|
Dead Reckoning posted:I asked, "[Should the department] punish officers on the basis of unsworn statements?" You replied, "I'd say Yes? ... It's an administrative punishment by their employer." You used ellipses to abridge where I said investigate so
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Is this some sort of weird gaslighting attempt, or are you all just too lazy to read? Actually if you thought about it for 5 seconds you'd note that my comment was specifically about how my non-police employer would take a complaint seriously enough to investigate, even if it were an "unsworn" complaint, in order to confirm an offense had actually taken place. However, that "investigation" is in no way binding, and they could just fire my rear end based on the "unsworn" statement alone, and not any actual evidence of wrongdoing. It turns out that is how it happens in pretty much every other job in this country other than special snowflake police officers. If 5 separate people over 5 separate incidents go to my boss and say "yo, yo, get this... A Fancy Bloke is breaking X policy" you better believe I will be punished without a "full investigation." DARPA posted:You used ellipses to abridge where I said investigate so But even if you meant it, you're not wrong. It's how every other loving job works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The "only evidence the investigation comes up with is an unsworn statement" is because the investigation in 60% of cases didn't actually occur. DARPA posted:You used ellipses to abridge where I said investigate so A Fancy Bloke posted:Actually if you thought about it for 5 seconds you'd note that my comment was specifically about how my non-police employer would take a complaint seriously enough to investigate, even if it were an "unsworn" complaint, in order to confirm an offense had actually taken place. However, that "investigation" is in no way binding, and they could just fire my rear end based on the "unsworn" statement alone, and not any actual evidence of wrongdoing. It turns out that is how it happens in pretty much every other job in this country other than special snowflake police officers. Fired without even arbitration, eh? What lovely company do you work for? Come to the public sector, we have employee protections here. Or unionize, they're supposed to protect you from exactly that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This isn't a robbery they're investigating, CSI isn't going to go out to the corner where the complainant was detained and reconstruct the scene. Investigations get dropped all the time due to lack of witnesses. If I go down to the police station and accuse my neighbor of poking me in the chest with his finger and saying he'll kick my rear end, dictate my story, and then refuse to sign it, I guarantee the police won't send a detective around the neighborhood to canvass other residents and look for clues. It doesn't surprise me that you equate accusations of police abuse with poking someone with your finger, or that you think police abuse is less important than a property crime. It is funny (in a smelly kind of way) how you keep hard linking to that comment...it is almost as if the comment clearly doesn't say what you are trying to get it to say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Police abusing their power and lying in reports should be a punishable by guillotine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It doesn't surprise me that you equate accusations of police abuse with poking someone with your finger, or that you think police abuse is less important than a property crime. Trabisnikof posted:It is funny (in a smelly kind of way) how you keep hard linking to that comment...it is almost as if the comment clearly doesn't say what you are trying to get it to say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Let's stop beating around the bush then. Do you think police officers should be disciplined based solely on un-sworn or unsupported statements, as you previously indicated? A hearing impaired person filed a complaint about the police openly mocking his speech impediment. Good example of bad policing that got shrugged off by the investigator. quote:I don't see any other way to interpret it. "Hey, someone complained about you again." "Did they make a sworn statement?" "gently caress you, doesn't matter, you're being punished anyway." But hey, now he has a chance to clarify his position. You keep skipping the investigate step. A task you seem to believe the police department incapable of performing. Who cares if the statement is sworn? The department should still investigate. Forcing people to swear an affidavit only helps put already abused citizens at risk of a felony charge from the same department they already have an issue with. DARPA fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't see any other way to interpret it. how is your reading disability anybody else's fault
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
DARPA posted:You got me! I think police should be summarily executed based on nothing more than anonymous post it notes found taped on USPS mailboxes/the homeless. Dead Reckoning posted:So the department should, what, punish officers on the basis of unsworn statements? DARPA posted:I'd say Yes? DARPA posted:You keep skipping the investigate step. A task you seem to believe the police department incapable of performing. Who cares if the statement is sworn? The department should still investigate. Forcing people to swear an affidavit only helps put already abused citizens at risk of a felony charge from the same department they already have an issue with.  Here's what you said:DARPA posted:More like,
