User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 5:06:44 PM EDT
[#1]
I predict his gym will mysteriously burn to the ground.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 5:08:38 PM EDT
[#2]
someone is going to own a gym soon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 5:10:56 PM EDT
[#3]
This will not end well
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 5:13:19 PM EDT
[#4]
There is more to this story. There always is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 5:16:59 PM EDT
[#5]
A guy in my guard unit was fired as a CO from a state prision system for"missing work too often for National Huard training". He had a photo copy of the termination paperwork.
This sort of thing does happen. I hope the gym gets hammered for this if it is true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 5:17:58 PM EDT
[#6]
If the story holds water...wow.
I'm out of words... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 5:22:02 PM EDT
[#7]
His company, his rules.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 5:22:25 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: There is more to this story. There always is. He does have a sheet of paper that looks like it says that's why they fired him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 5:22:34 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
If the story holds water...wow. I'm out of words... No shit thats seriously fucked up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 5:24:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Wait.
Why can't the owner fire the guy for being a disabled veteran? It is HIS business? (not saying I agree with the owner, it is his right as owner to hire and fire whoever the fuck he wants to.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 5:38:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Wait. Why can't the owner fire the guy for being a disabled veteran? It is HIS business? (not saying I agree with the owner, it is his right as owner to hire and fire whoever the fuck he wants to.) If he was fired for having a disability then thats a violation of Federal Law. More specifically, it's a violation of the ADA and Uniformed services employment act IF he was fired for no other reason than he was disabled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 5:44:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: There is more to this story. There always is. He does have a sheet of paper that looks like it says that's why they fired him. The article shows portion of a piece of paper that he purports to be the document stating that's why they fired him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 5:54:54 PM EDT
[#13]
Saw this on my facebook today and don't know if this is true or not but wanted to share the story
Then why post it? Sharing something that is inaccurate or untrue - is that something you would like a person to do? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:00:32 PM EDT
[#14]
Where are the "his business, his rules" people?
Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:04:18 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait. Why can't the owner fire the guy for being a disabled veteran? It is HIS business? (not saying I agree with the owner, it is his right as owner to hire and fire whoever the fuck he wants to.) If he was fired for having a disability then thats a violation of Federal Law. More specifically, it's a violation of the ADA and Uniformed services employment act IF he was fired for no other reason than he was disabled. Well those are fucked up laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:04:49 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? 
It shouldn't be illegal to be a shitbag, but I doubt it would do his business any favors. If I found out that my gym had fired one of their employees due to line-of-duty injuries I'd stop by on my way to work the next morning to terminate my membership and tell them to stick the cardkey up their ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:13:13 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait. Why can't the owner fire the guy for being a disabled veteran? It is HIS business? (not saying I agree with the owner, it is his right as owner to hire and fire whoever the fuck he wants to.) If he was fired for having a disability then thats a violation of Federal Law. More specifically, it's a violation of the ADA and Uniformed services employment act IF he was fired for no other reason than he was disabled. If he can't do the job with REASONABLE accommodations then there is nothing illegal about terminating a disabled employee. Missing work doesn't give you a pass, even Dr appointments for a disability should be discussed as far in advance as possible so the employer can attempt to fill the slot. If only one employee is working, obviously a business cannot close down to accommodate |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:16:39 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait. Why can't the owner fire the guy for being a disabled veteran? It is HIS business? (not saying I agree with the owner, it is his right as owner to hire and fire whoever the fuck he wants to.) If he was fired for having a disability then thats a violation of Federal Law. More specifically, it's a violation of the ADA and Uniformed services employment act IF he was fired for no other reason than he was disabled. Well those are fucked up laws. Not really, he fired him for being disabled and a Vet....not because stated job performance or lack there of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:17:31 PM EDT
[#19]
Before passing any judgement, I want to know what "1 EST and..." means on the termination line.
