Fired for Skipping Work

[anatess2]

13 hours 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.

Consensus on this issue is actually not hard to find.  But the USA has become a political cesspool that people would throw out their better judgments in the name of partisanship.  And this is not just Democrat vs Republican anymore.  This has even become Trump vs Not-Trump so much so that the Republicans of Utah came out more sympathetic to the open borders crowd.

Edited February 21, 2017 by anatess2

[unixknight]

Generally speaking if not showing up to work for one single day is enough to get you fired,  you were skating on this ice to begin with.

That said, it seems like this particular case was different.  If one or two people didn't come in, I get the impression that would have been okay because just one or two people aren't usually going to be enough to cause a significant delay in a scheduled project.  18 people...  that's different.  So once the company made the threat, as @anatess2 said, they had to follow through with it.

I'd also point out that these  people surely must have known that their absence would cause delays and chose to take the time off anyway.  That's a problem, because it directly and significantly harms the company. 

My opinion:  I think the move was a bit heavy handed, especially if these people were otherwise good employees.  But, that company has the right to do business as it sees fit, so I'm not going to presume to evaluate it further.

 

[Guest]

It is a myth that Americans aren't willing to work for the salary that these jobs pay.  It is about finding youth and college kids to do the jobs.  What?  Work your way through school?  Bah!  Who ever heard of that?

I heard an interview with a farmer who hired immigrant labor.  He indeed did tout the line that Americans are not willing to do the work for the salary.  He informed the interviewer that the pay is per piece (lettuce farmer) -- so many cents per head of lettuce that was harvested.

The interviewer asked,"OK.  Let's say I'm young; I'm strong and healthy; I have the reflexes of a panther; how much could I expect to make?"

Farmer: "The best ones can make around $20 to $25/hr".

Interviewer: "WHAT!?!?  That's a perfectly decent salary!  I know dozens of college students who would love such seasonal work.  And your schedule works right into most college school schedules.  What is the difficulty in hiring from colleges?"

Farmer: "I don't know.  We get a few college students and even high school students.  But most just don't come here."

Interviewer:"What are your recruitment methods?"

Farmer: "Word of mouth mostly."

Interviewer: "Have you ever gone to high schools or colleges and tried recruiting?

Farmer: "No, we don't actively recruit people.  Like I said, it's mostly word of mouth."

Interviewer: "Have you even put up flyers?"

Farmer: "No, we just do word of mouth, and we usually have enough."

Interviewer: "I see."

 

The thing is that the employers have convinced themselves that Americans are unwilling to do this work.  But they haven't even tried.

[Vort]

21 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Generally speaking if not showing up to work for one single day is enough to get you fired,  you were skating on this ice to begin with.

That said, it seems like this particular case was different.

I suspect this is the employer saying, "We do not allow you to miss work to make a social statement." I expect anyone who applied for time off like normal (and in plenty of time) got it approved. But calling in the night before and saying, "By the way, we won't be in for work tomorrow because we're doing this social protest (which, incidentally, is not unrelated to our work)," well, yeah, there will be problems. I'm not entirely comfortable with the people getting canned, but I think the employer's response was more appropriate than the workers' skipping work. So in the end, they have only themselves to blame.

[estradling75]

I see this subject as another example of Media bias.

Had the various articles been titled like this thread... "People get fired for Skipping Work" it would be a non story.  Nobody would care and most would say well yeah that is a normal reaction of places of employment, to that kind of behavior.

Instead the media is trying to twist it into some kind of rights depriving political action of the business..  What a load of hooey.

You want a job?   Great get out there and get one, and then do what you need to do to keep it.

You want to protest?  Great get out there and do it.

You have a conflict between your desires to keep a job and protest...  Well then put on your big boy or big girl pants and work for a way to balance both if you can.  If you can't then make a choice and own the consequences.

Don't pick one and then expect there to be no consequence...  And I think that is the biggest lie the media is trying to sell us right now.. That these people should not have to face  the very predicable consequences of their actions.

