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

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

This is exactly the stigma "lets talk" is attempting to end. If she had broken her legs and needed time off no one would have questioned it. But because its mental health she should have had a stiff upper lip and toughed it out?

Did anyone say that? Or are you just figuring out some angle so you can have this argument? Go ahead, show one place where someone said she should have just toughed it out. I'll wait.

I'd feel the exact same if she broke her legs. How is that more or less indicative of being the reason she was fired?

I don't think you understand "let's talk" and I think you're reaching to find a demon in all this. Nowhere in that article (unless I missed it) does it even say she told her supervisor her leave was a direct result of mental health issues. She told her colleagues, but doesn't seem to include her supervisor in that group anywhere in the article.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Did anyone say that? Or are you just figuring out some angle so you can have this argument? Go ahead, show one place where someone said she should have just toughed it out. I'll wait.

I'd feel the exact same if she broke her legs. How is that more or less indicative of being the reason she was fired?

I don't think you understand "let's talk" and I think you're reaching to find a demon in all this. Nowhere in that article (unless I missed it) does it even say she told her supervisor her leave was a direct result of mental health issues. She told her colleagues, but doesn't seem to include her supervisor in that group anywhere in the article.

Isn't it entirely likely they weren't that happy with her and "in 4 days I'm taking two weeks off" was enough of a catalyst to pull the trigger?

So if she was physically unable to come to work due a physical disability you'd still think she was 4 days in and taking two weeks off?

[PepsiFree]

What are you talking about? What argument are you trying to making? Obviously, if she broke her legs she probably would've just called in!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

If you wanted to provide me with specific numbers on just cause vs without cause terminations I'd entertain that as well but the link you cited has no sources to back up their claim whatsoever.

Good lord. You're like the poster child for motivated reasoning. All of those links were written by employment lawyers - people who do this for a living. I could walk down the hall and ask someone to confirm it as well, but that would be a waste of everyone's time. Go do your own research if you want to find those numbers, but this is just common knowledge.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What are you talking about? What argument are you trying to making? Obviously, if she broke her legs she probably would've just called in!

You're making a distinction between mental and physical disability and not even realizing it when its being pointed out to you.

[rubecube]

I can sort of understand what Resurrection is saying in that the optics of this look pretty bad. If she hadn't requested the time off, which was due to her mental illness, do they likely still fire her without cause?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I can sort of understand what Resurrection is saying in that the optics of this look pretty bad. If she hadn't requested the time off, which was due to her mental illness, do they likely still fire her without cause?

They were likely going to. In a corporation like that I can almost 100% guarantee that all terminations go through hr first. They can't possibly have everything ready to go an hour after she presents them a letter. This is so one sided is absurd

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

It may have been planned in advance. Timing around this looks pretty terrible, but if you can get a reviewed term letter for someone in an hour, that is a pretty damned fast HR department.

That's kind of what I was thinking, too. It took them 1 hour to decide on, fully approve and fund 3 week severance package AND present it back to the employee? That's an incredibly efficient and effective HR dept.

[V]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

The reason they likely didn't give a reason is because they terminated her over her mental illness issues.

That's insane an shows a complete lack of understanding of how HR works. The reason they likely didn't give a reason is that you don't give a reason because you don't have to, and giving a reason opens you up to litigation. Pay the money and shut up, that's how it works.

That's a crazy leap of logic you've made there.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

They were likely going to. In a corporation like that I can almost 100% guarantee that all terminations go through hr first. They can't possibly have everything ready to go an hour after she presents them a letter. This is so one sided is absurd

If you don't think you can terminate someone in a corporate environment in under an hour then you're sadly mistaken. Manager could have called his labour relations and advised that the employee was a poor job fit and wanted time off work that wasn't properly substantiated, and had a termination letter done up all in 10 mins. Hell, 5 minutes. This of course rests on her direct manager being a dick.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I deal in a unionized work environment that has just cause in the collective agreement, so my personal experience obviously may vary from the non unionized world. If you wanted to provide me with specific numbers on just cause vs without cause terminations I'd entertain that as well but the link you cited has no sources to back up their claim whatsoever.

