Vet Tech Journals: I saw it coming....

It's disgusting that someone can find their time card missing and only
then do they find out they haven't a job any more.
Poor Kristi.

Tweed

Yes it is, but it often works that way.

Joy

It's mean, cruel and demeaning IMO!!!
Poor Kristi, I feel so bad for her.
Kyla

On Sep 24, 7:13*am, "jmcquown" wrote:


I'm very sorry to hear about this, Kristi. *But I've never heard of any
business, big or small, that didn't choose to hire or promote from within
first. *That sounds to me like a load of crap.



In small companies in my experience they often talk a lot about
"promoting from within" but don't. One place I worked did promote me
from within but they has serious worries about it because I was being
put in charge of the same people that the week before had been my
equals and they worried that these people would think they could run
all over me because we were "friends"- luckily we were all intelligent
people and able to have a conversation along the lines of "We're still
friends out of work but in work I am the boss"...I have a friend who
is currently on the verge of losing his job because he seems to think
that just because after work his manager and he will go for a drink
together that means they're friends and so he is completely safe
because his friend wouldn't sack him and that completely safe extends
to being late, not doing what he's been told to do when the manager is
out of the office and on a couple of occasions forgetting to switch
the alarms on when leaving the shop he works at....he's now on an
official warning and really upset that his friend would do it to him.
Doesn;t help he has the physical age of 27 and the maturity age of 13
(I love the guy but that doesn't mean I don;t know his faults)

Even in the NHS promotion it seems they prefer people to get promoted
to another department. When our office manager post came up last year
I know because there had been previous problems in the team caused by
just the above situation so they wanted to promote from outside.

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs

On Sep 24, 4:47*pm, wrote:


Of course, there *is* that bad economy thing happening, but there
could be more than one thing going on here.


Isn';t this the vet practice where things have been quiet for a while
and a month or so back they called Kristi in and offered her part time
until things picked up? Sounds to me like they were trying to keep
her on

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs

On Sep 25, 1:04*pm, "Christina Websell"
wrote:

It's not acceptable here in the UK to sack someone without giving a reason.

"William Hamblen" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:02:23 +0100, "Christina Websell"
wrote:

Yes, it is totally foreign to me. If an employee is fired here, there has
to be a reason given.
It will affect whether or not they can get unemployment benefit. If it's
their fault they can't, if it isn't they can.

Employment at will is from the Common Law. There are statutes against
firing someone for being the wrong race or the wrong gender or the
wrong age or in some states the wrong sexual orientation.

That said, in every state if you are fired "for cause" you can't sign
up for unemployment insurance. If they let you go because business is
bad or whatever, you can. The state will ask the former employer why
they fired you. The employer has an interest in this because their
unemployment insurance premiums may be experience rated. If you have
a lot of employee turnover your premiums go up, although that has a
big effect only on large employers. The employees you fire for cause
don't count against you. The employer has to supply a lot of
paperwork to justify the facts. Unemployment compensation doesn't
amount to a lot of money. In Tennessee you get $275 per week,
maximum. Other states do pay more. I think a lot of people who could
sign up, don't. If you do sign up you have to look for work and
interview for job openings listed with the state employment office.


But Kristi does not really know if they had cause, does she? Which puts her
at a disadvantage for employment benefit. When they were pressed and said
they "weren't comfortable about giving a reason" it suggests to me that they
had one.
Providing they stick to "there is no work for you", here you would get
unemployment benefit for a while.

Tweed

Christina Websell wrote:

But Kristi does not really know if they had cause, does she? Which puts her
at a disadvantage for employment benefit.

Not really. If they don't give her a cause, then they will have to pay
out unemployment benefits. But in the US, a person *can* collect if they
are fired due to poor performance. It's only if the firing is due to a
disciplinary issue that the person can't get benefits. (Or if the employee
quits the job voluntarily, too, of course.)

Joyce

--
Something you'll never hear an 8-year-old say:
"Nana, will you spit on your hankie and wipe the gravy off my face?"

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:31:54 +0100, "Christina Websell"
wrote:

But Kristi does not really know if they had cause, does she? Which puts her
at a disadvantage for employment benefit. When they were pressed and said
they "weren't comfortable about giving a reason" it suggests to me that they
had one.
Providing they stick to "there is no work for you", here you would get
unemployment benefit for a while.

She should sign up anyway. Termination for cause requires so much
documentation (written warnings, etc.) that you already know the
reason why.

Mouth shut and ears open is a good plan wherever you work.

Bud

wrote in message
...
Christina Websell wrote:

But Kristi does not really know if they had cause, does she?
Which puts her
at a disadvantage for employment benefit.

Not really. If they don't give her a cause, then they will have to
pay
out unemployment benefits. But in the US, a person *can* collect
if they
are fired due to poor performance. It's only if the firing is due
to a
disciplinary issue that the person can't get benefits. (Or if the
employee
quits the job voluntarily, too, of course.)


My daughter even had a case that went to a hearing where an employee
walked out after being questioned about failure to turn the daily
deposits over to the armored car service for over a week.
Apparently she lost her key and didn't want to admit it and ask for
a replacement to just let the money pile up. (We are talking well
over $100,000 here)

She claimed, in spite of witnesses that she was fired and then not
paid immediately so wanted not only unemployment but pay and
penalties for a couple of weeks after she left. And that in spite
of the fact that they did sent her a check to her address of record
once she called and said she wasn't coming back. Of course she had
moved without telling them so they were supposed to be penalized for
that as well.

The way people are let go in California may be barbaric, but it is
almost impossible not to qualify for unemployment.

The only way I've seen an employer be successful in keeping their
rate down, (It varies from about .8% to around 6% of payroll
depending on your experience rating) was to hire only part time
employees and then reduce their hours to the point where they would
quit if you were unhappy with them.

Jo

Christina Websell wrote:

But Kristi does not really know if they had cause, does she? Which puts her
at a disadvantage for employment benefit. When they were pressed and said
they "weren't comfortable about giving a reason" it suggests to me that they
had one.
Providing they stick to "there is no work for you", here you would get
unemployment benefit for a while.

Qualification for unemployment benefits vary from place to place - but
if you're fired for cause (in the sense that it might affect your
benefits), you know why. "For cause" usually has to be documented and
proven - and can result in job loss even in unionized businesses, where
some employees would rather not fire someone and blame it on union rules
than collect the documentation that proves there is a 'for cause', and
the cause isn't simply a personal dislike of the person or a desire to
open up a position for the boss's nephew or something similar. Ideally,
yes, painful as it might be, it would probably help Kristi to find out
whether something other than the economy is the reason for this job
loss. But she's unlikely to get it from her employer if her employer
doesn't have to show cause, and didn't provide her with any evaluation
while she was working.

And if her employer were to claim dismissal for cause and deny her
benefits (if that's the law in California), they'd *need* documentation,
which doesn't seem to exist. If it did, Kristi would know about it.


--
Cheryl

I haven't read this whole thread so I may be repeating someone else later
on... but it occurs to me that since most of these job losses have been in
the past year it could indeed be the economy (after all Kristi has been a
"new" employee at these jobs, hence least seniority). It could also just be
coincidental and not indicative of a specific problem with Kristi.