 

 

[Backroads]

I was just warming up my lunch in the teachers' lounge and this was the matter of discussion. One of the Spanish teachers, a very nice lady who is most definitely an immigrant, mentioned how she had no idea the day was even happening and, while sympathetic to the cause, didn't have the time or even strong desire to take the PTO for the day off. Then she spouted how she was a little upset how she was how some other employees with kids at the school not only took the day off but kept their kids out of class. 

I work with a whole political/social spectrum of folk, and it seems the general consensus was pretty much what was discussed here "Yeah, stand up for your cause but don't expect special treatment because of your cause." This was a direct quote from a teacher who is practically a socialist. 

And that's what the media is touting "But... but.. they're immigrants!"

[Mike]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

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.

I didn't say any of that matters. I said that it interests *me*.  It doesn't have to matter to you, Anatess. The rest of what you mentioned isn't really relevant to what I said since I had already agreed with the business owner's decision. 

Your husband is probably an effective parent, and no doubt so are you.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Mike

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It is a myth that Americans aren't willing to work for the salary that these jobs pay.  It is about finding youth and college kids to do the jobs.  What?  Work your way through school?  Bah!  Who ever heard of that?

In my, admittedly limited experience, it's true that most people won't take these jobs.  My husband worked for a plant nursery, and they decided to open a new operation in St. George.  So they moved us down there.  My husband was to oversee the place, and hire one person (one their dime) to work with him.  They advertised in all the usual places, but no one even applied. No one.  Finally the company sent up one of the immigrant workers from Santaquin to do the job.  

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I work with a whole political/social spectrum of folk, and it seems the general consensus was pretty much what was discussed here "Yeah, stand up for your cause but don't expect special treatment because of your cause." This was a direct quote from a teacher who is practically a socialist. 

This hit the nail right on the head.  Compare the reactions of these individuals who expected to be able to stand up and have no one react negatively vs. what Jim Caviezel said here at about the 21:30 mark.

 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

In my, admittedly limited experience, it's true that most people won't take these jobs.  My husband worked for a plant nursery, and they decided to open a new operation in St. George.  So they moved us down there.  My husband was to oversee the place, and hire one person (one their dime) to work with him.  They advertised in all the usual places, but no one even applied. No one.  Finally the company sent up one of the immigrant workers from Santaquin to do the job.  

What was the job (at the nursery)?  And what were the wages?

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

I didn't say any of that matters. I said that it interests *me*.  It doesn't have to matter to you, Anatess. The rest of what you mentioned isn't really relevant to what I said since I had already agreed with the business owner's decision. 

Your husband is probably an effective parent, and no doubt so are you.

And I didn't say it matters to *you*, or even *me*, personally.  Only that it doesn't matter in a business' decision to fire these people or not.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

In my, admittedly limited experience, it's true that most people won't take these jobs.  My husband worked for a plant nursery, and they decided to open a new operation in St. George.  So they moved us down there.  My husband was to oversee the place, and hire one person (one their dime) to work with him.  They advertised in all the usual places, but no one even applied. No one.  Finally the company sent up one of the immigrant workers from Santaquin to do the job.  

Well, if you are faced with 2 choices:  Get $10K worth of welfare or work at a plant nursery for $10K.... it makes it a no-brainer.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What was the job (at the nursery)?  And what were the wages?

Yes, it was working inthe field with the flowers. It was about 10 yrs ago, so I don'tremember the wage. Its whatever minimum wage was back then.  

[Blueskye2]

23 hours 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.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/

I prefer reason over irrational. Thx. 

[bytebear]

It reminds me of this incident.  I thought the administration handled it very well, and made it very clear.  By the way, no students protested.

 

 

[Mike]

9 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Had the various articles been titled like this thread... "People get fired for Skipping Work" it would be a non story.  Nobody would care and most would say well yeah that is a normal reaction of places of employment, to that kind of behavior.

Yes. Actually, I would appreciate such a title, too. 

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

http://fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/

I prefer reason over irrational. Thx. 

Yet the article you cite isn't reason, it's hyperbole and undisguised lies. "Open borders" is not synonymous with "robust immigration", something I favor. "Open borders" means "we do not defend our borders or keep anyone from passing through them." This is what you advocate, and it is madness.