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
DARPA posted:You got me! I think police should be summarily executed based on nothing more than anonymous post it notes found taped on USPS mailboxes/the homeless.  : "Policeman did a bad thing." : "Fill out these forms." or "I'll take your report.": "Is that it?": "Yup, bye. (doesn't bother with the notarization form that solemnizes the statement, it's a pain in the rear end anyway)"
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Investigate the officers who were present when the citizen "refused" to sign. Yeah the idea of a woman getting up the courage to go report it then backing out at the last minute? Sure once in awhile but 60%? MariusLecter posted:Police abusing their power and lying in reports should be a punishable by guillotine. I don't remember who but one of the times cops got caught lying on their reports I asked how that's not punishable seeing if a non-cop lies on a statement it's a felony. A police report is a legal document and lying on one is still a felony. I forget if it got handwaved away or buried in that weeks 'cop murders another kid' story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:Actually if you thought about it for 5 seconds you'd note that my comment was specifically about how my non-police employer would take a complaint seriously enough to investigate, even if it were an "unsworn" complaint, in order to confirm an offense had actually taken place. However, that "investigation" is in no way binding, and they could just fire my rear end based on the "unsworn" statement alone, and not any actual evidence of wrongdoing. It turns out that is how it happens in pretty much every other job in this country other than special snowflake police officers. Where in the hell do you people work where you can be disciplined for completely unproven allegations? Maybe time to start sending out the resume if that's the case, and stop with the crab bucket mentality? Like it just seems like a lot of people are upset that the police have basic worker protections provided through their union more than anything else. DARPA posted:You got me! I think police should be summarily executed based on nothing more than anonymous post it notes found taped on USPS mailboxes/the homeless. Do you want to discipline based on hearsay or not? Personally, I think workers should be safe from punishment without a fair investigation, or even just have the complaint ignored if no one will put their name to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
tsa posted:Where in the hell do you people work where you can be disciplined for completely unproven allegations? Maybe time to start sending out the resume if that's the case, and stop with the crab bucket mentality? Like it just seems like a lot of people are upset that the police have basic worker protections provided through their union more than anything else. Half the U.S.? Right to work states (translation: right to fire for no reason) they don't have to even mention the allegations since they don't to give any reason at all. And where the hell do YOU work where anyone but cops and firefighters still have unions? quote:Do you want to discipline based on hearsay or not? Personally, I think workers should be safe from punishment without a fair investigation, or even just have the complaint ignored if no one will put their name to it. Well seeing as they can fill someone with bullet holes for twitching the wrong way and the fact that the retribution for snitching on your fellow cops can be life threatening the idea that someone may be afraid to have their name associated in a complaint against them maybe they should at least pretend to care enough to look into complaints regardless if someone was willing to sign them just to be sure they don't have a problem cop in their depar...... Sorry that's too ludicrous of expectation Toasticle fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
tsa posted:Where in the hell do you people work where you can be disciplined for completely unproven allegations? Maybe time to start sending out the resume if that's the case, and stop with the crab bucket mentality? Like it just seems like a lot of people are upset that the police have basic worker protections provided through their union more than anything else. The United States of America. Where the hell do you work where you cannot be disciplined when a pattern of complaints sharing a related thread is leveled against you. If you have multiple complaints that you're saying racist or sexist poo poo that hasn't been caught on tape, your HR department isn't going to "shucks, can't do poo poo". Dead Reckoning posted:I'll admit that I've only worked in the public sector, but in every single case I saw, and in every briefing I had on employee discipline, it was made clear that taking action against an employee required documentation of misbehavior, which definitely did not include un-sworn statements. If someone wanted to file an EO complaint, they had to type out and sign a statement, and so did any witnesses, and the accused had an opportunity to respond & a right to appeal. In most cases, a complaint with no supporting witnesses or evidence was insufficient. Which is the way it should be. That isn't at all the way the rest of the nation works. Here's the link from Wikipedia that lays it out for you: quote: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. Emphasis mine. Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Yes DR, if you want to stick to my fantastical script where an officer actually got punished for poor behavior, I think after 13 complaints and several trainings, another complaint should be enough for the department to respond with a punishment.tsa posted:Where in the hell do you people work where you can be disciplined for completely unproven allegations? Maybe time to start sending out the resume if that's the case, and stop with the crab bucket mentality? Like it just seems like a lot of people are upset that the police have basic worker protections provided through their union more than anything else. I do not think sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury should be required before the department looks into a complaint. . It's an issue of threatening someone filing a complaint with a felony. The same department that berates a deaf man for not being able to speak clearly, or strong arms a woman into recanting her very real rape complaint, can't be trusted to take complaints against themselves in a non-hostile manner. It's absurd to think the officer handling the complaint doesn't make it abundantly clear you face a felony just to submit the complaint. Spend 5 minutes on youtube to see officers responding to complaints. Complaining about police should be easy. Departments should be trying to improve their service to the community. not sweep it under the rug with the earliest and easiest excuse. 60% of the complaints currently go in the [metaphorical] shredder. Instead, I think the history of complaints should be used while investigating an officer, even unconfirmed ones. Raerlynn posted:The United States of America. Where the hell do you work where you cannot be disciplined when a pattern of complaints sharing a related thread is leveled against you. If you have multiple complaints that you're saying racist or sexist poo poo that hasn't been caught on tape, your HR department isn't going to "shucks, can't do poo poo". They will if they're the Chicago PD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:
IIRC the narrative was shifted to "people at other jobs don't get fired for mistakes" with a hint of "cops need to do it to do their job" somehow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
DARPA posted:You got me! I think police should be summarily executed based on nothing more than anonymous post it notes found taped on USPS mailboxes/the homeless. I'm not on DR's side of this argument, but I still have to call this out as an incredibly stupid strawman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Emphasis mine. At-will isn't quite that simple, generally speaking a person can be terminated for no reason but not for a bad reason. Yes this means a company can lie and say its "no reason" and get around scrutiny, though it would leave them open to lawsuit if there was evidence that they're lying about the reason for the firing. Also firing someone without a good reason causes a companies unemployment insurance rates to go up. The rest of this page is a bunch of poo poo flinging, is it really that hard to recognize that "we shouldn't punish people for unsubstantiated allegations" and "the statistics regarding CPD's handling of complaints indicates a likelihood that there's malfeasance going on regarding the way they're being handled" are both reasonable statements? pentyne posted:http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/daniel-holtzclaw-women-in-their-ow#.hb0oELyO56 I mean I know you were probably just reaching for something that shows "look how horrible cops are!" but if we're talking about cops not investigating their own there are probably better examples then a time that they took it seriously and fried the guy the first time someone came forward with an accusation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
So which was it? Was it not relevant, or was it relevant so you could do your usual pearl clutching act about how horrible we all want to treat cops? You can't have it both ways. quote:Fired without even arbitration, eh? What lovely company do you work for? Wow, I thought you were sheltered given your blind worship of authority and your racist poo poo about how white men with guns aren't at all menacing but you're really sheltered if you think this isn't how most jobs in America work. LOL arbitration. quote:Come to the public sector, we have employee protections here. Or unionize, they're supposed to protect you from exactly that sort of thing. Yeah, the cop union will even advocate letting their members get away with murdering civilians! tsa posted:Where in the hell do you people work where you can be disciplined for completely unproven allegations? Maybe time to start sending out the resume if that's the case, and stop with the crab bucket mentality? Like it just seems like a lot of people are upset that the police have basic worker protections provided through their union more than anything else. It's called "at will employment" and it's most of the states in the U.S. As long as you're not being fired for being part of a protected class, you can be fired for any or no reason at all. It's how pretty much every private sector job works these days. And also, "basic worker protections." Yeah, everyone is upset about police seniority and benefits, not the fact they can literally murder someone in cold blood and have their union leap to their defense. That's a real "basic worker protection" that a plumber's union would also extend. quote:Do you want to discipline based on hearsay or not? Personally, I think workers should be safe from punishment without a fair investigation, or even just have the complaint ignored if no one will put their name to it. Yeah but the difference is that the body you'd be reporting to has force, is the same entity as that which you are complaining about, and has shown time and time again that they will abuse that force. You really think it's safe to write a "sworn" statement about these people? Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