Like Transformers, there is more than meets the eye here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:18:36 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait. Why can't the owner fire the guy for being a disabled veteran? It is HIS business? (not saying I agree with the owner, it is his right as owner to hire and fire whoever the fuck he wants to.) If he was fired for having a disability then thats a violation of Federal Law. More specifically, it's a violation of the ADA and Uniformed services employment act IF he was fired for no other reason than he was disabled. Well those are fucked up laws. Not really, he fired him for being disabled and a Vet....not because stated job performance or lack there of. If it is your business you should have the right to fire anyone you want for any reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:20:12 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? This is possibly why the tough shit ARFCOM world is sometimes so wrong. You understand that it is wrong, as do I. Unfortunately a lot of people don't understand, have basic human compassion/common sense . Part of the reason why the tough shit ARFCOM world wouldn't work well. Too many people just don't get it. FWIW, we owe it to our veterans, current serving armed forces members, and national guard members to accomodate them in the workplace. Yes, it sucks having a valued employee who has to take leave for duty, but it's for the greater good of the community. We also owe it to our disabled service members to find them valuable employment in the private sector, even if it presents some hardship to the employer. The test is reasonable hardship - is it reasonable for someone to miss some work time for VA appointments, and make up the hours at other times? I think so, and suspect most juries would agree, as would the EEOC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:21:41 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? This is possibly why the tough shit ARFCOM world is sometimes so wrong. You understand that it is wrong, as do I. Unfortunately a lot of people don't hence the laws. Part of the reason why the tough shit ARFCOM world wouldn't work well. Too many people just don't get it. FWIW, we owe it to our veterans, current serving armed forces members, and national guard members to accomodate them in the workplace. Yes, it sucks having a valued employee who has to take leave for duty, but it's for the greater good of the community. We also owe it to our disabled service members to find them valuable employment in the private sector, even if it presents some hardship to the employer. The test is reasonable hardship - is it reasonable for someone to miss some work time for VA appointments, and make up the hours at other times? I think so, and suspect most juries would agree, as would the EEOC. Your communism is showing! 
These aren't the values America was founded on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:22:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? Right here. It should be the business owner's perogative to fire whomever he wants for whatever he wants and government should stay out of it. It is our right as consumers to refuse the business any of our business for such a dick move until he goes out of business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:23:00 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
A guy in my guard unit was fired as a CO from a state prision system for"missing work too often for National Huard training". He had a photo copy of the termination paperwork. This sort of thing does happen. I hope the gym gets hammered for this if it is true. There was an auto parts store (Pip Boys? Pep Boys? Something we don't have up here.) That was firing NG people during the call-up for Gulf War II. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:25:54 PM EDT
[#25]
understood the sarcasm a little late
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:26:08 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
There is more to this story. There always is. Most will not investigate they will run off and attack half cocked and purely on emotion like good little liberals. All the Americans with Disabilities Act (Championed IIRC by then Sen. Al Gore) ever accomplishes is keeping the disabled unemployed and disreputable lawyers drowning in shakedown money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:30:07 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? Right here. It should be the business owner's perogative to fire whomever he wants for whatever he wants and government should stay out of it. It is our right as consumers to refuse the business any of our business for such a dick move until he goes out of business. Entirely agreed, most will actively choose to not listen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:31:19 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? This is possibly why the tough shit ARFCOM world is sometimes so wrong. You understand that it is wrong, as do I. Unfortunately a lot of people don't hence the laws. Part of the reason why the tough shit ARFCOM world wouldn't work well. Too many people just don't get it. FWIW, we owe it to our veterans, current serving armed forces members, and national guard members to accomodate them in the workplace. Yes, it sucks having a valued employee who has to take leave for duty, but it's for the greater good of the community. We also owe it to our disabled service members to find them valuable employment in the private sector, even if it presents some hardship to the employer. The test is reasonable hardship - is it reasonable for someone to miss some work time for VA appointments, and make up the hours at other times? I think so, and suspect most juries would agree, as would the EEOC. Your communism is showing!
These aren't the values America was founded on. Taking care of the people who have fought for this country isn't what America was founded on?  Really? Even if the country wasn't founded on this ideal, it's something we should aspire too. We owe our veterans a debt that is impossible to repay. The least they can expect is an opportunity to work in the country they fought for, voluntarily now. You consider this communist?This country was founded on Freedom. If I owned my own business I would take care of employees that are/were veterans and would be proud too. I consider FORCING businesses to do things is immoral and wrong and is a slap in the face of private business. But, this is the new America where we are in a command economy and private businesses are not left alone to a free market (as they should be). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:32:07 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:34:04 PM EDT
[#30]
Mr. Brown's condition and need for treatment is covered under the "intermittent medical leave" provisions of FMLA.
