Heather Mason FIRED

#52
#52
37L1 said:
null-2.jpg
Click to expand...

Grizz would hit it
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#53
#53
Anyone who sues their employer should just leave. They deserve to be fired because they don't have the best interest of the organization at heart. If they don't like where they work then go somewhere they do. They will find their petty little grievances will be as bad or worse than at the present employer's. I would never hire someone who has sued their past employer. That's just me. If others do, let them deal with the problem.
 
#58
#58
ACvol3 said:
But that's ok? Ur a weird dude..
Click to expand...

Seriously? You make no distinction between an obligatory "momma" joke versus posting someone's picture on the internet and making derogatory comments about how they look? Maybe that's part of the problem.

As I said before, I appreciate good humor... but personally I would consider throwing out insults based on someone's appearance as being disrespectful, not humorous.
 
#59
#59
So, it's actually the thinking of some that an employee should never sue their employer when they think they've been wronged in some way. And, if they do, they should be terminated in some way or just leave on their own. And, afterwards, they should not be employed by anyone. Am I reading that right? I know I could be way off here.:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#60
#60
volroadwarrior said:
Anyone who sues their employer should just leave. They deserve to be fired because they don't have the best interest of the organization at heart. If they don't like where they work then go somewhere they do. They will find their petty little grievances will be as bad or worse than at the present employer's. I would never hire someone who has sued their past employer. That's just me. If others do, let them deal with the problem.
Click to expand...

It's not quite the same when you sue a public employer versus a private employer-i.e. when public funds are used to pay salary. I never did pay much attention to the lawsuit but what was their claim?

P.S.-If you ask me Dave Hart is paid too much. We could get someone better at a lower price.
 
Last edited:
#61
#61
I think the jist of it was pay levels between same positions for men and women. I'd have to go back and read it again as it's been awhile. I just don't see the thinking of being unable or not having the right to sue your employer if you think you've been wronged. Regardless of public or private.
 
#62
#62
Slydell said:
So, it's actually the thinking of some that an employee should never sue their employer when they think they've been wronged in some way. And, if they do, they should be terminated in some way or just leave on their own. And, afterwards, they should not be employed by anyone. Am I reading that right? I know I could be way off here.:hi:
Click to expand...


No you got it...spot on!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#63
#63
Slydell said:
So, it's actually the thinking of some that an employee should never sue their employer when they think they've been wronged in some way. And, if they do, they should be terminated in some way or just leave on their own. And, afterwards, they should not be employed by anyone. Am I reading that right? I know I could be way off here.:hi:
Click to expand...

I think you're right.

For me personally I wouldn't want to work for a company that I had to take legal action against. If spite is the only reason you stay I can see why a company would search far and wide for a reason to get rid of you.
 
#64
#64
Slydell said:
So, it's actually the thinking of some that an employee should never sue their employer when they think they've been wronged in some way. And, if they do, they should be terminated in some way or just leave on their own. And, afterwards, they should not be employed by anyone. Am I reading that right? I know I could be way off here.:hi:
Click to expand...

I get your point and agree that someone should have the right to sue if certain lines are crossed. Not sure if they were in this case or not because I don't know all of the specifics. But an employee is also living in LaLa Land if they think they aren't quiting/destroying their job situation with their current employer. This is a complete last resort option and you better hope you have a really good case, because if you sue and fail to win you will have a very small chance of being retained by the company. Also, name a business that would hire someone that has knowingly sued their previous employer and lost? That looks as though they went in search of a quick buck at the expense of the employer. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what is right or wrong people will try to avoid a person known to sue...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#65
#65
Slydell said:
So, it's actually the thinking of some that an employee should never sue their employer when they think they've been wronged in some way. And, if they do, they should be terminated in some way or just leave on their own. And, afterwards, they should not be employed by anyone. Am I reading that right? I know I could be way off here.:hi:
Click to expand...

Gets it.
 
#66
#66
Slydell said:
So, it's actually the thinking of some that an employee should never sue their employer when they think they've been wronged in some way. And, if they do, they should be terminated in some way or just leave on their own. And, afterwards, they should not be employed by anyone. Am I reading that right? I know I could be way off here.:hi:
Click to expand...

You got it, mostly. I am not saying that they should never be employed. I am just saying that I wouldn't hire them.

People are wronged all of the time on the job, in their family, at school, etc. Suing the employer while still working for him is just dumb. If one doesn't like their situation, go somewhere else. If the employer did something criminal, report them to the authorities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#68
#68
Slydell said:
And, that would apply in all cases regardless of the circumstances? Always?
Click to expand...

All circumstances are different. In this case, she is complaining that she isn't paid enough when compared to her male countparts. Other than sports, it is really hard to quantify the value of an employee to an employer from the outside looking in. We don't see what goes on in the office. We all want to make more money, employer included. The problem lies in the fact that the more money spent on an employee the less money the company or the boss makes.

Here, she is upset that she isn't making more money. How do we measure her worth? Is FMV for her services based on what people in her department are making or is it based upon what another department at another company (University in this case) is willing to pay to get her to take their job?

It is the job of her boss to pay her the absolute minimum that will keep her on board and productive, regardless of gender, race, etc. If you don't like the pay, go somewhere that will pay you more. If you can't find someone, then you are probably either A) being paid correctly or B) overpaid... This is something that we all have or will struggle with.

