As I read this, I thought how sad it is that a law like this is needed – that some employers put the almighty $$$ ahead of a child’s health. And how unfortunate that some employers treat their employees like the workplace is a prison. Then they scream because of their health insurance costs going up – well, a major cause of stress and depression is when a person feels powerless or lacking in control over things of high importance to them (their child !), and a huge amount of illness is due to stress. Hopefully,
that lady found a better job, and the ignorant moron who fired her did her a favor. I hope his business failed and he is now merely a lowly “employee.”
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here for a paragraph. Did the woman fired for taking three days off to care for children with chicken pox follow her company’s attendance policy? She may have been fired for not calling in every day may have been required by policy, as opposed to being fired for taking the time off. She may have been fired for taking time off in excess of allowed paid-time-off; many companies don’t allow for unpaid time off.
Under OFLA she was already entitled to her job, so the company violated the law there. And they were jerks in firing her with that underlying cause of absenteeism. However, without more information we don’t know if she was fired as a knee-jerk policy reaction, if she was already out the door and just hadn’t been served the pink slip yet, or anything. FMLA and OFLA are great but can cause huge snares in the system if even the smallest bit isn’t done to the letter.
It is sad if we had all the facts — I find it hard to believe that just staying home for 3 days caused the mother to be fired, where there other problems leading up to this problem. The proposed law is not fair — if you have children and can not perform all of your dutites because you have responsibilities at home, then does that mean that single people with no children should work more at their jobs and consequently be paid less because they need to make up for the parents that have to leave? Having children is a responsibility and yes, that means working out solutions so that your children are cared for when they are sick without making your employer and co-workers have to always fill in for you. Employers need to have family friendly opportunities for employees but how much can the goverment require without hurting non-children employees at the same time.
If you have the “luxury” of living in a right to work state, then yes, you can be fired for ANY reason. God help you if your boss doesn’t like you in the first place and looks for any excuse to fire you. It’s also sad that women bear the brunt of these devious actions on part of employers. Believe me, if more men stood up and took stayed home to take care of sick children then job protection laws would be air-tight indeed.
We still operate now like it’s 1955 when it comes to family roles. While more men than ever are staying at home (and the women are griping about lost affection from their kids) the basic expectation is that one income will run the house and the man earns that income. Despite everything we’ve tried over the past several decades the basic paradigm hasn’t shifted much.
Second, men don’t expect the same things women do. In general men expect fewer accomodations. We expect work to get rid of us if we aren’t as productive as we used to be; or as productive as the next guy. We expect to be fired, laid off, hours trimmed, worse assignments. Is it fair, no – but we expect it. Women expect more than men do. So if more men stayed home there wouldn’t be the same pressure as there is now. The men would just expect to have to work around it.
Third, “right to work” is about minimum wage. You’re thinking of “at will”, which just means you don’t have a contract. Oregon is not a “right to work” state, though we do have an active “at will” thing going on. Even employment “at will” does not allow the employer to terminate for any reason. Employers are still not allowed to terminate based on protected class, in violation of OFLA, FMLA, or any other law protecting employment (which the one in this article may or may not have done).
And Hmmmmmm has a point; those of us with no children, or who waited to have children until one income could support them, do suffer a burden because of co-workers taking time off for their children. While there is a Darwinian advantage to us shouldering that burden, we’re a little past basic survial on the evolutionary chain and there’s only so much we should have to put up with because somebody else wanted to procreate. I don’t have the answer to this one, but there is a conflict between a parent’s right to work, their obligation to their children, and the burdens placed on co-workers.
As I read this, I thought how sad it is that a law like this is needed – that some employers put the almighty $$$ ahead of a child’s health. And how unfortunate that some employers treat their employees like the workplace is a prison. Then they scream because of their health insurance costs going up – well, a major cause of stress and depression is when a person feels powerless or lacking in control over things of high importance to them (their child !), and a huge amount of illness is due to stress. Hopefully,
that lady found a better job, and the ignorant moron who fired her did her a favor. I hope his business failed and he is now merely a lowly “employee.”
Wishful thinking.The ignorant moron is probably a CEO now and making the millions we’ll never see.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here for a paragraph. Did the woman fired for taking three days off to care for children with chicken pox follow her company’s attendance policy? She may have been fired for not calling in every day may have been required by policy, as opposed to being fired for taking the time off. She may have been fired for taking time off in excess of allowed paid-time-off; many companies don’t allow for unpaid time off.
Under OFLA she was already entitled to her job, so the company violated the law there. And they were jerks in firing her with that underlying cause of absenteeism. However, without more information we don’t know if she was fired as a knee-jerk policy reaction, if she was already out the door and just hadn’t been served the pink slip yet, or anything. FMLA and OFLA are great but can cause huge snares in the system if even the smallest bit isn’t done to the letter.
It is sad if we had all the facts — I find it hard to believe that just staying home for 3 days caused the mother to be fired, where there other problems leading up to this problem. The proposed law is not fair — if you have children and can not perform all of your dutites because you have responsibilities at home, then does that mean that single people with no children should work more at their jobs and consequently be paid less because they need to make up for the parents that have to leave? Having children is a responsibility and yes, that means working out solutions so that your children are cared for when they are sick without making your employer and co-workers have to always fill in for you. Employers need to have family friendly opportunities for employees but how much can the goverment require without hurting non-children employees at the same time.
If you have the “luxury” of living in a right to work state, then yes, you can be fired for ANY reason. God help you if your boss doesn’t like you in the first place and looks for any excuse to fire you. It’s also sad that women bear the brunt of these devious actions on part of employers. Believe me, if more men stood up and took stayed home to take care of sick children then job protection laws would be air-tight indeed.
I must disagree Saints Fan, for a few reasons.
We still operate now like it’s 1955 when it comes to family roles. While more men than ever are staying at home (and the women are griping about lost affection from their kids) the basic expectation is that one income will run the house and the man earns that income. Despite everything we’ve tried over the past several decades the basic paradigm hasn’t shifted much.
Second, men don’t expect the same things women do. In general men expect fewer accomodations. We expect work to get rid of us if we aren’t as productive as we used to be; or as productive as the next guy. We expect to be fired, laid off, hours trimmed, worse assignments. Is it fair, no – but we expect it. Women expect more than men do. So if more men stayed home there wouldn’t be the same pressure as there is now. The men would just expect to have to work around it.
Third, “right to work” is about minimum wage. You’re thinking of “at will”, which just means you don’t have a contract. Oregon is not a “right to work” state, though we do have an active “at will” thing going on. Even employment “at will” does not allow the employer to terminate for any reason. Employers are still not allowed to terminate based on protected class, in violation of OFLA, FMLA, or any other law protecting employment (which the one in this article may or may not have done).
And Hmmmmmm has a point; those of us with no children, or who waited to have children until one income could support them, do suffer a burden because of co-workers taking time off for their children. While there is a Darwinian advantage to us shouldering that burden, we’re a little past basic survial on the evolutionary chain and there’s only so much we should have to put up with because somebody else wanted to procreate. I don’t have the answer to this one, but there is a conflict between a parent’s right to work, their obligation to their children, and the burdens placed on co-workers.