Fired for Skipping Work

[Guest]

http://www.ktnv.com/news/national/18-people-fired-after-participating-in-a-day-without-immigrants

And that's exactly the way it should be.  Why is that so difficult for them to grasp?

Edited February 20, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

There are, what, 95 million people?, who would want to take their jobs.

[Guest MormonGator]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

http://www.ktnv.com/news/national/18-people-fired-after-participating-in-a-day-without-immigrants

And that's exactly the way it should be.  Why is that so difficult for them to grasp?

Agree totally. 

[Guest]

A job is an agreement. I have something I need done. You show up and do it, and I give you a paycheck. You don't show up and do it... no paycheck. 

[Mike]

38 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

There are, what, 95 million people?, who would want to take their jobs.

95 million less one. I wouldn't want to take their jobs. 

[Mike]

I understand and even agree with much of the concept about the work immigrants do in this country. Unfortunately they didn't consult me first. I would have told them to consider the risks vs. the benefits--and the wisdom (?)--of what they'd planned for the next business day . 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Mike

[a mustard seed]

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

95 million less one. I wouldn't want to take their jobs. 

If you were desperate for work yourself, you would not see an opening for hiring as an opportunity for you?

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, a mustard seed said:

If you were desperate for work yourself, you would not see an opening for hiring as an opportunity for you?

Of course, but that wasn't what @anatess2 mentioned. She talked about "wanting" not being desperate. (Hidden in my remark was a sentiment of solidarity with the sometimes hard and even harsh work that immigrants perform. I've done some of it, and I learned young that I didn't want to do it for a career. That doesn't mean I am unsympathetic.)

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Mike

[a mustard seed]

..................................................................

Edited February 20, 2017 by a mustard seed
shouldn't have taken the bait

[Mike]

Just now, a mustard seed said:

The 95 million she mentioned are, I assume, people without jobs who need work. You're saying they don't want jobs? Or that if you didn't have a job, you, personally, wouldn't want one? We're talking about jobs, not a specific job or place of employment, right? So, how can you definitively say that the job opening that resulted from this is something you don't want?

No. I'm not saying they don't want jobs. No, I'm not saying that if I didn't have a job I wouldn't want one.

Quote

We're talking about jobs, not a specific job or place of employment, right? So, how can you definitively say that the job opening that resulted from this is something you don't want?

The same way I can say I'm really really hungry, but I don't want to eat _______. 

[Mike]

Moreover, maybe I should say that insofar as I'm aware an immigrant has never ever ever "stolen" a job from me. 

[Backroads]

I more or less supported the protest day (figured it was peaceful enough) but did expect those involved to understand potential consequences.

I'd assume those participating would cover their butts by, I don't know, going through the proper channels of getting the day off.

It sounds here as if time-off wasn't a possibility for any employee at the time and the folks in question disregarded that.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Backroads

[Backroads]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

95 million less one. I wouldn't want to take their jobs. 

3 of our masters degree teachers participated. Teacher pay, of course, but not a terrible paycheck, especially compared to other, more menial, jobs.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Backroads

[Mike]

 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

And that's exactly the way it should be.  Why is that so difficult for them to grasp?

With regard to the specific boss and the particular business mentioned in the article, I'm curious. 18 employees and 7 more who quit (if I understood correctly) is a pretty big hit to a small business with contracts to fulfill--that being the reason I think was given for terminating the 18. So what happened with the work that one day's absence of 18 workers disrupted so badly, I wonder? Were any contracts actually unfulfilled leading to significant hardship? And what about the expense of finding, hiring, and training replacements for so many important positions? Was this a one-time-first-time incident as some employees may want the public to perceive, or was there more to it? If it's true, as the report indicated, that the company regrets the incident and supports the immigrant community does this speak to any other issues worthy of our consideration?

Edited February 21, 2017 by Mike

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Hidden in my remark was a sentiment of solidarity with the sometimes hard and even harsh work that immigrants perform.

I don't understand this. Most of us see that immigrants do work that we would never want to do, and they do it for a shameful pay rate. Some of us consider it almost a form of economic slavery. If this were the issue, consensus would not be all that hard to find.

But we aren't policing our border. That's a huge (perhaps a yuge) problem. No reasonable person can object to defending our border, and I know of only one person on this list (blueskye) who has explicitly confirmed that she wants the franchise given to non-citizens. Pretty much 100% of other sane Americans who love the US don't want that. Yet that is exactly the underlying effect of the efforts of those who reject Trump's attempts at border enforcement.

