Poll of the Day > This boomer lost his conservative mind.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/5/4/AAckHXAADKNe.jpg

They have 83 employees and after this letter was sent 50 plan on quitting before he returns from his week and a half vacation. . Hes coming back to a shit show.

/r/shitthatdefinitelyhappenedforrealsies

Those employees shouldn't quit, they should let the employer fire them. Keep working from home. If they dock your pay, allocate about 10 minutes each hour where you step away from work and do your own thing. Also, stop working about an hour before you're supposed to.

Basically make it so inconvenient for them that they either fire you (making you eligible for unemployment insurance) or concede to your conditions.

faramir77 posted...

Those employees shouldn't quit, they should let the employer fire them. Keep working from home. If they dock your pay, allocate about 10 minutes each hour where you step away from work and do your own thing. Also, stop working about an hour before you're supposed to.

Basically make it so inconvenient for them that they either fire you (making you eligible for unemployment insurance) or concede to your conditions.

fired because you stopped doing your job doesn't mean you get unemployment

Krazy_Kirby posted...

fired because you stopped doing your job doesn't mean you get unemployment

This. Some of you people need to understand that the unemployment office often calls both parties and get both versions as to why the claiment lost their job. If both stories are the same and sounds good, it's still up to the office to decide. If versions are contradictory, which often are, the employer has to prove the employee is lying through their teeth by sending copies of disciplinary actions, warnings or any other proof they have to the unemployment agent and, in turn, the employee has to defend against the claims... if they can. And even THEN it's up to the agent's decision. But I can confirm to you that any diligent employer will keep a copy and proof of every single misdeed of the employee.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

fired because you stopped doing your job doesn't mean you get unemployment

Except you still do.

The_tall_midget posted...

This. Some of you people need to understand that the unemployment office often calls both parties and get both versions as to why the claiment lost their job. If both stories are the same and sounds good, it's still up to the office to decide. If versions are contradictory, which often are, the employer has to prove the employee is lying through their teeth by sending copies of disciplinary actions, warnings or any other proof they have to the unemployment agent and, in turn, the employee has to defend against the claims... if they can. And even THEN it's up to the agent's decision. But I can confirm to you that any diligent employer will keep a copy and proof of every single misdeed of the employee.

When theres a dispute as to what happens between the claimant and the employer the case is sent in front of a adjudicator and/or judge. Now, Fortune 500 companies will concede before this as 1) its time consuming but most importantly 2) even if the employee is a total shit bag there is still an opportunity for them to perjure themselves. The juice isnt worth the squeeze.

Now, some shitty small company might actually show up and fight. And then it is up to the judge.

And to the point about jobs doing their due diligence they typically are hubris and do lazy work when it comes to firing folks. Even so, it gets the job done and theyre in the clear 95% of the time because, we, as a society are stupid. But for that astute person, theyll get their unemployment.

I don't know this website, but it was the first thing google brought up.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unemployment-benefits-when-fired-32449.html

Given the situation it's likely they would be able to get unemployment since if this is real the person basically made a case against themselves.

And as much as I want to question it the entire Trump presidency was basically an onion article so I don't really have any reason to doubt that validity of the story.

There's like 5 things in there that would make me quit on the spot, that can't be a real person

Muscles posted...

There's like 5 things in there that would make me quit on the spot, that can't be a real person

But it can be, because right now the biggest difference between a conservative and anyone else is reality. There absolutely exist people who would feel completely justified fucking over dozens of people because they got upset over something they read on a conservative facebook page.

I'm not pro-lawsuits at all, I think the courts get bogged down with too much crap, but they should all quit AND hire an attorney (contingency basis so not money spent by them) to represent them all.

Not only would the company suddenly lose all it's employees, but it would probably lose a lawsuit both against the company AND the owner/person who sent that message.

Hit him where it hurts, maybe he'll be out looking for a job due to being broke soon afterwards heh.

faramir77 posted...