Ok. Here's real world. In total I've had two terminations with cause in ten years of operating stores of 40 and 25 employees. Both were for stealing. The rest are "without cause" for a number of reasons. 1) I'm not a monster and don't want to can someone with no money or time to look for another job, 2) from a legal standpoint I'd have to "show my work" and risk a lengthy lawsuit if they disagree with the cause,and 3) I don't want to sit and have an argument about something I've already made my mind up about. In every case the employee knew what was coming.

The amount of work and risk in a "with cause" are higher, but the money lower. In most instances, I'll take less work and risk

Your experiences are far, far, far from normal

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

That's kind of what I was thinking, too. It took them 1 hour to decide on, fully approve and fund 3 week severance package AND present it back to the employee? That's an incredibly efficient and effective HR dept.

And if we know anything about telecoms, it is that the last thing they are is efficient and effective.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by V

That's insane an shows a complete lack of understanding of how HR works. The reason they likely didn't give a reason is that you don't give a reason because you don't have to, and giving a reason opens you up to litigation. Pay the money and shut up, that's how it works.

That's a crazy leap of logic you've made there.

Well if the employee doesn't want to accept the severance, they can fight the firing without cause.

I believe you have to sign off on the firing, in order to get your severance so they ensure you won't come back on a later date and sue them.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Ok. Here's real world. In total I've had two terminations with cause in ten years of operating stores of 40 and 25 employees. Both were for stealing. The rest are "without cause" for a number of reasons. 1) I'm not a monster and don't want to can someone with no money or time to look for another job, 2) from a legal standpoint I'd have to "show my work" and risk a lengthy lawsuit if they disagree with the cause,and 3) I don't want to sit and have an argument about something I've already made my mind up about. In every case the employee knew what was coming.

The amount of work and risk in a "with cause" are higher, but the money lower. In most instances, I'll take less work and risk

Your experiences are far, far, far from normal

If by real world you mean a non unionized work place, maybe you're right. But if your simply citing your own personal anecdotes vs mine you need to step down from your ivory tower.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I can sort of understand what Resurrection is saying in that the optics of this look pretty bad. If she hadn't requested the time off, which was due to her mental illness, do they likely still fire her without cause?

Probably. As CaramonLS pointed out, I highly doubt the HR department has the employee files reviewed, the letter drafted, reviewed by higher ups and ready to go in an hour.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Ok. Here's real world. In total I've had two terminations with cause in ten years of operating stores of 40 and 25 employees. Both were for stealing. The rest are "without cause" for a number of reasons. 1) I'm not a monster and don't want to can someone with no money or time to look for another job, 2) from a legal standpoint I'd have to "show my work" and risk a lengthy lawsuit if they disagree with the cause,and 3) I don't want to sit and have an argument about something I've already made my mind up about. In every case the employee knew what was coming.

The amount of work and risk in a "with cause" are higher, but the money lower. In most instances, I'll take less work and risk

Your experiences are far, far, far from normal

You run two stores with 40 and 25 employees in a non unionized world. That's not the real world.

Unions have their own rules they go by so not sure why you think your experiences matter more than resurrections.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

They were likely going to. In a corporation like that I can almost 100% guarantee that all terminations go through hr first. They can't possibly have everything ready to go an hour after she presents them a letter. This is so one sided is absurd

I guess I should have said "possible" instead of "likely." If it's a small-town radio station with in-house HR (or no HR) it's certainly possible, right?

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

but that's not my field of expertise.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

You're making a distinction between mental and physical disability and not even realizing it when its being pointed out to you.

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.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

You run two stores with 40 and 25 employees in a non unionized world. That's not the real world.

Unions have their own rules they go by so not sure why you think your experiences matter more than resurrections.

Because this was a non unionized workplace?

They represent about a quarter of the workplace, so I'd say my experiences are more affordable to the other 75%