cunny mcalister posted:IIRC the narrative was shifted to "people at other jobs don't get fired for mistakes" with a hint of "cops need to do it to do their job" somehow. Yeah, the follow up question as to how knowingly and purposefully committing a felony is in any way comparable to 'fired for making a mistake' got surprisingly ignored. Or accused of taking away cops constitutional rights, I forget.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Here is why it's very important to make your statements on the record when complaining about police. For the record, that guy is still a cop. But yeah, it's totally reasonable for a civilian to have to make a "sworn" statement that will surely be taken seriously. To be fair it does mention how they were trying to get rid of him. But man, those basic worker protections sure make it hard. It's a good thing they are in place to allow cops to let their loving girlfriends use their firearms, and set up sting operations with "gotcha" charges to gently caress with exes of your lover.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Everybody deserves due process and a fair assessment of the facts, that's the real root of all of these threads. The actual problem here is that people abused by the police and other members of the judicial system do not get that due process. A big reason why that is the case is because the police (and the rest of the system) is supposed to investigate itself, and surprise surprise, it doesn't do that honestly. Independent oversight is the fair and moral answer to this particular problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:At-will isn't quite that simple, generally speaking a person can be terminated for no reason but not for a bad reason. Yes this means a company can lie and say its "no reason" and get around scrutiny, though it would leave them open to lawsuit if there was evidence that they're lying about the reason for the firing. Also firing someone without a good reason causes a companies unemployment insurance rates to go up. You're arguing semantics. Again. The reality of life outside of the public sector is you can be fired, or set up to be fired, at-will with no recourse unless it is a protected class, and that said firings do not require sworn statements, months of investigation, or even substantiated allegations. Everything else you've just posted is irrelevant because it doesn't change the fact that it can, and does happen, all the loving time in the US. The bar to pursue those "no reason" dismissals is so high that's its nigh impossible for the average middle class, let alone poor, citizen to contest. Also when you are fired, you don't get to appeal and complain how its unfair and expect to have you job back with backpay. The topic at hand which you and DR are both avoiding is that these recent examples wherein: 1. a woman was raped, tried to report it and was attacked as "faking it", turned out to actually be raped by a serial rapist who went on to claim multiple victims, and there is none, zero, literally NO repercussions for this. No officer was written up, no officer was told "don't ever loving do that again", no officer was sent off for more training, literally nothing has been done to learn from this. Now the next rape victim, instead of coming forward immediately, is going to ask himself or herself "Are the police actually going to help me, or will they ruin my life?" 2. a police officer systematically raped 17 women, threatening each one with jail time for non compliance. In each case he threatened them by telling them that the police would side against his victims if they talked. And the police's reputation for closing ranks against such charges, ESPECIALLY against African Americans and the poor in general, is why he got away with it. This is a very real incident wherein the police's reputation for lack of rigor when performing self-investigation had a direct material harm on the community. I still have yet to see you or DR address how each time we have these huge arguments that the actions of these officers, legal or not, has a direct impact on the populace's willingness to report crime for fear of retribution or worse. That's a loving problem and one that needs fixing NOW. But sure, let's keep handwringing about hypothetical corner cases when we have constant proof of police systematically discouraging and outright retaliating against citizens who submit complaints against the police.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:Everybody deserves due process and a fair assessment of the facts, that's the real root of all of these threads. The actual problem here is that people abused by the police and other members of the judicial system do not get that due process. A big reason why that is the case is because the police (and the rest of the system) is supposed to investigate itself, and surprise surprise, it doesn't do that honestly. Independent oversight is the fair and moral answer to this particular problem. I think we've hit the point where an independent review findings would just be "dissolve them all and burn the the precincts down then federalize the police" The amount of poo poo that hasn't been properly buried alone would be appalling. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:You're arguing semantics. Again. The reality of life outside of the public sector is you can be fired, or set up to be fired, at-will with no recourse unless it is a protected class, and that said firings do not require sworn statements, months of investigation, or even substantiated allegations. Everything else you've just posted is irrelevant because it doesn't change the fact that it can, and does happen, all the loving time in the US. The bar to pursue those "no reason" dismissals is so high that's its nigh impossible for the average middle class, let alone poor, citizen to contest. Also when you are fired, you don't get to appeal and complain how its unfair and expect to have you job back with backpay. Yes you do, exploiting the fact that poor workers don't know their rights, or lack the resources to pursue them, is not the same as saying at will employees have no rights, and it's not the same as arguing that's how it should be. Raerlynn posted:The topic at hand which you and DR are both avoiding is that these recent examples wherein: I'm not sure how I'm avoiding anything, or even what those cases have to do with retaliation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes you do, exploiting the fact that poor workers don't know their rights Here are the rights workers have in "right to work" states: -You can quit without having to give notice. To be fair to the poor corporations their rights are: -You can fire someone for no reason at any time, just don't gently caress up and say it was because they were black or gay. -You can also put together a bullshit list like "showed up late three times in 11 years" as long as you documented each time so you can deny them unemployment by saying they were fire for cause so your unemployment insurance rate doesn't go up. My wife worked at target in management and right before they went through a purge to replace old employees with new ones they could pay less they instructed each store to reprimand EVERY employee for anything, even poo poo like "took 31 minute lunch break" and then used that to contest their unemployment claims. Luckily in Florida those aren't sufficient, it has to be egregious things like stealing or telling customers to go gently caress themselves. Being late a few times is not enough. But they also knew at least some people wouldn't fight it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Here are the rights workers have in "right to work" states: What you're describing is "at-will employment." The two are often confused. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:In "right to work" states, you cannot be forced to join a union as a condition of employment, and you cannot be forced to pay union dues or equivalent payments - even if you benefit from collective bargaining. You cannot be automatically fired as a consequence of losing union membership (e.g. for crossing a picket line, or assisting the political campaign of a hated Republican candidate, or eloping with the shop steward's daughter). Godammit I always mix those up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes you do, exploiting the fact that poor workers don't know their rights, or lack the resources to pursue them, is not the same as saying at will employees have no rights, and it's not the same as arguing that's how it should be. What right are you talking about? The right to gently caress up at your job and not get disciplined?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
Wasn't this the same issue for a long time with civil rights complaints? A lawsuit for pay discrimination or unlawful firing used to require documented evidence of willful discrimination (for example, a manager e-mail to another manager about making lower offers to women). This was obviously an unreasonable bar for most employees, so the standards were changed so statistical evidence could be used. Even if there wasn't a stupid e-mail like the example, if a company is found to be systematically paying women or minorities less for equivalent work, that can now be used as evidence in a discrimination lawsuit. Even without a smoking gun, there is no way for widespread pay differences to be anything other than discrimination. This seems to make sense, as the former bar was way out of reach in most circumstances. It's fair to approach police discipline in the same way. We're not talking about a criminal conviction, an administrative punishment is somewhat similar to a civil infraction like a discrimination claim (the administrative punishment probably even has less of a burden). If Officers Bob and Joe and Sally each get a couple of complaints over a few years, but for whatever reason the claims couldn't be corroborated, then that can certainly be white noise or addressed with minor things like additional training. But if Officer Fuckface on the other hand picks up a dozen complaints over the same period of time, even if the complaints cannot be fully vetted (it's well documented police will intimidate people trying to come forward to complain, so it wouldn't exactly be surprising) there is obviously a pattern going on here. That should be plenty of reason to get rid of Officer Fuckface and replace him with someone who isn't clearly pissing off the community he's policing. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:
