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.
What would I do? Ummm, nothing. Her medical issues are not your business.
I fail to see the actual problem here. You're worried she will go out on medical leave? That would also be reason not to hire a pregnant female, or an older worker, etc. which of course is completely unacceptable hiring practice.
It doesn't seem to me that she lied about why she was let go by her former company. It sounds like she was let go of part of massive layoffs and she happened to be on medical leave at the time.
5-10 minutes late? C'mon. Now you're just reaching....
If she is going to cost the company money and place a burden on the owners and other workers then it is absolutely an acceptable hiring process to hire only who will do the job. Any regulations that say otherwise are tantamount to slavery and a violation of freedom.
The problem is not that she sometimes needs time off she may need paid medical leave. Why is it acceptable to pay an employee who doesn't work and then have to pay for her replacement. It's ridiculous. She also will raise insurance cost for the company and it will be passed on to the employees, customers and the owner has to suffer. This is why robots are better employees because of all the regulations.
Once you hire them it's a problem because they can sue if you fire them. Unless she does something that would get anyone else fired it opens up the company to liability to fire her. I guess you'll have to delegate any work that she is not avaliable to do and set up a good system for that. Maybe some of her work can be done from home when she is ill? That could be a possibility?
Take it from someone who has been in the business world for over 50 years, it is ALL DOWNHILL from here ! When they start out like this it shows a void in their character and laziness. She has been late numerous times (and I don't care if it is 10 minutes or an hour, late is late), she misled you during the hiring process, and she is now starting to lay the foundation for health issues.
Time to cut the cord. That isn't cruel, just business, and you need people who will show up on time, and who are relatively healthy and able to fulfill the job they signed on for. If you don't do it, you will be back here posting a sad story in a couple of months about how she has really gotten much worse.
Don
Yep..CUT THE CORD...Typical Corporate mentality....Defund costly expenses..kick to the curb anyone who doesn't give their 150% .. expect peer groups to take up the slack without remunerations..and so one..Why am I not surprised with this attitude??
Hey..not everyone is 100% healthy..and if anyone is hired for their merits gets quickly disagreed as you suggest...I truly hope you never ever have a health issue
While many are not 100% healthy, new hires should ALWAYS show up EVERY day on time. It is called probation for a reason; during that time, employees should be on their very best behavior. Stealing company time is not part of best behavior.
While many are not 100% healthy, new hires should ALWAYS show up EVERY day on time. It is called probation for a reason; during that time, employees should be on their very best behavior. Stealing company time is not part of best behavior.
The OP made it quite clear what the company is focusing on: The health issues. It's even the main point of the author's title. Being tardy is clearly an afterthought, and the OP made this pretty obvious by pointing out health issues in the title and then making that the brunt of their argument.
We recently hired a new person that appeared to be a great fit for our small office. No prior experience in our field but good education, presented herself well in the interviews and had been on her prior job for several years with increasing responsibilities.
Approximately 30 days after start date we had a presentation by AFLAC. After this she casually mentioned that she had been let go from her prior job, contractor in the mortgage industry, while she was off on medical leave. Without prompting, she stated that she has a medical condition that is painful and requires time off sometimes.
This was slightly different then what she had indicated in the interview, that she was laid off as part of a large layoff. Since there have been massive layoffs in the mortgage industry, no red flags. No mention of medical issues at all.
Now day 59 of employment, she calls in that there is a problem and she can't make it in until 12. Once she does make it in it is clear that she is in pain. The 59 day is important since insurance kicks in on day 60.
We now have the feeling that her goal is to get on our insurance, which is 100% paid and excellent, in order to get the necessary medical care. So, we expect soon to receive notice that she will need to be off for 6 weeks.
The work is very specific to our program so anyone we hire requires training. However, for the first 30-60 days, the work being performed by a new hire doesn't really help the workload due to the necessity of reviewing all the work which takes just a long as doing it yourself.
Four things to point out:
1) There are some personality conflicts with immediate supervisor who is extremely strict. However, we think this can be overcome.
2) 5 -10 minutes late on numerous occasions.
3) Very smart and confident individual that we think will make a good employee once training completed.
4) We REALLY need the help and starting over from scratch would set us even further behind in the workload.
What would you do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimMoeDee
Four things to point out:
1) There are some personality conflicts with immediate supervisor who is extremely strict. However, we think this can be overcome.
2) 5 -10 minutes late on numerous occasions.
3) Very smart and confident individual that we think will make a good employee once training completed.
4) We REALLY need the help and starting over from scratch would set us even further behind in the workload.
What would you do?
OK, so -
1. She doesn't get along very well with a supervisor, but evidently a number of other people have the same issue because that supervisor is difficult to get along with. But you don't think this one is important, because you're confident it will work out.
So scratch Problem Number One. It's a non-issue. That leaves #2, #3, and #4.
2. 5 to 10 minutes late on numerous occasions. OK, first of all, define "numerous." And tell us what the culture is at your workplace. I'm a prompt employee and always have been, but I've worked at some workplaces where start times were treated as flexible. Start time may technically be 8, but people show up anywhere from 7:45 to 8:15 depending on traffic or whatever, because while technically quitting time may be 17:00, we didn't really leave until whatever needed to be done was done. Even if it was 18:00 or 19:00. And everyone was perfectly fine with that. It was just the norm.
