#Letstalk (unless it's about our own employees)

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Please explain how I'm doing that.

Where is the distinction I've made? That if you break your legs you call in and if you suffer from depression you bring the note in yourself? That's a distinction between breaking your legs and almost anything that isn't breaking your damn legs. There are plenty of physically disabling ailments that still let you walk into work and give your supervisor a note. An upcoming surgery, perhaps? Disease treatment (cancer)? Crohns?

You're not pointing out anything except how desperate you are for a fight and how unwilling you are to see this from any perspective that doesn't look at Bell as some horrible anti-mental health hypocrite. Get over it.

Oh you literally meant that .. literally as in "call in". Holy smokes. ok let me dial it down for you then.

Let's say that the person was physically disabled for 2 weeks and unable to come to work at all. Would you have condoned them being fired for that? Would you have made a comment about them 'needing time off 4 days in'?

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Termination without cause is a very small % of terminations. Termination without cause are usually things like lay offs, downsizing, etc.

Terminations are usually a result of a culminating incident or a breech of employer trust

This might be the least accurate statement I've read on CP.
Congrats!

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

This might be the least accurate statement I've read on CP.
Congrats!

I've already conceded there's a huge difference between a unionized work place where workers have better enforcement of their rights vs a non unionized work environment.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I've already conceded there's a huge difference between a unionized work place where workers have better enforcement of their rights vs a non unionized work environment.

But your whole argument is based on that, so....

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Oh you literally meant that .. literally as in "call in". Holy smokes. ok let me dial it down for you then.

Let's say that the person was physically disabled for 2 weeks and unable to come to work at all. Would you have condoned them being fired for that? Would you have made a comment about them 'needing time off 4 days in'?

I think you're misunderstanding my "4 days" comment.

She came in on a Thursday, and gave a notice saying she needed two weeks off starting on the Monday. Thursday and Monday are 4 days apart, it otherwise is not relevant to my point.

You think she was fired FOR her mental health issue, I don't. I theorised that maybe her needing time off (regardless of the reason) was a catalyst for the firing. That they had already intended to do so, and that her needing the time off would've been the push forward to make it happen then. It would no different to me if she called in, needed time off for surgery, to heal a broken bone, etc. My statement had literally nothing to do with the reason for two weeks leave, but that the very requirement of leave itself could have accelerated her firing.

The reason is irrelevant. I could simply see an employer look at an employee who they were going to fire anyway, get notice that they're going to be gone for two weeks (paid) and say "let's do it now." If I'm firing someone, I don't want them taking two paid weeks off so that they can come back and get another 3 weeks severance when I fire them.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

But your whole argument is based on that, so....

Whether or not Bell acted in a very slimy way that violated her human rights has nothing to do how she was "officially" terminated. In fact, I think I from the start agreed she was terminated without cause to avoid a legal problem.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

her mental health issue, I don't. I theorised that maybe her needing time off (regardless of the reason) was a catalyst for the firing. That they had already intended to do so, and that her needing the time off would've been the push forward to make it happen then. It would no different to me if she called in, needed time off for surgery, to heal a broken bone, etc. My statement had literally nothing to do with the reason for two weeks leave, but that the very requirement of leave itself could have accelerated her firing.

The reason is irrelevant. I could simply see an employer look at an employee who they were going to fire anyway, get notice that they're going to be gone for two weeks (paid) and say "let's do it now." If I'm firing someone, I don't want them taking two paid weeks off so that they can come back and get another 3 weeks severance when I fire them.

Using the mental health issue as a culminating incident is a violation of human rights.

[puckedoff]

No sense arguing on the internet over something we will never have all the facts to.

But I'm bored, so here's my take: Her depression and anxiety issues were impacting her work performance. Bell doesn't know what the issue is, but it seems like her give a sh** meter is way down low, and she is disinterested in her job. So they make the arrangements to fire her. The timing of the doctors note is coincidence. Ultimately, her career is killed by Peter, in the Newsroom, with an Epipen.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Using the mental health issue as a culminating incident is a violation of human rights.

But that's not what I'm suggesting, and I've explained this 5 times already. Please, get this: if they were going to fire her anyway (let's say discussions had been had, HR had been notified, they had decided on Friday, maybe Monday, maybe next Friday, maybe they didn't have a firm date, whatever) and she comes in on Thursday and says "I need two weeks off" then that would give reason to accelerate the firing (not to CAUSE it).

You're confused. The mental health issue is irrelevant outside of the timing. It is not a human rights issue to fire someone on a Thursday because you want to do it before they take time off.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I'm taking my colleagues at the office for lunch today to talk mental health. Not all can make it, but it's a conversation that we can have as a group and see where it leads.

You are a good man.


I am a ball of conflicting emotions and thoughts today.


Six months ago a good friend of mine killed himself due to mental illness, and 3 months ago a co-worker and friend was murdered by an individual claiming mental illness.


#### in life ain't easy.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But that's not what I'm suggesting, and I've explained this 5 times already. Please, get this: if they were going to fire her anyway (let's say discussions had been had, HR had been notified, they had decided on Friday, maybe Monday, maybe next Friday, maybe they didn't have a firm date, whatever) and she comes in on Thursday and says "I need two weeks off" then that would give reason to accelerate the firing (not to CAUSE it).

You're confused. The mental health issue is irrelevant outside of the timing. It is not a human rights issue to fire someone on a Thursday because you want to do it before they take time off.

Ya I sort of get where you're coming from but you're graying an important distinction here: someone who's on the brink of termination vs someone who's fate has been decided and not yet carried out.