Hopefully Mr. Brown followed the correct procedures to request the necessary time off before being terminated. If so, Mr. Moreno will soon find himself on the receiving end of a multi-million dollar lawsuit, and he is going to lose. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:35:14 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
The veteran's condition and need for treatment is covered under the "intermittent medical leave" provisions of FMLA. Hopefully the veteran followed the correct procedures to request the necessary time off before being terminated. If so, Mr. Moreno will soon find himself on the receiving end of a multi-million dollar lawsuit, and he is going to lose. If it's a small business, I wouldn't bet on that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:44:22 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? This is possibly why the tough shit ARFCOM world is sometimes so wrong. You understand that it is wrong, as do I. Unfortunately a lot of people don't understand, have basic human compassion/common sense . Part of the reason why the tough shit ARFCOM world wouldn't work well. Too many people just don't get it. FWIW, we owe it to our veterans, current serving armed forces members, and national guard members to accomodate them in the workplace. Yes, it sucks having a valued employee who has to take leave for duty, but it's for the greater good of the community. We also owe it to our disabled service members to find them valuable employment in the private sector, even if it presents some hardship to the employer. The test is reasonable hardship - is it reasonable for someone to miss some work time for VA appointments, and make up the hours at other times? I think so, and suspect most juries would agree, as would the EEOC. I say this as a vet: It's almost impossible to overstate what an incredibly bad idea it is to make it illegal or difficult to fire someone just because of prior service. Employers currently actively seek vets because they believe (usually correctly) that they possess qualities such as leadership, timeliness, responsibility, etc. The very last thing I want is a prospective employer seeing "honorably discharged" on my resume and immediately thinking "Crap! If I hire this guy he might be great but I'll never ever be able to get rid of him if he doesn't work out. Best just take my chances with someone who isn't a 'protected class'." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:50:04 PM EDT
[#33]
Anyone catch the pic in the slide show of the disgusting fat body who owns that ****hole? May many fucks be upon bromosexual Moreno or whatever his worthless name is. Godspeed Mr Brown.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 6:53:59 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? This is possibly why the tough shit ARFCOM world is sometimes so wrong. You understand that it is wrong, as do I. Unfortunately a lot of people don't understand, have basic human compassion/common sense . Part of the reason why the tough shit ARFCOM world wouldn't work well. Too many people just don't get it. FWIW, we owe it to our veterans, current serving armed forces members, and national guard members to accomodate them in the workplace. Yes, it sucks having a valued employee who has to take leave for duty, but it's for the greater good of the community. We also owe it to our disabled service members to find them valuable employment in the private sector, even if it presents some hardship to the employer. The test is reasonable hardship - is it reasonable for someone to miss some work time for VA appointments, and make up the hours at other times? I think so, and suspect most juries would agree, as would the EEOC. I say this as a vet: It's almost impossible to overstate what an incredibly bad idea it is to make it illegal or difficult to fire someone just because of prior service. Employers currently actively seek vets because they believe (usually correctly) that they possess qualities such as leadership, timeliness, responsibility, etc. The very last thing I want is a prospective employer seeing "honorably discharged" on my resume and immediately thinking "Crap! If I hire this guy he might be great but I'll never ever be able to get rid of him if he doesn't work out. Best just take my chances with someone who isn't a 'protected class'." Practically everyone falls under some form of "protected class" nowadays. If they want to find someone who is not in some protected class or another, they are going to spend a LONG time looking for people. Ethical employers discriminate on one thing and one thing only: job performance. That should be the only yardstick that is used for decisions involving retention and promotion/demotion. Damn near anyone can come up with some perceived reason they are being discriminated against if employers do not use clearly defined standards of performance to retain/promote/demote. Age, sex, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, having a disability of some sort (maybe not even an obvious one), being a veteran, etc etc. In this case, if the facts presented at that linked article are true, it sounds to me that Mr. Brown MOST CERTAINLY WAS the victim of illegal discrimination. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 7:09:23 PM EDT
[#35]
We have a disabled vet at work id love to fire. Hes a lazy shitbag. I cant believe the government let him hang around nukes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 7:20:26 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? Right here. It should be the business owner's perogative to fire whomever he wants for whatever he wants and government should stay out of it. It is our right as consumers to refuse the business any of our business for such a dick move until he goes out of business. I completely agree with you two but the guy is going to make some money due to current laws. A woman was about to be firednby my FiL for poor performance-she was just diagnosed with all kinds of stuff (unrelated) the lawyer says DO NOT even think about firing her now
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 7:33:35 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? Right here. It should be the business owner's perogative to fire whomever he wants for whatever he wants and government should stay out of it. It is our right as consumers to refuse the business any of our business for such a dick move until he goes out of business. I'm going with this |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 7:50:39 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? Disabled veteran here. If a person can't perform the requirements of a job, the employer should not be forced to keep that person employed; if a person cannot show up to work so often that it becomes a burden to the employer, the employer should not be forced to keep that person employed. The employer should keep a disabled veteran employed (providing they perform to the best of their abilities), for obvious reasons, but it should not be a requirement by law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 8:11:45 PM EDT
[#39]
So, this punk manager who doesn't even own the gym, fires the kid (probably because he didn't like him) and was so stupid that he actually signed a guilty plea by writing, "Disabled Veteran" for the reason of termination.
