A .29 level of intoxication when someone shows up for work should absolutely be grounds for terminating employment. If this woman was that concerned about her brother, she could have paid the life insurance premium. She’s looking for an easy ride.
The Idaho Department of Labor ruled Curtis was eligible for unemployment benefits because Costco didn’t have proper cause to fire him??? What does that say about the Idaho Dept of Labor? Are they stating we should all come to work at .29 level of intoxication???
It never ceases to amaze me of the ignorance of some people when they read something,but really don’t comprehend the facts because they don’t have the whole story………sad
A .29 level of intoxication when someone shows up for work should absolutely be grounds for terminating employment. If this woman was that concerned about her brother, she could have paid the life insurance premium. She’s looking for an easy ride.
“…Grimmer was the sole beneficiary.” It’s becomming much clearer now!
The Idaho Department of Labor ruled Curtis was eligible for unemployment benefits because Costco didn’t have proper cause to fire him??? What does that say about the Idaho Dept of Labor? Are they stating we should all come to work at .29 level of intoxication???
It never ceases to amaze me of the ignorance of some people when they read something,but really don’t comprehend the facts because they don’t have the whole story………sad