I'm pretty impressed by how often corporations still manage to mess this one up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:get rid of Officer Fuckface and replace him with someone who isn't clearly pissing off the community he's policing. I'm pretty sure recent years have shown that at least larger city PDs stopped even pretending they view the community as anything other than an enemy theyre at war with. Or the white middle+ class need to protected against the undesirables. I remember that Arpaio case a few years back where they rolled out their biggest toys to bust somebodies weapons dealing empire, except for the minor detail that they guy didn't have one. They did shoot their dog in front of the family while laughing about it, burned down the house when one of the 20 tear gas canisters ignited and forgot to put their tank in park so it rolled down the street over someone's car. I don't remember if it was that instance but since they had solid evidence from some druggie informant the warrant was legal so tough poo poo we burned down your house. Which is yet another thing I can't fathom is still legal. Some 'informant' that will tell you anything you want to hear to get out of his latest possession charge should be evidence to start an investigation, not enough for a no-knock burn down your house and flash bang your baby while we kill your leashed dog for growling raid. "Some guy we pay for information that we won't reveal the identity of because he's a confidential informant" should be the start of an investigation, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I'm pretty sure recent years have shown that at least larger city PDs stopped even pretending they view the community as anything other than an enemy theyre at war with. This was proven with the Cleveland Police Department during the DOJ's review of their policies. They referred to themselves as an "occupying force" and called a police station their "forward operating base", as if they're the embittered Detroit police in Robocop. Unrelated but from the same state, the Columbus police chief banned the wearing of headscarves for female Muslim officers. Christian officers may still wear cross necklaces and the like, because of course they can. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I'm pretty impressed by how often corporations still manage to mess this one up. In my experience it's far more often things like "sorry, we can't hire you because of your due date" which is just as egregious but somehow one of the lesser known protected classes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
fosborb posted:In my experience it's far more often things like "sorry, we can't hire you because of your due date" which is just as egregious but somehow one of the lesser known protected classes. Yet another of the Non-existent workers rights. Pretty much every other first world nation you get as much as 3 months of maternity leave, a few even have paternity leave but U.S. Companies would crumble if they grudgingly give more than two weeks, and even then it's not required, most companies I've worked for the women had to use up that years vacation time. My soon to be ex current boss expected a women who had a c-section to be back in a week. Which is yet another U.S. Bunch of poo poo. Most companies you get two weeks vacation and 5-10 personal/sick days but throw a goddamn fit if you use more than 2 sick days in a row or try and take a two week vacation. I got a middle range severity concussion a few months ago and since most of the swelling was my occipital lobe I wasn't supposed to even read or watch tv for the first week-ten days. It took 3 before it was "Work remotely from your laptop or get fired".
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Pregnancy is protected as part of sex, and there are very nice people with the feds who can make your HR dept hell if they cross that line (especially if they are stupid enough to document it)Toasticle posted:I got a middle range severity concussion a few months ago and since most of the swelling was my occipital lobe I wasn't supposed to even read or watch tv for the first week-ten days. It took 3 before it was "Work remotely from your laptop or get fired". This is what STD/FMLA is for, at will work or not. Get fired, take unemployment, and sue the gently caress out of them. (I know in reality that's not always an option...)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Really it just sounds like you live in a shithole of a state, in fact what your wife did for target makes it easy to prove the firing is bullshit. If I remember correctly it's actually exactly what helped my wife help win a wrongful termination suit while working legal aid clinic in law school. It can be hard to prove that a reason for firing is a lie, but not when the company has gone out of their way to extensively document the fact they don't fire people for the violation in question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Really it just sounds like you live in a shithole of a state, in fact what your wife did for target makes it easy to prove the firing is bullshit. Dude, what are you not getting about this? Worker protections in the US in general are amazingly weak. The cops and public servants actually have still reasonably strong unions. That's a rarity. The GOP has systematically shredded workers rights on the state level everywhere they have control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Dude, what are you not getting about this? Worker protections in the US in general are amazingly weak. The cops and public servants actually have still reasonably strong unions. That's a rarity. The GOP has systematically shredded workers rights on the state level everywhere they have control. The fact people are arguing in favour of it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
fosborb posted:Pregnancy is protected as part of sex, and there are very nice people with the feds who can make your HR dept hell if they cross that line (especially if they are stupid enough to document it) I would have lost my insurance and unemployment in Florida is $275/week so wouldn't come close to covering COBRA so yeah it wasn't really an option. I just lied about what I did for two hours taking all day, I'm just riding this out for my Christmas bonus (The guy is a complete dick but the bonus is 7 grand) to use to pay for moving back to New England.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 22:40
|
|