How can consensus on THIS issue be hard to find? I totally do not understand. The mind boggles when those who believe as blueskye believe carry the day.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Vort

[Mike]

2 hours ago, Eowyn said:

A job is an agreement. I have something I need done. You show up and do it, and I give you a paycheck. You don't show up and do it... no paycheck. 

The principle is sound. But in this case it's more accurately described as "you don't show up for one day ... no more agreement".  It's certainly within the employer's rights in their state, of course, as long all other stipulations are met as mentioned by the interviewed representative from the department of labor. I'm curious about the mention that the employees informed their supervisor(s) but no mention whether the employees were told before the absence that they were not approved?

[Mike]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't understand this. Most of us see that immigrants do work that we would never want to do, and they do it for a shameful pay rate. Some of us consider it almost a form of economic slavery. If this were the issue, consensus would not be all that hard to find.

But we aren't policing our border. That's a huge (perhaps a yuge) problem. No reasonable person can object to defending our border, and I know of only one person on this list (blueskye) who has explicitly confirmed that she wants the franchise given to non-citizens. Pretty much 100% of other sane Americans who love the US don't want that. Yet that is exactly the underlying effect of the efforts of those who reject Trump's attempts at border enforcement.

How can consensus on THIS issue be hard to find? I totally do not understand. The mind boggles when those who believe as blueskye believe carry the day.

I'm not following you entirely. You and I apparently agree on the points we both mentioned regarding the work immigrants do. But I didn't express anything regarding our borders, illegal aliens, etc. Was that aimed at my remark, or was it simply an aside? Apologies if my parenthetical remark was vague or misleading. I'm seeing this OP as more of an employee-employer relations issue despite the obvious other issues of-the-day regarding illegals, borders, etc.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Mike

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

I'm not following you entirely. You and I apparently agree on the points we both mentioned regarding the work immigrants do. But I didn't express anything regarding our borders, illegal aliens, etc. Was that aimed at my remark, or was it simply an aside?

The whole "protest" that involved skipping work was a pretext to complain about President Trump's "immigration policies". it's not about improving conditions for immigrants; it's about openly refusing to police our borders. We should be policing our south border, and while we're at it, our north border, too. To do otherwise is suicide.

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

The whole "protest" that involved skipping work was a pretext to complain about President Trump's "immigration policies". it's not about improving conditions for immigrants; it's about openly refusing to police our borders. We should be policing our south border, and while we're at it, our north border, too. To do otherwise is suicide.

OK I see your point there. But I'm still focused on the report of what the boss said. I understood that the *reasons* for the employees absence was essentially irrelevant. The employer's justification was work-related not politics-related. That's what I'm focused on even though the news reporting does what news reporting typically does, i.e. makes it easy to look at things that are not truly part of the story. I'm supposing that if this case were to go before a judge for wrongful termination, the employees' motivations for being absent wouldn't be relevant to the case. At least what I understand so far makes me relate more to the employer than to the employees *in terms of what I say the specific issue really is.*

[Maureen]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

...I'm curious about the mention that the employees informed their supervisor(s) but no mention whether the employees were told before the absence that they were not approved?

The article said:

This past Wednesday night, certain employees of BCI informed their leadership that they would not be at work the following day.  Because of the time-sensitive nature of the jobs these employees were assigned to, all employees were told that they would need to show up for work or they would be terminated.  On Thursday, the majority of BCI’s employees fulfilled their obligations to our clients, but eighteen employees did not.  Regretfully, and consistent with its prior communication to all its employees, BCI had no choice but to terminate these individuals.

M. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

18 employees and 7 more who quit (if I understood correctly) is a pretty big hit to a small business with contracts to fulfill--that being the reason I think was given for terminating the 18. So what happened with the work that one day's absence of 18 workers disrupted so badly, I wonder? Were any contracts actually unfulfilled leading to significant hardship? 

Quote

the majority of BCI’s employees fulfilled their obligations to our clients

--from the article

My experience has been that others will step up and take on overtime if needed.  In addition, a capable boss will be able to fill in and do the job two or three times better than anyone under him.  They had plenty of supervisors that will put away the paperwork and get onto the floor to make up the difference.

2 hours ago, Mike said:

And what about the expense of finding, hiring, and training replacements for so many important positions? Was this a one-time-first-time incident as some employees may want the public to perceive, or was there more to it? If it's true, as the report indicated, that the company regrets the incident and supports the immigrant community does this speak to any other issues worthy of our consideration?

