• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Whole Foods employees striking over requirements to work Thanksgiving

clownboy said:
None of what that link says (which is itself a bunch of fluffy generalized nonsense coming from someone with a horse in the race)
Click to expand...

About the author of that article. . .

Robin Shea has more than 20 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act), the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act; and class and collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage-hour laws; defense of audits by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs; and labor relations.

Robin E. Shea: Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP
Click to expand...
 
solletica said:
That arrangement would have to be well-documented, on paper, and accessible to the employee.

Even it were legal, no one would want to work for such a place. The smart employee would just post the agreement online somewhere on some blog (likely anonymously) to discredit the employer. Similar things have happened before. . .

Fired Amy's Baking Company Employee Reportedly Gives Reddit AMA, Calls Owner 'Demonic'
Click to expand...

More nonsense and shows a total ignorance as to what At Will employment entails. Not to mention, the former employee's posts may be actionable. However, I see no evidence in the matter that Amy's Baking Company is At Will employment.

Btw:

At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning.[1] When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will", courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning.[2] In contrast, the practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterised by inequality of bargaining power.[3]

Source
Click to expand...

Be sure to read on at the source for state by state exclusions and exemptions.
 
solletica said:
About the author of that article. . .
Click to expand...

Precisely, Robin has a stake in one side of the game. That's probably why, instead of citing legal reason for not firing employees she couches the whole thing in flowery language that won't mean a thing when you meet before the unemployment board for your state/county.
 
clownboy said:
More nonsense and shows a total ignorance as to what At Will employment entails.
Click to expand...

The "at will" arrangement doesn't absolve an employer from employment termination suits. Any employer that fired an employee for calling in sick, and then later claimed, without documentation, that the employee quit, while the employee could prove the sick call, can be sued.
 
solletica said:
The "at will" arrangement doesn't absolve an employer from employment termination suits. Any employer that fired an employee for calling in sick, and then later claimed, without documentation, that the employee quit, while the employee could prove the sick call, can be sued.
Click to expand...

Keep repeating the same debunked information won't make it any more true. I sourced where you are wrong. But at heart you are making a statement about employment law that is not applicable equally to all states. Some states have exemptions to At Will employment, conditions. Some do not.
 
clownboy said:
Keep repeating the same debunked information won't make it any more true. I sourced where you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Nope, you didn't. Cite where it states that an employer can lie about the reason for termination to references and be legally liable for it.
 
solletica said:
:rolleyes: what side would that be? Explain. FYI, she's a lawyer, you're not.
Click to expand...

Yes, and she included no legal position in her article. She's a lawyer that represents people who were fired/quit with the goal of getting them relief. It's a fluff piece. In reality she knows that emplyment law varies from state to state, and in some states county to county. You seem to believe that labor law is homogenous throughout the US. This is not the case.
 
clownboy said:
Yes, and she included no legal position in her article. She's a lawyer that represents people who were fired/quit with the goal of getting them relief.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that? Cite.

Has it occurred to you that employers would also seek her advice in an effort to be immune to employee lawsuits? ?

Next time you post, think.

clownboy said:
It's a fluff piece.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's a citation from an authoritative source (an employment lawyer). Fluff is the stuff you made up and posted.
 
solletica said:
Nope, you didn't. Cite where it states that an employer can lie about the reason for termination to references and be legally liable for it.
Click to expand...

Explain the bolded part, what the hell does that mean? Are you trying to move the goal posts here? The law on what can and what cannot be given in reference also varies from state to state and nationally. Best practices that any competent HR person can attest is to NEVER give references. HR folks are taught to give out only the work to and from dates of employment and to refuse to give any other details. But it is entirely a separate matter from the conditions of employment.
 
solletica said:
Where does it say that? Cite.

Has it occurred to you that employers would also seek her advice in an effort to be immune to employee lawsuits? ?

Next time you post, think.
Click to expand...

YOU just posted her CV. Try reading what you post first.

solletica said:
Nope, it's a citation from an authoritative source (an employment lawyer). Fluff is the stuff you made up and posted.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should educate youirself as to what an employment lawyer does and the difference between citing law and fluff.
 
clownboy said:
Explain the bolded part, what the hell does that mean?
Click to expand...

You're totally confused about the meaning of at will employment in the US.

It's simply an arrangement where both employer and employee can cease employment at any time without cause. That's it.

It doesn't permit the employers to falsify the reason for termination. If an employer does, he/she will be face a lawsuit.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I would only agree to this IF those employees agree they are willing to work the holiday. One's person's rights should not trump another.
Click to expand...

What rights are you talking about?

Is it somebodys right to not work when their boss tells them they are scheduled to work? Is that a right?
 
Mason66 said:
What rights are you talking about?

Is it somebodys right to not work when their boss tells them they are scheduled to work? Is that a right?
Click to expand...

It's someone's right to protest having to work on a Holiday if it wasn't agreed to in advanced.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
It's someone's right to protest having to work on a Holiday if it wasn't agreed to in advanced.
Click to expand...

Know what your rights are? Your right is to ask for the day off. And your right is to quit. Just quit. "You can't open your store!!! I'm going to block your entrance to make you!!" That's NOT a right.

Just quit, damn it.
 
All full time retail workers are required to accept open availability as a requirement of full time status. In addition, most if not all retail workers are told right up front during orientation that holidays are black out dates, meaning, no vacation or day off requests will be accepted.




Retail is now the largest job sector in the US. So many of you suggest that if you don't like it, don't do it. Can't wait till you have kids or grand kids, and they come work for me, or company shills like me. Then you can talk your talk. Workers rights? No problem. We just ship those jobs out.
 
MaggieD said:
Know what your rights are? Your right is to ask for the day off. And your right is to quit. Just quit. "You can't open your store!!! I'm going to block your entrance to make you!!" That's NOT a right.

Just quit, damn it.
Click to expand...

If they block the entrance, they can be removed from the store's property.
 
Phil_Osophy said:
Agreed. And it is the company's right to fire them if they dont show up for work.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can't fire someone for one call out or no show. Most states, it's three.
 
KevinKohler said:
Actually, you can't fire someone for one call out or no show. Most states, it's three.
Click to expand...

As has been shown, that's just not true. If you are hired at will you can be fired at will. In all states. See the links defining At Will employment and the specific states (a handful) that have certain exemptions.
 
KevinKohler said:
Actually, you can't fire someone for one call out or no show. Most states, it's three.
Click to expand...

Tennessee, it's one no call no show, you're gone. They sign it specifically in the hiring paperwork to acknowledge they know it.
 
solletica said:
You're totally confused about the meaning of at will employment in the US.

It's simply an arrangement where both employer and employee can cease employment at any time without cause. That's it.

It doesn't permit the employers to falsify the reason for termination. If an employer does, he/she will be face a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

I posted the definition, what part of that definition confuses you? Employers lying about termination is an entirely different subject having no bearing whatsoever on At Will employment. In fact there are only two places where the employer could lie about termination that would be legally actionable - at the unemployment board hearing (it's a court of law and all any perjurous statement is potentially actionable) AND when giving references. That is why, again, HR personnel are trained to not disclose that info. From and to dates of employment is all they are supposed to give out. With At Will employment, Boards don't care if you quit or were fired, because those are largely meaningless values in At Will employment as per basic contract law. What they do care about is what the state allows as to At Will employment law. Some states allow unemployment for At Will workers under certain state defined conditions. Some do not.
 
An at will employer can fire anyone for anything outside of protected classes, like sex, sexual orientation, or race, so long as the reason given wasn't present at the time of hire. In other words, you can fire an employee for getting their eye brow pierced, but not if they had one when you hired them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom