And if he were to have replaced 'gay' with 'undisclosed illness' would you have fired him? If not, then you're going to get sued. And if yes, I'd make sure your contract doesn't allow for discretionary sick days.
In California, my understanding of the law (IANAL) is similar to mrdobalina's. A worker is in general allowed to take unscheduled time off for illnesses but does not have to disclose the nature of an illness (and in fact due to health privacy laws the employer cannot even ask what the illness was), however if the worker discloses that their absence was due to something other than illness then they open themselves up to disciplinary action if their reason was not valid.
At least, that's how it was explained to me many aeons ago when I was actually managing people.
It's defensible, probably to the point where a suit wouldn't be worth it for the guy.
That is, of course assuming that it is normal company policy to do so. If everyone else can get away with that with a slap on the wrist, he could argue he's a recipient of disparate treatment becuase of his sexual orientation.
So Tostitos, whether I agree with you or think you're being a dick, you may want to check and see that you've fired others who've abused calling out like that. Otherwise you might get fired for your company to save themselves from a suit.
And if he were to have replaced 'gay' with 'undisclosed illness' would you have fired him? If not, then you're going to get sued. And if yes, I'd make sure your contract doesn't allow for discretionary sick days.
Contact? Is it a union job? Maybe it was mentioned earlier and I didn't see. I think Massachusettes is an at-will employment state like CA, and unless he's covered by a CBA, an employer could deem that calling out in protest of something constitutes a termable offense. Since the employee self-disclosed the reason for thier callout, sounds like it's safer from a suit.
Could, of course. Should is a bit more iffy.
Unless you're being paid under the table there is a contract to be employed. Even if it's just a sentence. On top of the proof of citizenship and tax stuff. Seeing how it sounds like Tostitos works for more than a 2 man joint, and that it isn't mob related I'm going to guess that it's probably more than a sentence.
Now I see what you mean. Though most at-will contracts don't stipulate sick leave policy to a fine degree (if any). CBA's do, but a standard employment contract at a decent sized employer likely references adherence to company policies and procedures as a condition of continued employment.
Reading Tostitos's posts got me thinking about how my employer would react if you "called in gay." We are allotted so many sick hours per year to pay for sick days, and we can take unpaid sick days if we have used up our allotted hours. These sick days can be called personal days, feel lousy days, or I don't feel like coming in to work days (but it's probably not best to say this to the supervisor taking your call, as any person with an ounce of intelligence can assume), but nobody cares as long as you call in at least one hour before your shift starts. As long as you don't use more than eight individual absences in a year, there is no penalty, and if you use more than eight, you receive a counseling notice for each additional one (it takes three notices to be punished with a three day unpaid suspension). Even better for the employee, they consider "absences" to be unique periods separated by days actually worked and not consecutive days. For example, if you call in sick on Monday, come to work on Tuesday, and call in sick again on Wednesday you get marked for two absences, whereas if you called in sick on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday you only get marked for one absence.
I guess what I am saying is that if anybody "called in gay" to my job, the supervisor would say "OK." As long as you weren't over your set absences, or calling less than an hour before your scheduled shift, nobody cares. If you simply don't show up or call ahead, you are going to get your ass counseling noticed.
If Tostitos's employee called in gay and did it without following sick/personal call procedures, then he rightly gets punished, regardless of the reason. If he followed the sick/personal call procedures, then Tostitos is clearly in the wrong, regardless of his personal feelings on the matter.
Then I would not have to gear up for interviewing new accounts payable managers. :x
I think the lack of clarity on this issue is what initially caused people's consternation with you.
You made it sound as though firing him was a "calling in gay" issue and not a "did not call in properly thus violating the rules, and by the way he mentioned he was calling in gay" issue.
Then I would not have to gear up for interviewing new accounts payable managers. :x
I think the lack of clarity on this issue is what initially caused people's consternation with you.
You made it sound as though firing him was a "calling in gay" issue and not a "did not call in properly thus violating the rules, and by the way he mentioned he was calling in gay" issue.
I think it also had something to do with his general attitude about the whole thing;
But NOOOOO. He wanted to make a statement. He wanted not only to miss work, but to leave us in the lurch, to purposefully damage productivity by making it hard to cover him–– by waiting until yesterday AM and "calling IN 'Gay'"
Then I would not have to gear up for interviewing new accounts payable managers. :x
I think the lack of clarity on this issue is what initially caused people's consternation with you.
