[GCFL-discuss] lance

Sun Nov 15 01:37:10 CST 2009

Oregon is At Will working. My understanding is that means they can hire/fire
as they please and I can walk in/out as I please. Not sure I'm cool with
that fact. But I knew what I was getting into. At this point my worry is
they claim I wasn't meeting company attitude and that's totally wrong and
they claim they worked with me but the boss always either failed to do
anything or would quit just a month or two into it claiming he was too busy.
But I honestly don't believe he'll admit that to anyone. At this point I'm
calmly awaiting OR's decision if I get to keep it or not and then will worry
about fighting it.
~Lance

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List
<gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> wrote:

>  Was there a company employee handbook? Was there a set of rule and
> procedures for the IT department? Can you make out a case for what your were
> doing, by pointing to specific rules which said that is EXACTLY what you
> should have been doing?
>
> Chances are you can. Most companies write their rule books to be consistent
> and impartial and even-handed and reasonable. They don't always follow those
> rules. The VIPs often assume they are exempt. Sometimes they openly say
> those rules are just there so they can cite them in the event of some kind
> of inspection or lawsuit. I've even noticed rules, when I was driving a bus,
> that the company didn't WANT to follow or enforce, because it got them
> screaming complaints over the phone. Managers would rather employees violate
> the rules and keep the clients happy, BUT if anything went wrong as a
> result, there is a rule on paper, and the employee can be blamed for
> "violating company policy."
>
> These rules can also be used by employees who get fired because some VIP
> wants special treatment. If there is any doubt about your right to
> unemployment compensation, be prepared to explain how you were simply
> following company policy, and some manager didn't want to go by the rules
> you had been ORDERED to follow.
>
> I would suggest filing a lawsuit for wrongful termination, but
>
> a) they are long and complicated, so unless an attorney sees a really good
> chance of winning and takes it on contingency, you probably can't afford it,
> b) every state has different laws on what IS wrongful termination,
> c) companies fight those tooth and nail, and have lots of lawyers on
> retainer to split hairs till the cows come home.
>
> Still, you should be able to defend your unemployment. I wasn't asked to be
> union shop steward (before my own termination) for nothing.
>
> Siarlys
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:25:30 -0800 "Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
> List" <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> writes:
>
> Oh I was! I was doing IT Help Desk for Umpqua Bank. But last month they let
> me go because I told a department (multiple times) they needed to go to the
> tech assigned the Work Order and not come to us as we'd already passed it.
> The bosses ignored that fact and only focused on my final reply which said
> spamming the Help Desk doesn't help their cause and e-mailing us 3 times in
> 5 minutes about the very same issue after we've already assigned it and
> already pointed them in the right direction isn't appropriate.
> Now why on earth is holding VPs accountable and expect them to follow the
> rules so wrong? I don't know! But it pissed them off and they got rid of me!
> ~Lance
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List
> <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> wrote:
>
>>  For some reason Lance, I always thought you had some kind of computer
>> tech job. You know a lot about that stuff, maybe you should look for one. If
>> your experience i anything like mine, most inquiries in response to job
>> postings do not result in a reply. Employers are so rude. Remember when they
>> had to pay a couple dollars an hour more just to get anyone to take the job?
>> Those days are coming back, when we least expect them, in some way nobody
>> could predict. Somehow, God will provide, but as C.S. Lewis says, there is
>> always a chain of material events from which someone could deduce "See, it
>> would have happened anyway."
>>
>> Once again, if you get an unfavorable ruling on unemployment compensation,
>> appeal it. There are all kinds of errors of judgment made, and a good chance
>> you could challenge any claim from your employer that you were fired "for
>> cause." Its generally not good enough that "he just wasn't working out,"
>> there has to be some negligence or gross error on your part, or you would be
>> entitled to compensation.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:59:39 -0800 "Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
>> List" <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> writes:
>>
>> Sorry to hear that Siarlys. Thank you for the words of encouragement. I
>> sure can use them.
>> ~Lance
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
>> List <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> wrote:
>>
>>> That was a surprise Lance. I've been out of work since July 19, haven't
>>> collected unemployment (it was a single incident, but they did have
>>> cause), don't have a family to support, did get work on the pumpkin farm
>>> in October, and had some freelance writing irons in the fire that may
>>> keep me going past the end of the year. Not sure what all this does to my
>>> taxes, since I should be in a lower bracket than expected, but freelance
>>> is taxed for 13.5% social security, and no withholding.
>>>
>>> Sounds to me like someone at your employer meant to present your
>>> termination in a way that would routinely inspire the state to give you
>>> unemployment (got laid off, no cause specified), but someone else didn't
>>> know that and equally routinely specified whatever "cause" they thought
>>> they had. If the decision is negative, always appeal. A friend of mine
>>> was told she hadn't worked long enough at her job to qualify for FMLA,
>>> therefore she wasn't even on the payroll after taking time off to have a
>>> baby. The state unemployment examiner said, not under the federal FMLA,
>>> but under the state FMLA you did, so they fired you without cause, and
>>> she got unemployment.
>>>
>>> Hopefully you'll find something else soon, but there sure are a lot of
>>> people looking.
>>>
>>> Siarlys
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gcfl.net/pipermail/gcfl-discuss/attachments/20091114/a310840f/attachment.html>