Just the lack of sunlight. At this point all I'm trying to do is push through the day and get a halfway reasonable number of tasks completed while not becoming angry or sad.
Things That Are Bothering You, Got You All Hibbeldy-Jibbeldy, or just downright pissed, RIGHT NOW! - Page 3476
I really respect that. It's obviously not a black/white situation, but it also depends on the severity of their illness. For example, are they still marginally productive? Do you actually like them enough as a person to want to take a hit to your PnL to keep them around so they aren't totally screwed?
From a business owner's perspective, it must be a tough choice, but at the end of the day, you can't be paying for someone who's not producing.
It sucks, but it's one of those harsh realities of life. I applaud the business owners who refuse to fire terminally-ill employees. That's really respectable.
you both are correct. we already knew of her condition late last year, and I even took it upon me to find her one of the best doctors here and encouraged the firm to help pay her medical fees, because medicare here sucks balls. she took a leave for several months while she was getting scans and all and was absolutely welcome to come back once she's cleared for work and she did. this time though, I personally observed that she is mentally incapable of being in a working environment and should get immediate medical care. as I type this I'm also discussing with another staff on how and who to take care of her, since apparently she lives alone too.
Sounds like an awful situation for her and you. Sorry to hear it.
To be lawyerish for a minute: hopefully you have a good employment lawyer and/or HR professional to consult with about the potential termination. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws terminating an employee because of their medical condition -- even when that medical condition impacts their ability to do the job properly -- can be tricky. (Not my area of law - I have more experience acting as a manager in this area than in giving legal advice. And obviously it can be done when the reasons are appropriate and properly documented, etc. Just suggesting you act cautiously -- and strategically, as shitty as it is to have to think that way given the human realities of the situation.)
lol... speaking of which, I've heard stories of Pacquiao's wife firing half of her husband's posse because they're either enablers or suppliers of Pacquiao's, uhm, "hobbies".
you'd love that don't you.
fucking fuck fuckassballs cocksticking wankstains.
woke up, picked up laptop, battery pack dropped out and the corner hit me dead center of the bone that turns into my big toe. it is bleeding, hurts like hell, and I am most certainly not awake enough to deal with this at the moment. hand sanitizer was not a good idea, and peppermint flavored chapstick is NOT a good substitute for neosporin.
You want to get HR people talking about the shit they've had to deal with at parties as some of it is just My head of HR has told me she's had to:
Tell an employee masturbating into the urinal is not appropriate
Uncountable times had to tell female employees to wear bras and/or panties
Tell a recently immigrated person to use the toilet to urinate vs. squatting over the drain in the middle of the female employee changing room
Fire a person the day before Xmas and said person fell to her knees begging
Just a few things that pop to mind she's told me.
Unfortunately, I've had to terminate people knowing that they were experiencing serious personal difficulties. It's a hard thing to do that requires lots of thought and consideration, but in the end you realize that they have given you no other choice.
That's really the thing; employees do not get fired, they fire themselves. I do not think folks realize what an expense and pain in the ass employee turnover is.
I was responding to J2's statement but let me address this asinine comment directly: is it the fault of the organization that it exists within the paradigm of the society within which it does? I am forced to define the category of employees that can enroll in my healthcare plan. I offer a healthcare plan, because back in WWII, a wage freeze was placed on manufacturing employees (the people back home building tanks and such) so manufacturers started offering non-wage benefits as recruiting tools. Now we are all stuck with employer sponsored health premiums getting tax preferred status. As I am legally required to define who qualifies for my tax preferred healthcare plan I must exclude those people not in that category. "Full time employee" has a legal meaning for me. If someone gets a brain tumour, and cannot fulfill the requirements of being a full time employee, I must take action or I place the organization at risk.
Is it the organization's doing a) it must create and maintain said policies or b) that an employee developed a brain tumour preventing them from meeting said policies?