You made it sound as though firing him was a "calling in gay" issue and not a "did not call in properly thus violating the rules, and by the way he mentioned he was calling in gay" issue.
I think it also had something to do with his general attitude about the whole thing;
But NOOOOO. He wanted to make a statement. He wanted not only to miss work, but to leave us in the lurch, to purposefully damage productivity by making it hard to cover him–– by waiting until yesterday AM and "calling IN 'Gay'"
Fuck him.
The whole point of "calling in gay" is to damage productivity, and to call attention to the role homosexuals play in everyday society. It's like a strike or a boycott.
Yup. Either he's a shitty manager who takes pleasure in throwing the book at people (thereby making lots of extra work for himself, too) in general, or he's a shitty manager who takes pleasure in punishing gay activism by throwing the book at people. His smug fucking attitude and that lovely bit in the spoiler suggest that the situation leans a little more towards option B.
Either way. Hope that vacancy and time-consuming employee search are exactly what your company needs "in this tight economy," dude.
I don't mean to suggest that showing one's role in society by inconveniencing co-workers who don't necessarily deserve it is good activism; my own feeling is that this Day Without a Gay business was singularly ill-conceived. I just mean to suggest that Tostitos is kind of a jerk.
Man, even ignoring the whole gay thing, you fired someone for missing one fucking day of work. I'd call you a dick just for that, fucking wal-mart treats their people better than that. Doing it for the dude calling in gay makes you a prime target of an unlawful termination lawsuit. If I were on that jury, and the lawyer tried to argue that you're discriminating against gays? I'd probably agree.
Man, even ignoring the whole gay thing, you fired someone for missing one fucking day of work. I'd call you a dick just for that, fucking wal-mart treats their people better than that. Doing it for the dude calling in gay makes you a prime target of an unlawful termination lawsuit. If I were on that jury, and the lawyer tried to argue that you're discriminating against gays? I'd probably agree.
I'm not defending Tostitos, but if that's the company policy, it's immaterial that it was for a gay protest. He'd be in more trouble if he allowed this to occur without termination if that is the standing practice.
For instance, if the last person who was terminated for failing to report to work (excepting the company's acceptable guidelines) was a 45 y/o woman, she might have standing to sue for wrongful termination if she found a gay man was not terminated for the same offense.
A quick test might be if this person applied for unemployment and if Tostinos' company disputes that filing. A judge would hear the case and determine quickly if the termination was out of line (generally by siding with the employee and charging the company). If the judge rules that the applicant is not eligible for unemployment due to a violation of company policy, I would venture that the company is safe(r).
That Tostitos takes personal...satisfaction?...at having terminated him is a different debate, but employment law (especially wrongful termination) is an entirely different beast.
Either way. Hope that vacancy and time-consuming employee search are exactly what your company needs "in this tight economy," dude.
To be honest I bet they would have a lot of people lining up for the job. The employee was kind of dumb to make this move when unemployment is high and finding willing workers is comparatively easy (and cheaper!)
The whole point of "calling in gay" is to damage productivity, and to call attention to the role homosexuals play in everyday society. It's like a strike or a boycott.
So if I called in "Christian" to go protest gay marriage, should that involve the same punishment from an employer?
If it's the policy, then yes.
Unless you called out to attend a religious practice. Then it becomes an issue of reasonable notice and the burden placed upon the employer for allowing you time off. In the US at least. See your local state employment law to determine...blah blah.
Would company policy actually mandate immediate dismissal as the only possible punishment for a single unexcused absence? And why would Tostitos be looking for pats on the back if he didn't pink thlip the guy on his own initiative?
Speaker: Yup, that's one of my problems with this protest -- doesn't really involve allies, and also it probably alienates potential allies.
Would company policy actually mandate immediate dismissal as the only possible punishment for a single unexcused absence? And why would Tostitos be looking for pats on the back if he didn't pink thlip the guy on his own initiative?
It depends on the position and prior history. Arbitrators have upheld terminations on as little as three tardies in a two year period (iirc - see the ABA's Discipline & Discharge in Arbitration). The burden is usually on the employer to show that there's a reason for this policy and that they have made it absolutely clear that this is the policy and that employees know what happens should they fail to follow it.
What Tostitos didn't say was whether this was the last straw or if the employee was already in process of discipline for this other infractions. I guess it's a little off topic, but my original point was that it's not automatically a wrongful termination, and being straight or gay has nothing to do with it unless other straight employees are treated different.
So if I called in "Christian" to go protest gay marriage, should that involve the same punishment from an employer?