I know that in my workplace it's highly unusual to have someone working there you decided to fire due to privacy and business "secrets". It's a dangerous slippery slope to say it's ok to fire someone for mental illness you had intended to fire anyways because it opens the door to the scenario we find ourselves in now.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Termination without cause is a very small % of terminations. Termination without cause are usually things like lay offs, downsizing, etc.

Terminations are usually a result of a culminating incident or a breech of employer trust

Not true, I work in HR and probably 90% of the terminations we do are "without cause" and with a severance package. Cause is very difficult to prove and you have to have shown performance management of the issue with progressive discipline, etc.

There's likely a reason and performance issue but it would often be classified as without cause even if it's not a layoff or downsizing.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Torture

Not true, I work in HR and probably 90% of the terminations we do are "without cause" and with a severance package. Cause is very difficult to prove and you have to have shown performance management of the issue with progressive discipline, etc.

There's likely a reason and performance issue but it would often be classified as without cause even if it's not a layoff or downsizing.

Do all without cause firings need to signed off on by the person being fired? Or is that just a union practice?

[Torture]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Do all without cause firings need to signed off on by the person being fired? Or is that just a union practice?

Depends on the company's practices. Best practice, and most employers would offer the severance package conditional on the employee signing a release but I've seen companies just say "here's your severance" (which is stupid in my mind but hey, whatever).

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Do all without cause firings need to signed off on by the person being fired? Or is that just a union practice?

Short answer: outside of a union environment there is no requirement whatsoever for sign-off on the part of the person being terminated.

However, some companies will include a settlement agreement with your severance if it's a decent chunk of change - e.g., here's all the information about your package, in terms of dollars, what support we're providing you (sometimes counseling), how your pension works if you've got one, possibly a buyout of options. Then they get you to sign off on it as acceptable to you and release the company from liability so that they know you aren't going to go get a lawyer and sue them for providing you with a severance package that's less than you were entitled to.

[mrkajz44]

I think my take on this is pretty similar to the general opinion. She was likely going to be let go in the near future, the the note indicating time off simply accelerated the process. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to let her take the 2 week leave and then fire her 1 week after that.

The whole other part of the conversation that goes into very muddy waters is the reason they were firing her. Likely it was around performance at work, and her mental health struggles probably greatly contributed to that. Did she get fired because she asked for 2 weeks off to cope with her mental health? Very likely no. Did she get fired because of mental health issues lowering her work performance? Quite possible (even likely?)

That is why Let's Talk is such an important day and shows we still have a ways to go. The situation could have played out in a much different way. They plan to fire her because her performance is poor. She brings in the doctor's note about her mental health struggles. Instead of firing her, they realize that her poor performance may be related to the mental health issues and decided to help her work through it. The disconnect right now is the connection wasn't there between her mental health issues and her poor performance.

*My whole theory is based on the fact they were going to fire her anyway based on poor performance - we don't actually know the reason

[The Yen Man]

Here's my experience whenever I've seen someone fired. It's never their fault, it's always the company's. Even if, as an outsider, I can clearly see it's because the employee sucked at their job, refused to correct their mistakes, and took liberties with breaks, working hours, and taking time off.

Not saying that's necessarily the case with this woman, but I'm just saying there's always two sides to the story, and we shouldn't just jump to the conclusion she was fired because of her mental illness.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

I think my take on this is pretty similar to the general opinion. She was likely going to be let go in the near future, the the note indicating time off simply accelerated the process. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to let her take the 2 week leave and then fire her 1 week after that.

The whole other part of the conversation that goes into very muddy waters is the reason they were firing her. Likely it was around performance at work, and her mental health struggles probably greatly contributed to that. Did she get fired because she asked for 2 weeks off to cope with her mental health? Very likely no. Did she get fired because of mental health issues lowering her work performance? Quite possible (even likely?)

That is why Let's Talk is such an important day and shows we still have a ways to go. The situation could have played out in a much different way. They plan to fire her because her performance is poor. She brings in the doctor's note about her mental health struggles. Instead of firing her, they realize that her poor performance may be related to the mental health issues and decided to help her work through it. The disconnect right now is the connection wasn't there between her mental health issues and her poor performance.

*My whole theory is based on the fact they were going to fire her anyway based on poor performance - we don't actually know the reason

The risk here is that if her performance continues to be poor after the 2 week adjustment they now are in a much more shakey legal position when they terminate her.

[Jacks]

As has been said, it is highly unlikely that her termination was processed in an hour, not impossible but highly unlikely. I could probably get it done but it would have to be an instant decision and the HR person would have to literally drop everything and get working on the ROE and cheque.

I'm going to sound like a big capitalist meanie here but oh well. It's entirely possible that she was on thin ice already and knew she was going to be fired. At that point she went to the doctor and told him she was having issues and got a note and prescription. Then when presenting this to the company it accelerated the process (as others have said).
Sound like a rude, nasty and crazy theory?
I've seen the exact same thing happen more than once. I had an employee who screwed up royally due to laziness and stupidity and knew he was getting canned. I was off that day and he was called in for Monday at 9:00am, wouldn't take a rocket appliance to know he was getting axed. He showed up on Monday with a doctors note saying that he was going on stress leave. I fired him anyway and told him to have his lawyer contact us if he wanted to take it any further.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Guys, it's an English radio station servicing a town of 5000....where 80% of the town is French. I think you're projecting a bit much of "corporate Calgary" onto a small radio station that probably has a dozen employees with respect to how long it would take to let her go.