Then, this same dumbass, leaves the company himself and basically washes his hands of it. Now the owner it responsible and the douche bag who fired the Vet in the first place, has long since quit. Thing is though, if the owner felt what his manager did was not right, he would have offered him his job back. There is something missing somewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 8:16:34 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
So, this punk manager who doesn't even own the gym, fires the kid (probably because he didn't like him) and was so stupid that he actually signed a guilty plea by writing, "Disabled Veteran" for the reason of termination. Then, this same dumbass, leaves the company himself and basically washes his hands of it. Now the owner it responsible and the douche bag who fired the Vet in the first place, has long since quit. Thing is though, if the owner felt what his manager did was not right, he would have offered him his job back. There is something missing somewhere. What's missing is coverage of the owner's record of political donations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 8:16:46 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? Disabled veteran here. If a person can't perform the requirements of a job, the employer should not be forced to keep that person employed; if a person cannot show up to work so often that it becomes a burden to the employer, the employer should not be forced to keep that person employed. The employer should keep a disabled veteran employed (providing they perform to the best of their abilities), for obvious reasons, but it should not be a requirement by law. What's your disability? Some Tinnitus or something? Has it been treated already and you are now in the stages of just routine check ups? This kid still has ongoing Tx which requires visits. I'm a disabled vet, too. I have to see a doc routinely for my condition and don't need to make multiple appointments during work days. This goes beyond just vets. People can't just fire an employee who has been working with them for 12 years, because they fell and broke their leg and have a year worth of surgeries and rehab to go through. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 8:20:07 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? Right here. It should be the business owner's perogative to fire whomever he wants for whatever he wants and government should stay out of it. It is our right as consumers to refuse the business any of our business for such a dick move until he goes out of business. Truth. No one should be guarenteed a job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 8:31:21 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? Disabled veteran here. If a person can't perform the requirements of a job, the employer should not be forced to keep that person employed; if a person cannot show up to work so often that it becomes a burden to the employer, the employer should not be forced to keep that person employed. The employer should keep a disabled veteran employed (providing they perform to the best of their abilities), for obvious reasons, but it should not be a requirement by law. What's your disability? Some Tinnitus or something? Has it been treated already and you are now in the stages of just routine check ups? This kid still has ongoing Tx which requires visits. I'm a disabled vet, too. I have to see a doc routinely for my condition and don't need to make multiple appointments during work days. This goes beyond just vets. People can't just fire an employee who has been working with them for 12 years, because they fell and broke their leg and have a year worth of surgeries and rehab to go through. I got burned in a fashion that creates difficulties. No further checkups are needed. If you want more details, send an IM. Most every (larger) company has a policy on acceptable levels of sick days/time. If those days are exceeded, why should the employer be forced to keep a person who is no longer producing? Should the employer keep them on? Yup, (and there are many reasons for this, aside from the ethical reasons) but they should not be forced by law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 8:33:09 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
There is more to this story. There always is. There is a local police chief who cannot stand verterans and will not hire them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 8:51:58 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is more to this story. There always is. There is a local police chief who cannot stand verterans and will not hire them. Then you have a local police chief that's an idiot. I'd make sure elected officials were aware they had such a thing running one of their departments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 9:04:53 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