If the culture at your office is anything like that, then this is another non-issue. I half suspect there may be something to that, or else she's being poorly managed by being allowed to show up late without any corrective measures being applied (which I notice you didn't mention in your list of excuses to get rid of her.) So, that takes us to #3.
3. Sounds like exactly what every company is looking for. Sounds like a very good hire to me. And now for #4...
4. Another good reason to keep her.
So, what does that leave us with? The only problem you have with her - the only problem at all - is this:
Quote:
We now have the feeling that her goal is to get on our insurance, which is 100% paid and excellent, in order to get the necessary medical care. So, we expect soon to receive notice that she will need to be off for 6 weeks.
Why do you "now have this feeling?" Where do you get this "6 week" thing - did you just pluck it out of the air? What has led you to this conclusion, other than that you found out she has health issues? Apparently nothing at all, because you sure don't mention anything in your post.
OK, fine, you're afraid that she's going to get sick and leave you hanging at some point, and I'm not going to pretend that wouldn't be a serious problem if it happens. But what actual reason do you have for expecting it?
If she is going to cost the company money and place a burden on the owners and other workers then it is absolutely an acceptable hiring process to hire only who will do the job. Any regulations that say otherwise are tantamount to slavery and a violation of freedom.
So if an 8-month pregnant lady waddled in for an interview you'd just say "no thanks"? Okay. Let me know how that lawsuit works out for you.
We recently hired a new person that appeared to be a great fit for our small office. No prior experience in our field but good education, presented herself well in the interviews and had been on her prior job for several years with increasing responsibilities.
Approximately 30 days after start date we had a presentation by AFLAC. After this she casually mentioned that she had been let go from her prior job, contractor in the mortgage industry, while she was off on medical leave. Without prompting, she stated that she has a medical condition that is painful and requires time off sometimes.
This was slightly different then what she had indicated in the interview, that she was laid off as part of a large layoff. Since there have been massive layoffs in the mortgage industry, no red flags. No mention of medical issues at all.
Now day 59 of employment, she calls in that there is a problem and she can't make it in until 12. Once she does make it in it is clear that she is in pain. The 59 day is important since insurance kicks in on day 60.
We now have the feeling that her goal is to get on our insurance, which is 100% paid and excellent, in order to get the necessary medical care. So, we expect soon to receive notice that she will need to be off for 6 weeks.
The work is very specific to our program so anyone we hire requires training. However, for the first 30-60 days, the work being performed by a new hire doesn't really help the workload due to the necessity of reviewing all the work which takes just a long as doing it yourself.
Four things to point out:
1) There are some personality conflicts with immediate supervisor who is extremely strict. However, we think this can be overcome.
2) 5 -10 minutes late on numerous occasions.
3) Very smart and confident individual that we think will make a good employee once training completed.
4) We REALLY need the help and starting over from scratch would set us even further behind in the workload.
What would you do?
Why would you bring up you had a medical condition prior to being hired? Is there some penalty for being a pre-existing condition or something? Even if so, I just don't understand why you would tell your employer this. The less they know, the better.
I'd probably hold on to her, but like with many replies they're biased. I know some industries do need people on time (like retail, service, food service, really customer focused, etc.), but if she's in an environment where she gets her work done despite being 5 to 10 minutes late, is it worth canning someone who has potential and can do a good job? Is there a risk that your next hire to replace her will come in 10 minutes EARLY, but do a lousy job? Again, I'm biased, as in IT, it's less of an issue. Companies have allowed folks to work a 4/10 schedule, compensate for their commute times, and have "off core hours", like coming in at 5am, and leaving at 1pm so they can avoid crippling traffic. They'd much rather grant these things then to try to find another needle in a haystack.
It may seem dishonest, but companies do it too. They'll purposely try to lowball candidates instead of giving them something that's more market value (and then complain when they jump ship ), and otherwise see what else they an legally get away with. I will tell you that if asked during the interview, I will say I want the job because the work is fascinating, it's a good mission, the company's reputable, and if applicable, the area is nice. What I'm really thinking is I want the salary to pay my bills, and the fringe benefits. I'll show some loyalty to the company, but as soon as you stop paying me, I'm moving on.
So if an 8-month pregnant lady waddled in for an interview you'd just say "no thanks"? Okay. Let me know how that lawsuit works out for you.
But...
Why would I hire someone to fill a critical position knowing that they will be giving birth soon, and be out of work for months after that ....or may not come back at all?
Why would I hire someone to fill a critical position knowing that they will be giving birth soon, and be out of work for months after that ....or may not come back at all?
What is the benefit to me as an employer?
The point is that it's illegal discrimination.
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.
), and otherwise see what else they an legally get away with. I will tell you that if asked during the interview, I will say I want the job because the work is fascinating, it's a good mission, the company's reputable, and if applicable, the area is nice. What I'm really thinking is I want the salary to pay my bills, and the fringe benefits. I'll show some loyalty to the company, but as soon as you stop paying me, I'm moving on.