OH NOOoo
by reversing this and making me think about Christians, you've completely changed my oh wait no I had a stroke there for a second yeah, it depends on workplace policy, the laws in your area, and the specific details of the event.
Would company policy actually mandate immediate dismissal as the only possible punishment for a single unexcused absence? And why would Tostitos be looking for pats on the back if he didn't pink thlip the guy on his own initiative?
It depends on the position and prior history. Arbitrators have upheld terminations on as little as three tardies in a two year period (iirc - see the ABA's Discipline & Discharge in Arbitration). The burden is usually on the employer to show that there's a reason for this policy and that they have made it absolutely clear that this is the policy and that employees know what happens should they fail to follow it.
What Tostitos didn't say was whether this was the last straw or if the employee was already in process of discipline for this other infractions. I guess it's a little off topic, but my original point was that it's not automatically a wrongful termination, and being straight or gay has nothing to do with it unless other straight employees are treated different.
No, but that's never stopped someone from suing before, and this certainly has enough questions over the merits where I can see it going before a judge.
Would company policy actually mandate immediate dismissal as the only possible punishment for a single unexcused absence? And why would Tostitos be looking for pats on the back if he didn't pink thlip the guy on his own initiative?
It depends on the position and prior history. Arbitrators have upheld terminations on as little as three tardies in a two year period (iirc - see the ABA's Discipline & Discharge in Arbitration). The burden is usually on the employer to show that there's a reason for this policy and that they have made it absolutely clear that this is the policy and that employees know what happens should they fail to follow it.
What Tostitos didn't say was whether this was the last straw or if the employee was already in process of discipline for this other infractions. I guess it's a little off topic, but my original point was that it's not automatically a wrongful termination, and being straight or gay has nothing to do with it unless other straight employees are treated different.
No, but that's never stopped someone from suing before, and this certainly has enough questions over the merits where I can see it going before a judge.
Fair point. I missed an extra few words " it's not automatically a slamdunk case for wrongful termination".
So if I called in "Christian" to go protest gay marriage, should that involve the same punishment from an employer?
OH NOOoo
by reversing this and making me think about Christians, you've completely changed my oh wait no I had a stroke there for a second yeah, it depends on workplace policy, the laws in your area, and the specific details of the event.
That was my point. This isn't a gay thing, it's a policy thing.
I think trying to damage productivity at your company should result in instant termination regardless of the cause. You're there to work and be productive, if you want to harm that your ass should be fired, right there, on the spot, GTFO!
I'm glad we do that where I work.
Calling out to harm productivity is just as bad as damaging the property to harm productivity.
I think trying to damage productivity at your company should result in instant termination regardless of the cause. You're there to work and be productive, if you want to harm that your ass should be fired, right there, on the spot, GTFO!
I'm glad we do that where I work.
Calling out to harm productivity is just as bad as damaging the property to harm productivity.
So striking is just as bad as blowing up the building where you work?
And I'm really kind of amazed at these responses. Where do you people work where one day missed is grounds for termination - and it's company policy!
SageinaRage on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
So if I called in "Christian" to go protest gay marriage, should that involve the same punishment from an employer?
OH NOOoo
by reversing this and making me think about Christians, you've completely changed my oh wait no I had a stroke there for a second yeah, it depends on workplace policy, the laws in your area, and the specific details of the event.
That was my point. This isn't a gay thing, it's a policy thing.
Shall we move along?
Right after I point out that, company policy or no, Tostitos still deserves a punch in the dick for the "pink thlip" jab alone.
I think trying to damage productivity at your company should result in instant termination regardless of the cause. You're there to work and be productive, if you want to harm that your ass should be fired, right there, on the spot, GTFO!
I'm glad we do that where I work.
Calling out to harm productivity is just as bad as damaging the property to harm productivity.
So striking is just as bad as blowing up the building where you work?
And I'm really kind of amazed at these responses. Where do you people work where one day missed is grounds for termination - and it's company policy!
I never said "blow up" I said damage property to harm productivity. If you are actively engaging in activity to harm productivity you should be tossed out, and have charges thrown at you.
"Hey, let me go break shit and screw things up", it's like a 4 year old throwing a tantrum.
The only point you make is that you shouldn't be trusted to run a lemonade stand.
So if I called in "Christian" to go protest gay marriage, should that involve the same punishment from an employer?
OH NOOoo
by reversing this and making me think about Christians, you've completely changed my oh wait no I had a stroke there for a second yeah, it depends on workplace policy, the laws in your area, and the specific details of the event.
That was my point. This isn't a gay thing, it's a policy thing.
Shall we move along?
Right after I point out that, company policy or no, Tostitos still deserves a punch in the dick for the "pink thlip" jab alone.
So if I called in "Christian" to go protest gay marriage, should that involve the same punishment from an employer?
OH NOOoo
by reversing this and making me think about Christians, you've completely changed my oh wait no I had a stroke there for a second yeah, it depends on workplace policy, the laws in your area, and the specific details of the event.
That was my point. This isn't a gay thing, it's a policy thing.
Shall we move along?
Right after I point out that, company policy or no, Tostitos still deserves a punch in the dick for the "pink thlip" jab alone.
Oh damn straight. Right in the cock.
I don't think anyone was mad because of the policy, they're mad because tostitos is a douche who thought it was hilarious to fire a gay guy because hey, gay guys? Am I right!
I think trying to damage productivity at your company should result in instant termination regardless of the cause. You're there to work and be productive, if you want to harm that your ass should be fired, right there, on the spot, GTFO!
I'm glad we do that where I work.
Calling out to harm productivity is just as bad as damaging the property to harm productivity.
So striking is just as bad as blowing up the building where you work?
And I'm really kind of amazed at these responses. Where do you people work where one day missed is grounds for termination - and it's company policy!
To be fair, there's a distinction between missing a day of work and refusing to report to work in protest. Had the person been ill and unable to report a single absence would likely mean nothing. That he self disclosed that he was not reporting in protest is the key piece here.
I think trying to damage productivity at your company should result in instant termination regardless of the cause. You're there to work and be productive, if you want to harm that your ass should be fired, right there, on the spot, GTFO!
I'm glad we do that where I work.
Calling out to harm productivity is just as bad as damaging the property to harm productivity.
So striking is just as bad as blowing up the building where you work?
And I'm really kind of amazed at these responses. Where do you people work where one day missed is grounds for termination - and it's company policy!
I never said "blow up" I said damage property to harm productivity. If you are actively engaging in activity to harm productivity you should be tossed out, and have charges thrown at you.
So if I go take a leak an hour before my scheduled break I should not only get fired, but also arrested?
o_O
moniker on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited December 2008
"Calling out gay" does strike me as a remarkably ineffective way to protest.
"Calling out gay" does strike me as a remarkably ineffective way to protest.
I don't know, I think it sends out a message about what would happen if all the gays were to disappear like the "Christians" want them to. Also, it causes people like Tostidos to come out of the woodwork and expose their true colors.
Posts
It's defensible, probably to the point where a suit wouldn't be worth it for the guy.
That is, of course assuming that it is normal company policy to do so. If everyone else can get away with that with a slap on the wrist, he could argue he's a recipient of disparate treatment becuase of his sexual orientation.
So Tostitos, whether I agree with you or think you're being a dick, you may want to check and see that you've fired others who've abused calling out like that. Otherwise you might get fired for your company to save themselves from a suit.
Now I see what you mean. Though most at-will contracts don't stipulate sick leave policy to a fine degree (if any). CBA's do, but a standard employment contract at a decent sized employer likely references adherence to company policies and procedures as a condition of continued employment.
I guess what I am saying is that if anybody "called in gay" to my job, the supervisor would say "OK." As long as you weren't over your set absences, or calling less than an hour before your scheduled shift, nobody cares. If you simply don't show up or call ahead, you are going to get your ass counseling noticed.
If Tostitos's employee called in gay and did it without following sick/personal call procedures, then he rightly gets punished, regardless of the reason. If he followed the sick/personal call procedures, then Tostitos is clearly in the wrong, regardless of his personal feelings on the matter.
I certainly don't think that is open for debate
Then I would not have to gear up for interviewing new accounts payable managers. :x
I think the lack of clarity on this issue is what initially caused people's consternation with you.
You made it sound as though firing him was a "calling in gay" issue and not a "did not call in properly thus violating the rules, and by the way he mentioned he was calling in gay" issue.
I think it also had something to do with his general attitude about the whole thing;
Yup. Either he's a shitty manager who takes pleasure in throwing the book at people (thereby making lots of extra work for himself, too) in general, or he's a shitty manager who takes pleasure in punishing gay activism by throwing the book at people. His smug fucking attitude and that lovely bit in the spoiler suggest that the situation leans a little more towards option B.
Either way. Hope that vacancy and time-consuming employee search are exactly what your company needs "in this tight economy," dude.