So she sues... Now what? Put yourself in the position of a possible future employer. Would you honestly hire someone that was so unhappy with their pay at their previous job that they sued over it (rightfully or wrongfully)? Don't answer with some moral mumbo jumbo because that is very easy to do when you aren't actually put in that position with your business or money. Would you risk that if you treated her "fairly" that she wouldn't sue you? Would you worry that John Smith, that has the same job title, experience, etc. on paper, can't be paid more even though he is more productive and a larger asset to your business? Now you are in the realm of reverse discrimination... People like that can be a huge cancer to your business and its morale.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#69
#69
I would make sure my employee's base pay was equal across the board for people holding the same position. Yeah, it's a tough situation. But, the thing that struck me were the comments regarding the ability to sue. Depending on the actual circumstances of the termination, I don't think she'll have a problem finding suitable employment. Law suits, such as this one, sometimes ensure that the checks and balances are in position and being used correctly.
 
#70
#70
Slydell said:
I would make sure my employee's base pay was equal across the board for people holding the same position. Yeah, it's a tough situation. But, the thing that struck me were the comments regarding the ability to sue. Depending on the actual circumstances of the termination, I don't think she'll have a problem finding suitable employment. Law suits, such as this one, sometimes ensure that the checks and balances are in position and being used correctly.
Click to expand...

How does that make any sense? What if you hire someone from the outisde with tons of experience versus giving someone a promotion. You can not blanket pay people
 
#71
#71
Slydell said:
I would make sure my employee's base pay was equal across the board for people holding the same position. Yeah, it's a tough situation. But, the thing that struck me were the comments regarding the ability to sue. Depending on the actual circumstances of the termination, I don't think she'll have a problem finding suitable employment. Law suits, such as this one, sometimes ensure that the checks and balances are in position and being used correctly.
Click to expand...

"I would make sure my employee's base pay was equal across the board for people holding the same position. "

Ok, so you wouldn't give any yearly raises? In your company, you are stuck at the same pay until you receive a promotion? Why have I been at Level 3 employment for 5 years while two females have been there 3 yrs. and both been promoted to level 4? To me, that is discrimination. You are sued! That is my right and I am going to use it! Were they harder workers? Were they smarter? Did they contribute to the company more? Does it matter?

You see, the problem doesn't lie in the right to sue. It is the over utilization of that right. America has several fundamental problems but this is one of them. People in America no longer have Shame. They want things for free and aren't afraid to steal what others have worked for. They don't look in the mirror. It is always someone elses' fault. You take shamelessness and an inablility to recognize personal fault then throw those people into a world where there are too many lawyers, you get America. The country founded upon a belief that someone could come and work from nothing and become something. Now it is a country with the belief that their neighbor has no more right than they do to be rich, successful, etc. Thus, I should take what they have because they don't deserve it...

"Law suits, such as this one, sometimes ensure that the checks and balances are in position and being used correctly."

They are also why your insurance premiums are astronomical. Whether you win or lose a lawsuit, your insurance company hired an attorney to fight said suit. That costs them money even though they didn't lose... They will eat that cost up front but they will in turn raise premiums for all of their similar customers to make it back...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#72
#72
Thump said:
"I would make sure my employee's base pay was equal across the board for people holding the same position. "

Ok, so you wouldn't give any yearly raises? In your company, you are stuck at the same pay until you receive a promotion? Why have I been at Level 3 employment for 5 years while two females have been there 3 yrs. and both been promoted to level 4? To me, that is discrimination. You are sued! That is my right and I am going to use it! Were they harder workers? Were they smarter? Did they contribute to the company more? Does it matter?

That's why I said base pay. I don't think you get in trouble with the base pay and raises would be given based on performance reviews.

You see, the problem doesn't lie in the right to sue. It is the over utilization of that right. America has several fundamental problems but this is one of them. People in America no longer have Shame. They want things for free and aren't afraid to steal what others have worked for. They don't look in the mirror. It is always someone elses' fault. You take shamelessness and an inablility to recognize personal fault then throw those people into a world where there are too many lawyers, you get America. The country founded upon a belief that someone could come and work from nothing and become something. Now it is a country with the belief that their neighbor has no more right than they do to be rich, successful, etc. Thus, I should take what they have because they don't deserve it...

"Law suits, such as this one, sometimes ensure that the checks and balances are in position and being used correctly."

They are also why your insurance premiums are astronomical. Whether you win or lose a lawsuit, your insurance company hired an attorney to fight said suit. That costs them money even though they didn't lose... They will eat that cost up front but they will in turn raise premiums for all of their similar customers to make it back...
Click to expand...

Then a company should always make sure they are doing the right things at all times. Hard to do. But.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#73
#73
Slydell said:
I would make sure my employee's base pay was equal across the board for people holding the same position. Yeah, it's a tough situation. But, the thing that struck me were the comments regarding the ability to sue. Depending on the actual circumstances of the termination, I don't think she'll have a problem finding suitable employment. Law suits, such as this one, sometimes ensure that the checks and balances are in position and being used correctly.
Click to expand...

Loser pays would solve a lot of this. Lawyers take cases with nothing up front with clients in some cases just for the hope of hitting the lottery. If the loser pays both side's legal expenses settlements would happen faster and the frivolous suits would cease.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#74
#74
Slydell said:
Then a company should always make sure they are doing the right things at all times. Hard to do. But.
Click to expand...

The free market and competition should determine who should be employed or how employees are paid. If you are a socialist you want to make everyone equal by pulling down everyone to the lowest common denominator. If you are a lawyer you want discontent so you can make money settling disputes. If you are an employer you want to maximize profits by rewarding excellence and minimizing poor performance or discontent. If you are an employee you want a paycheck and job satisfaction.

So, what are the right things a company should do?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top