long time employees leeway when it comes to calling out. With a new employee, an employer has no idea whether they're calling out because they're playing hooky or because they're genuinely ill. An employer is running a business, not a charity, so he/she has to worry about the bottom line. Why put up with a worker who potentially has bad work ethnics when there are plenty of replacements available. Totally different from cheating though, so it's kind of a disingenous comparison. How are they different again? Azsinglegal only mentioned opportunity. Opportunity-wise, both are the same. Why do the ethical thing when you have 50 others queueing up for you? Cheating celebrities and jobs have nothing to do with each other. Sheesh... You're right, I was wrong...since they just cut out federal unemployment and extentions are also no longer availalbe to those that are unemployed there's probably 100 people waiting for her job, not just 50. Flippant? No...Realistic. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that cheating is not realistic. There are plenty of people who cheat. Is it legally wrong? Nah. Is it ethically wrong? Well, only you can decide. The same goes to employers who ditch an employee for taking one day of medical leave off, thereby forcing them to either come in to work sick and endanger their health and others, or be unemployed.
zengirl Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) Exactly. The attitude represented by azsinglegal and stargazer is not just shocking, but also dangerous. If you do not get proper rest, even a little cold can damage your heart and potentially kill you. Of course that doesn't happen to everybody but ever since the time it happened to me because I did not take care of a cold appropriately and the virus spread to my heart (myocarditis), I will never put a job above my health again. Put this way: there's lots of jobs out there, but I only have one health and one life. Well, SG just said what the law was. And azinglegal may have editorialized a little (and her assessments on how it actually works --- not how it SHOULD work --- are probably pretty on), but she didn't do much else besides also say what the law is. Just because it seems WRONG doesn't mean it'd get the OP anywhere is the point. There's no point yelling and screaming and fussing at a labor board that's only going to say, "Bummer, but that's totally legal." That's a waste of energy, time, and potentially money. The lunch thing sounds a bit illegal, as SG says (though not necessarily if the OP was a salaried employee; in my state, you don't have to give any lunch breaks by law, so the only issue would be the deducted pay for a break that was not allowed, and salaried employees don't get lunches deducted or a set amount of hours; some states do have required meal breaks, however; depends on state labor law). Rail against the laws if you like. Try to get your communities behind you. Write government officials and do something about it. I participate in groups like that, but they rarely get anywhere because most people think labor organization is a bad thing. If we had a more labor-minded populace, we'd have better laws in place. But we don't, and these are the laws we do have. C'est la vie. Unless you regularly participate in trying to change these laws, I don't get the criticism of others for stating how it is. That company does sound like crap, but sometimes a crap job at a crap company is better than no job at all. All depends. If it were me, I can honestly say, I would've gone in sick anyway. But then, I almost always do. I've been sent home oodles of times (working in education, you can't work around kids sick, and the administration sent me home before the kids got there), but it shows good will to come in. I can see how someone wouldn't under some circumstances, and with a hospital note, I'd never fire them. But unless I'm actually admitted to the hospital, I'm going to work personally. And I have found there's a lot of benefit derived from that attitude IF you also pick employers who value their employees and aren't crap. But this employer was crap, so the OP will probably be better off finding another one. It's just a shame this happened, and the employer sounds wrong and crappy but not much you can do about it unless you're going to change the whole system. Well, this is going to depend on what your job is. If you work in the healthcare field, and you come into work extremely sick, you're more likely to be reprimanded by your boss because you're putting other people's health at risk. In fact, one of my friends was "written up" for going to work sick at her hospital. It may be ok for you to go in sick, but that is not appropriate everywhere. In a healthcare setting, that may be true, though the writeup seems extreme from what I know of hospital staff. I've known plenty of residents who had to work sick, but they generally had to have some tests done to see if they were infectious, so they had to report it prior to working with patients. In education, in some jobs, I could get in trouble if I went to work sick and didn't report it (so could my staff that works directly with kids btw) as well. So, likely she got written up for not reporting her illness through the proper means (which are probably in whatever orientation manual/etc she got at that job), not actually for coming in. ETA: And, honestly, with the sick note thing, I get the company's side to a degree. From an actual hospital? Okay, I'd take it. From a doctor during the first week when the employee already seemed unhappy with the job and was not fitting in? Eh, I'd wonder. . . I mean, getting a doctor's note to excuse work is easy-peasy these days. And if the person was already giving me vibes of not fitting in, I'd be more suspicious. Granted, this company, with the lunch thing and such, sounds like crap, but it is a touchy thing to call in so soon into a job. Edited October 20, 2011 by zengirl 1
Els Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 I've gone into work throwing up in my garbage can until my assistant showed up. I've gone in so sick I had to have help standing because my kidney infection was out of control. I go in sick. THIS is a different work ethic then most maybe...I don't have someone to help me out if I lose my job. Different perhaps, but not necessarily better. People easily die or sustain permanent damage from unmanaged kidney infection (I assume you're actually talking about nephritis here). If you feel your job is worth more than your life, you are welcome to do so yourself, but that is not a principle that I feel is right for employers to be upholding.
azsinglegal Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 How are they different again? Azsinglegal only mentioned opportunity. Opportunity-wise, both are the same. Why do the ethical thing when you have 50 others queueing up for you? I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that cheating is not realistic. There are plenty of people who cheat. Is it legally wrong? Nah. Is it ethically wrong? Well, only you can decide. The same goes to employers who ditch an employee for taking one day of medical leave off, thereby forcing them to either come in to work sick and endanger their health and others, or be unemployed. You're one of those people that only reads things how she wants to, huh? I have a friend like you. She never reads my chats, just keeps talking right over it as if I never said anything. Makes me LOL. I didn't say cheating wasn't realistic. I said comparing cheating celebrities to a job was. You know...the poster before me commented on it too but you picked out ME to jump at. Good stuff.
Els Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 I'm not sure how you can accuse me of 'jumping over' what you said, and at the same time accuse me of picking YOU out to respond to when I specifically responded to the poster above you as well in the exact same post. You said what you said was realistic. I'm saying that what I said was also realistic. Realistic does not necessarily mean that it's right.
Recommended Posts