A guy in my guard unit was fired as a CO from a state prision system for"missing work too often for National Huard training". He had a photo copy of the termination paperwork. This sort of thing does happen. I hope the gym gets hammered for this if it is true. I assume he got his job back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 10:08:41 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? Well, then maybe business owners can start firing people for being black, white, christian, conservative. I'm sure those reasons would be fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 10:34:59 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? This is possibly why the tough shit ARFCOM world is sometimes so wrong. You understand that it is wrong, as do I. Unfortunately a lot of people don't understand, have basic human compassion/common sense . Part of the reason why the tough shit ARFCOM world wouldn't work well. Too many people just don't get it. FWIW, we owe it to our veterans, current serving armed forces members, and national guard members to accomodate them in the workplace. Yes, it sucks having a valued employee who has to take leave for duty, but it's for the greater good of the community. We also owe it to our disabled service members to find them valuable employment in the private sector, even if it presents some hardship to the employer. The test is reasonable hardship - is it reasonable for someone to miss some work time for VA appointments, and make up the hours at other times? I think so, and suspect most juries would agree, as would the EEOC. I say this as a vet: It's almost impossible to overstate what an incredibly bad idea it is to make it illegal or difficult to fire someone just because of prior service. Employers currently actively seek vets because they believe (usually correctly) that they possess qualities such as leadership, timeliness, responsibility, etc. The very last thing I want is a prospective employer seeing "honorably discharged" on my resume and immediately thinking "Crap! If I hire this guy he might be great but I'll never ever be able to get rid of him if he doesn't work out. Best just take my chances with someone who isn't a 'protected class'." Though it doesn't apply to this case, what if the Reservist/Guardsman is having problems keeping his job or being hired do to his service obligations? To make things fair, that Reservist/Guardsman should be able to leave the service the moment the financial burden becomes too difficult to bear. But he cannot. In fact, even with the protections in place, the number one reason cited for people leaving the Reserves/NG is that it interferes with their civilian occupation. I have been turned down for jobs myself, implicitly stated by the employer because of my obligations. However, I didn't have it in writing nor did I think it was worth pursuing to work for that employer because of that. Many of the nation's employers don't really care about this country. Especially if there's potential for any inconvenience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 10:38:39 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where are the "his business, his rules" people? Yes, it is a violation of federal law and morally reprehensible, but shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to do as he pleases in the perfect, tough-shit ARFCOM world? Disabled veteran here. If a person can't perform the requirements of a job, the employer should not be forced to keep that person employed; if a person cannot show up to work so often that it becomes a burden to the employer, the employer should not be forced to keep that person employed. The employer should keep a disabled veteran employed (providing they perform to the best of their abilities), for obvious reasons, but it should not be a requirement by law. That's where the "reasonable accommodations" becomes important. Unfortunately, it's very vague. If it comes to the point that it becomes a significant burden on the business, the firing should be justified. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2012 11:01:59 PM EDT
[#50]
If the business has under 50 employees it's exempted from many regulations, including the ADA in most cases. If this guy's medical issues are documented he may be able to get a sympathetic judge or jury in a civil case. I'm hoping that the gym owner extended every effort to accomodate his disabilty. Sometimes things just don't work out though.
In '93 I was a manufacturing supervisor in a final test area at Motorola SPS. Obviously more than 50 employees. We got a new hire that was just the nastiest human being imaginable. Extremely militant, bigoted, racist black woman. She weighed approximately 350 lbs. Somehow that qualified her as disabled under the newly passed ADA. She was unable to perform her sole job function of stuffing IC's into burn-in boards due to her 3-inch long fake fingernails which she NEVER CHANGED. There was green and black shit growing on the underside of those "nails". They stank, like decomposition. Everyone was afraid of getting scratched by those things. I sent her to the nurse, nurse talked to her but could do nothing. ADA, she's disabled. Because she was a fucking land whale. Can't require her to clean her shit-encrusted fingernails. She couldn't make the parts-per-hour numbers, created rejects. Total fail. Finally, thank God, she slapped another operator seated next to her. Cut and dried, fired. Ummm, no. ADA. Yeah she was gone from our production floor, but "on paid leave". Took 6 months, depositions from everyone involved to finally seperate her from the company. Sometimes there are more to claims of discrimination than meets the eye. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
