Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would assume that the part time employee would have looked into FMLA to see if it applies to her situation. Getting FMLA is not automatic. The employee has to invoke their rights under the program. If the woman had her case in order, she wouldn't have been fired. No employer would deny rights under a federal program.
Could it be that the part time employee didn't meet the requirements:
Quote:
Employees are eligible for leave if they have worked for their employer at least 12 months, at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months, and work at a location where the company employs 50 or more employees within 75 miles. Whether an employee has worked the minimum 1,250 hours of service is determined according to FLSA principles for determining compensable hours or work.
It's sad that this person's mother has cancer. However, life happens. The policy is already broad for a reason. I think it's acceptable to only offer extra time off (over 30 days) for sick spouses and children. That's the immediate family.
Where do we draw the line? If we add parents, why not other relatives? Why not friends or pets?
As to the big wigs, I don't see why it's an issue that those who work in upper management have different employment benefits. Isn't that the point of working hard to "move up the ladder?" Some people, because of their seniority, get a few extra weeks of vacation. Is that wrong? Some people are allowed to work from home while others must report into the office. Is that wrong?
I'm sorry that this woman is going through all of this. Life isn't always nice or easy. I believe the lady will be able to get unemployment benefits.
Parents as well as siblings are one's immediate family whether one is married or not. But to one's parents there is a sense of moral obligation and similar time off should be given for their caretaking when they face a life or death type illness the same as to one's spouse or minor children.
Corporations are, by design, intentionally cold and heartless. That's why it is so dangerous to have given them status (q.v. Citizens United). As such, the moral conscience of a corporation is imposed by regulation. That's why an anti-regulation perspective is unequivocally a perspective opposed to conscientiousness - opposed to doing the right thing.
Exactly. This also ties into the insane notion that I've heard spouted off so many times by people of... certain political orientations... that "anything goes" so long as it is legal. Yes, technically nothing illegal was done here, but that doesn't make it right. Worse, when cold, heartless entities that exist solely to collect as much wealth as possible at the top are the ones effectively writing the laws, it won't be long before all manner of destructive and evil actions are considered perfectly legal. That is not the type of society in which sane people should want to live, IMHO.
Quote:
An eligible employee is one who: ... Has at least 1,250 hours of service for the employer during the 12 month period immediately preceding the leave
I was wrong to make that blanket statement and stand corrected. 1,250 hours over 52 weeks is a liitle more than 24 hours a week, so i guess it depends on how part time she was. It would have been more accurate for me to say that she did not have to be full time in order to qualify for FMLA leave. That covers the legal side of it.
From a moral perspective, the employer should have offered her the leave regardless of the number of hours she was working. There are some awfully cold people on this thread. In my experience, they are often the ones who ask for the most benevolent treatment when they are in need.
I'm sure part of it does have to do with allowing her undetermined leave requiring that they do the same for all other employees or face legal action.
I have seen both sides of this coin. In one instance, there was a teacher at a school who had mental health issues and wound up taking 45 days off over the course of a semester (normal taught days in a semester=90.) She did not take them off in a row, but would decide that morning she was unable to go to school that day, which prevented them from being able to hire a long-term sub who knew her subject area. This was the nature of her mental health issue. Since she taught advanced math classes, the regular subs couldn't really teach the material as well as a real math teacher and it caused 200 kids to fall behind and be in danger of not passing end of course exams in math. While everyone sympathized with her situation, the excessive absences were definitely affecting more than just her. It was a relief when the following year she decided to resign.
I have also seen a teacher who decided they didn't want to finish the year because they wanted more time to plan their wedding that was early in the summer. They stopped coming in twelve weeks before the end of school and went to a dozen doctors before they found one that would write a note excusing this for stress. They wanted their job protected for the following year after the wedding had taken place. Another teacher didn't like one of their co-teachers and didn't want to deal with them. So they got a doctor to write a note saying something similar to the previous example and skipped out on the last half of the school year.