[Just_A_Guy]

13 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Consensus on this issue is actually not hard to find.  But the USA has become a political cesspool that people would throw out their better judgments in the name of partisanship.  And this is not just Democrat vs Republican anymore.  This has even become Trump vs Not-Trump so much so that the Republicans of Utah came out more sympathetic to the open borders crowd.

Utah was soft on immigration long before Trump came along.

[Blueskye2]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Yet the article you cite isn't reason, it's hyperbole and undisguised lies. "Open borders" is not synonymous with "robust immigration", something I favor. "Open borders" means "we do not defend our borders or keep anyone from passing through them." This is what you advocate, and it is madness.

 

So, my nephew was killed several years ago by a drunk driver. Obviously, all drivers should be pulled over every time they get on a road, to prevent deaths from drunk drivers.  Madness, that all those people driving out there every day and every night are doing so without extreme vetting. 

In 2014, 9,967 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes.

in the same year, zero people were killed in a terrorist attack perpetrated by a migrant or immigrant.

Fear mongering is THE madness, of this century. TSA is a close second. 

Edited February 22, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Blueskye2 said:

 

So, my nephew was killed several years ago by a drunk driver. Obviously, all drivers should be pulled over every time they get on a road, to prevent deaths from drunk drivers.  Madness, that all those people driving out there every day and every night are doing so without extreme vetting. 

In 2014, 9,967 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes.

in the same year, zero people were killed in a terrorist attack perpetrated by a migrant or immigrant.

Fear mongering is THE madness, of this century. TSA is a close second. 

Laughable comparison fail: "Securing national borders" is the same as "pulling over licensed people for no reason".

But FWIW, I agree that the consequences of DUI should be a very great deal harsher than they are, and should be enforced much more closely.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Vort

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

Yet the article you cite isn't reason, it's hyperbole and undisguised lies. "Open borders" is not synonymous with "robust immigration", something I favor. "Open borders" means "we do not defend our borders or keep anyone from passing through them." This is what you advocate, and it is madness.

Interesting thing about that article is that it cites as statistics various studies.  I read the studies.  They cite other studies and combine them into charts summarizing the results and then draw conclusions.  But those other studies simply say "we did this model and it says we're right".  Gee, that sounds an awful lot like global warming.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

12 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

 

So, my nephew was killed several years ago by a drunk driver. Obviously, all drivers should be pulled over every time they get on a road, to prevent deaths from drunk drivers. 

Fear mongering is THE madness, of this century. 

While perhaps Vort is right that the analogy is loose, I get your point. We can't allow run away fears to dictate our actions. During the campaign, Trump carefully stoked this fear by calling illegal immigrants rapists, and thieves etc. Causing some to feel we need stricter borders for our safety. 

And yet we lose so many more people to drunk drivers, texting while driving, and heart attacks. But there is no public outcry about those.  Its like our fear of planes when planes are actually safer than cars....but when a plane does crash it's quite sensational thus feeding those irrational fears.

Edited February 22, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[anatess2]

18 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

While perhaps Vort is right that the analogy is loose, I get your point. We can't allow run away fears to dictate our actions. During the campaign, Trump carefully stoked this fear by calling illegal immigrants rapists, and thieves etc. Causing some to feel we need stricter borders for our safety.

Sigh.

The immigration debate did not start with Trump.  You can pretend it did.  You have immigration laws.  You do.  There is NOTHING that Trump is doing THAT IS NOT WRITTEN IN LAW.  So, STRICTER BORDERS that you reference = THE LAW.  Therefore, they are not STRICTER.  You're just used to NON-ENFORCMENT of the LAW.

It is truly amazing to me how you promote lawlessness in the United States of America.  I would expect it of the Philippines, which is the reason we're a Third World Country.

Edited February 22, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Sigh.

The immigration debate did not start with Trump.  You can pretend it did.  

I didnt say that it did. I used his words as an example of using fear. 

Can we discuss different opinions with being condescending?

[Suzie]

8 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Sigh.The immigration debate did not start with Trump. 

Did I miss the post where LiterateParakeet state it such?

There is NOTHING that Trump is doing THAT IS NOT WRITTEN IN LAW. 

Seems like a few judges disagree.