These are good questions.  At the end of the day, the business owners weigh these pros and cons and then they have to deal with the consequences.

As far as a one-time thing... I wonder what valuable employee schedules something like this the day before.  If I'm going to take a day off, I have to give notice weeks in advance.  But if this is the level of organization and foresight this "day without immigrants" was pushing, then they are pushing for people to be irresponsible in their work.  And all that did was prove that they are not good employees and don't respect the needs of their company.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

7 hours ago, Mike said:

95 million less one. I wouldn't want to take their jobs. 

Well, not for the salary they're willing to take; at any rate--as Vort pointed out above.

I can name plenty of high school kids who would de-tassel corn, or pick almonds, or what-have-you for minimum wage.  But they won't do it for $5 or $2.50 per hour.  And they won't make a career of it--not because they are afraid of hard work; but because they were not raised in a third-world culture where even $7.50 is considered to be a good living.

This notion that brown people are more naturally suited to field work than white people, was a common pro-slavery argument; and of course it had no basis in biology or physiology.  The truth is that it's the living standard, not the work itself, that keeps native-born workers out of certain lines of employment.

If you're going to open up certain jobs to third-world migrants, the migrants will underbid the natives for the same work, every time.  Which is fine for employers and consumers; but then I don't want to hear progressives coming back and complaining about wage stagnation or lazy white people.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Backroads]

11 hours ago, Mike said:

OK I see your point there. But I'm still focused on the report of what the boss said. I understood that the *reasons* for the employees absence was essentially irrelevant. The employer's justification was work-related not politics-related. That's what I'm focused on even though the news reporting does what news reporting typically does, i.e. makes it easy to look at things that are not truly part of the story. I'm supposing that if this case were to go before a judge for wrongful termination, the employees' motivations for being absent wouldn't be relevant to the case. At least what I understand so far makes me relate more to the employer than to the employees *in terms of what I say the specific issue really is.*

Frankly, I think the former employees would have a heck of a time proving the firing was for anything other than not showing up for work. Barring the event of another employee not showing up for work  (without permission) and not getting fired, this complaint will likely be a lot of bluster.

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Frankly, I think the former employees would have a heck of a time proving the firing was for anything other than not showing up for work. Barring the event of another employee not showing up for work  (without permission) and not getting fired, this complaint will likely be a lot of bluster.

I'm sure you're correct. I feel badly for people losing their jobs, of course, but with the information currently available this news story appears to me to be a case study in the wisdom of looking before one leaps.

There are still many things I would be interested in learning. (Not because I'm looking for reasons to play judge and jury so to speak but just because I'm interested.) I would like to know more about other details such as who the people were, their positions, and performance histories, etc.  I looked at the company's website, and BCI appears to be a pretty high quality player in what it does. I wonder if it's considered by most as a great place to work, and if there were easily another 30 applicants waiting in the wings to work there? Or, if conversely it's perceived differently? GIven the prominence of the customers and jobs completed as shown on the website I'm prone to imagine the family that owns the business is well respected in the community. It would also be interesting to me to learn more about that.  Zooming out a little I noticed last night that at least 100 people have been fired around the country presumably under similar circumstances in connection with the event these 18 workers attended.

[anatess2]

52 minutes ago, Mike said:

I'm sure you're correct. I feel badly for people losing their jobs, of course, but with the information currently available this news story appears to me to be a case study in the wisdom of looking before one leaps.

There are still many things I would be interested in learning. (Not because I'm looking for reasons to play judge and jury so to speak but just because I'm interested.) I would like to know more about other details such as who the people were, their positions, and performance histories, etc.  I looked at the company's website, and BCI appears to be a pretty high quality player in what it does. I wonder if it's considered by most as a great place to work, and if there were easily another 30 applicants waiting in the wings to work there? Or, if conversely it's perceived differently? GIven the prominence of the customers and jobs completed as shown on the website I'm prone to imagine the family that owns the business is well respected in the community. It would also be interesting to me to learn more about that.  Zooming out a little I noticed last night that at least 100 people have been fired around the country presumably under similar circumstances in connection with the event these 18 workers attended.

None of that matters.  The only thing that matters is that the Company issued a rule and a consequence for breaking a rule.  If the rule was broken and the consequence, as stated, was not meted out, the Company will put on the books that they don't mete out consequences for broken rules.  This loss of credibility is more expensive in the long run than hiring new people.

This is what my husband always tells me - don't threaten your kids with a consequence you are not ready to execute... same thing applies to everything else in life including running a business.