So basically, while I think in this instance, it's a shame this woman couldn't have been offered unpaid leave, I also understand where companies are coming from when they write tough policies that seem a little "heartless." Rules are written for the people who choose to take advantage of them, and those who try to do the right thing suffer as a result. It's a shame.
I would assume that the part time employee would have looked into FMLA to see if it applies to her situation. Getting FMLA is not automatic. The employee has to invoke their rights under the program. If the woman had her case in order, she wouldn't have been fired. No employer would deny rights under a federal program.
Could it be that the part time employee didn't meet the requirements:
If she didn't meet the requirements, then...
While it is true that the PT person in the OP may not have qualified under FMLA, you are dead wrong about the employee having to invoke their rights. As an employer I have initiated the FMLA process many times. The employee does have to agree to the coverage, but I have never had an employee not agree to job protection.
All a bit beside the point. The employer did not have to terminate her. There were other simple, inexpensive or free options that could have been used. The employer is being rather heartless, and that is the bottom line.
I'm sure part of it does have to do with allowing her undetermined leave requiring that they do the same for all other employees or face legal action.
I have seen both sides of this coin. In one instance, there was a teacher at a school who had mental health issues and wound up taking 45 days off over the course of a semester (normal taught days in a semester=90.) She did not take them off in a row, but would decide that morning she was unable to go to school that day, which prevented them from being able to hire a long-term sub who knew her subject area. This was the nature of her mental health issue. Since she taught advanced math classes, the regular subs couldn't really teach the material as well as a real math teacher and it caused 200 kids to fall behind and be in danger of not passing end of course exams in math. While everyone sympathized with her situation, the excessive absences were definitely affecting more than just her. It was a relief when the following year she decided to resign.
I have also seen a teacher who decided they didn't want to finish the year because they wanted more time to plan their wedding that was early in the summer. They stopped coming in twelve weeks before the end of school and went to a dozen doctors before they found one that would write a note excusing this for stress. They wanted their job protected for the following year after the wedding had taken place. Another teacher didn't like one of their co-teachers and didn't want to deal with them. So they got a doctor to write a note saying something similar to the previous example and skipped out on the last half of the school year.
So basically, while I think in this instance, it's a shame this woman couldn't have been offered unpaid leave, I also understand where companies are coming from when they write tough policies that seem a little "heartless." Rules are written for the people who choose to take advantage of them, and those who try to do the right thing suffer as a result. It's a shame.
This was a PT employee. Many different options exist.
Schedule her for one 4 hour shift per week. Most people could swing that, regardless of other commitments.
Simply acknowledge the fact that PT employees don't have to work every week. This would actually give the employer additional scheduling flexibility.
Man up and tell her she could come back after x weeks, regardless of company policy. In and of itself, this is not an actionable exception. In a union setting it might be grievable, but it is pretty rare that PT employees have union coverage.
I thin k the policy needs to say spouse, children and all others on a case by case basis. To be considered woiuld be how close (ie mother vs. mother in law), if they live with employee, length of term of employment etc.
I just think I'd have trouble sleeping at night if I fired someone for this reason, that's all.
Trust me, plenty of business owners wouldn't think twice about it. You are seriously delusional if you believe you mean anything more to your employer than a piece of equipment.
If the employee has worked at least 1250 hours in the previous year they can take 12 weeks of leave under FMLA. Since this person is PT, they may not qualify.
Personally, I would not let a good employee go after a month if they were taking care of a dying mother. If it took longer than 3 months I would need to talk to them, I might need to fll their current position, but I would find something in the company for them.
Yes, it is wrong. Unless the employee is covered by FMLA, it's also legal.
Good answer, but think about this OP if the employee was really that great they would not be that absent from work, so which is more important? Your financial future or you mothers death, sounds harsh but welcome to reality. Seen/dealt with this several times before, you are only at work for 8 hours a day....
Good luck.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