Basically make it so inconvenient for them that they either fire you (making you eligible for unemployment insurance) or concede to your conditions.

I dont see the job conceded to them. Its most likely be just firing

I want so hard to believe that's fake. But the last several years have shown in detail the depths of stupidity and hubris that people are willing to stoop to, and this is well within that depth.

Only people that might have anything to sue about is the two people(or one if it's the same person.) that got called out for being the reason behind no cell phones and web blockers. Boss can insult President Biden all he wants. He isn't a employee of his.

If the employees are filing complaints because of being forced back into the building and well HR is for the company and never been for the employee. You should be careful around HR staff. If the compliant system is through HR.

Abiz_ posted...

Only people that might have anything to sue about is the two people(or one if it's the same person.) that got called out for being the reason behind no cell phones and web blockers. Boss can insult President Biden all he wants. He isn't a employee of his.

If the employees are filing complaints because of being forced back into the building and well HR is for the company and never been for the employee. You should be careful around HR staff. If the compliant system is through HR.

It both depends on the contracts they have, and especially on the state where they reside. The calling out specific employees is one reason, another is dropping everyones pay by $3 which you can't do if you have a contract (IE a set pay agreed apon for services rendered. You can't just arbitrarily decide to drop everyone's pay because "reasons".

Some of the other stuff like no cell phones etc are a bit iffy, but I'm not into that type of law so no clue if it's legal or not, but yeah, if all of them went to an attorney they might find one willing to file on a contingency basis and even if they didn't win, they would force the owner into court, require him to pay a lawyer to represent him an who knows, they might win something (meanwhile he has no employees lol).

Edit. You can certainly require no cell phones but in general I think that needs to be stated before hiring and you can't add that rule with the only alternative being termination later. Parents etc need to be able to be contacted while they are at work due to an emergency. I believe you actually need a series reason (IE security etc) to prevent people from having cell phones. Still I don't know for sure, but contacting an attorney couldn't hurt, and the dude is a jerk and deserves to be punished for it.

Abiz_ posted...

Only people that might have anything to sue about is the two people(or one if it's the same person.) that got called out for being the reason behind no cell phones and web blockers. Boss can insult President Biden all he wants. He isn't a employee of his.

Potentially against voting manipulation laws.

slacker03150 posted...

Potentially against voting manipulation laws.

Drastically depends on the state, many states are 100% behind employers firing people based on their political beliefs lol....I know, it's crazy but true. It's state based. Also would depend drastically on the judge you got. Still the post above does make it sound like it's in a blue state (hence the jerk stating his employees should have voted for someone else). So they might be in luck both on the state laws and the likelyhood of the judge's stance etc.

HornedLion posted...

Except you still do.

When theres a dispute as to what happens between the claimant and the employer the case is sent in front of a adjudicator and/or judge.

The overwhelming majority of cases involving welfare status employee vs employer does not make it nowhere near a judge or an abjudcator, as you'd like to think. I am actually amazed you would think they do. Please stick to things you have actual affinity for, like losing your mind about anything conservative.

The_tall_midget posted...

The overwhelming majority of cases involving welfare status employee vs employer does not make it nowhere near a judge or an abjudcator, as you'd like to think. I am actually amazed you would think they do. Please stick to things you have actual affinity for, like losing your mind about anything conservative.

Poor welfare folk had to feel it cause a conservative doesnt exactly know where to direct their anger. Kinda like how that employer blames Biden cause he doesnt know how to run his business.

I was about to ask how do YOU know most cases dont get anywhere near a judge but more interestingly id like to see the data that shows that welfare status employees in particular dont. That seems even more detailed, and one would have to undoubtedly take their hat off to you if you have that info.

HornedLion posted...

Hes coming back to a shit show.

Sounds like it already was one.

HornedLion posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/5/4/AAckHXAADKNe.jpg

Assuming this is real, that person deserves to go out of business.

F*** him.