I don't mean to suggest that showing one's role in society by inconveniencing co-workers who don't necessarily deserve it is good activism; my own feeling is that this Day Without a Gay business was singularly ill-conceived. I just mean to suggest that Tostitos is kind of a jerk.
I'm not defending Tostitos, but if that's the company policy, it's immaterial that it was for a gay protest. He'd be in more trouble if he allowed this to occur without termination if that is the standing practice.
For instance, if the last person who was terminated for failing to report to work (excepting the company's acceptable guidelines) was a 45 y/o woman, she might have standing to sue for wrongful termination if she found a gay man was not terminated for the same offense.
A quick test might be if this person applied for unemployment and if Tostinos' company disputes that filing. A judge would hear the case and determine quickly if the termination was out of line (generally by siding with the employee and charging the company). If the judge rules that the applicant is not eligible for unemployment due to a violation of company policy, I would venture that the company is safe(r).
That Tostitos takes personal...satisfaction?...at having terminated him is a different debate, but employment law (especially wrongful termination) is an entirely different beast.
Or was I guess. I didn't even hear about this until the afternoon of the appointed day.
Organization++
To be honest I bet they would have a lot of people lining up for the job. The employee was kind of dumb to make this move when unemployment is high and finding willing workers is comparatively easy (and cheaper!)
Blue Flu
If it's the policy, then yes.
Unless you called out to attend a religious practice. Then it becomes an issue of reasonable notice and the burden placed upon the employer for allowing you time off. In the US at least. See your local state employment law to determine...blah blah.
Speaker: Yup, that's one of my problems with this protest -- doesn't really involve allies, and also it probably alienates potential allies.
It depends on the position and prior history. Arbitrators have upheld terminations on as little as three tardies in a two year period (iirc - see the ABA's Discipline & Discharge in Arbitration). The burden is usually on the employer to show that there's a reason for this policy and that they have made it absolutely clear that this is the policy and that employees know what happens should they fail to follow it.
What Tostitos didn't say was whether this was the last straw or if the employee was already in process of discipline for this other infractions. I guess it's a little off topic, but my original point was that it's not automatically a wrongful termination, and being straight or gay has nothing to do with it unless other straight employees are treated different.
by reversing this and making me think about Christians, you've completely changed my oh wait no I had a stroke there for a second yeah, it depends on workplace policy, the laws in your area, and the specific details of the event.
No, but that's never stopped someone from suing before, and this certainly has enough questions over the merits where I can see it going before a judge.
Fair point. I missed an extra few words " it's not automatically a slamdunk case for wrongful termination".
That was my point. This isn't a gay thing, it's a policy thing.
Shall we move along?
I'm glad we do that where I work.
Calling out to harm productivity is just as bad as damaging the property to harm productivity.
So striking is just as bad as blowing up the building where you work?
And I'm really kind of amazed at these responses. Where do you people work where one day missed is grounds for termination - and it's company policy!
Right after I point out that, company policy or no, Tostitos still deserves a punch in the dick for the "pink thlip" jab alone.
I never said "blow up" I said damage property to harm productivity. If you are actively engaging in activity to harm productivity you should be tossed out, and have charges thrown at you.
"Hey, let me go break shit and screw things up", it's like a 4 year old throwing a tantrum.
The only point you make is that you shouldn't be trusted to run a lemonade stand.
Of that, we can agree.
Oh damn straight. Right in the cock.
I don't think anyone was mad because of the policy, they're mad because tostitos is a douche who thought it was hilarious to fire a gay guy because hey, gay guys? Am I right!
To be fair, there's a distinction between missing a day of work and refusing to report to work in protest. Had the person been ill and unable to report a single absence would likely mean nothing. That he self disclosed that he was not reporting in protest is the key piece here.
So if I go take a leak an hour before my scheduled break I should not only get fired, but also arrested?
o_O
Well y'know a strike that involves at best 7% of the workforce probably isn't going to do a whole hell of a lot.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The wedding planning industry may screech to a halt.
And demographically speaking, that 7% is likely not to be entry level labor.
Are you saying that entry level labor is less likely to strike for political issues or that gay people are less likely to be entry level labor?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
He's saying only part of that 7% will be entry-level.
I really have no idea where you guys are going with this.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't know, I think it sends out a message about what would happen if all the gays were to disappear like the "Christians" want them to. Also, it causes people like Tostidos to come out of the woodwork and expose their true colors.
Steam: pazython