Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Just got fired

12346

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Since both were happy with a 25k commute, I suspect its a rural location with not a lot of opportunities on both sides.

    Sure they probably won'd heed a website review, but they'll probably complain they can't get staff and/or with the right skillset.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭bladespin


    beauf wrote: »
    Since both were happy with a 25k commute, I suspect its a rural location with not a lot of opportunities on both sides.

    Sure they probably won'd heed a website review, but they'll probably complain they can't get staff and/or with the right skillset.

    Seems to have been the original problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,204 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    bladespin wrote: »
    Yep, that'll hurt, compared to OP who's lost a job.

    From the sounds of it OP was only seen as temporary anyway, despite not being told this, shoddy way to go about business, even shoddier is dismissing without some form of warning, but they're out there, and I'd doubt if most would pay any heed to a website review, especially GD, reminds me of Monster tbh.


    TBH if they are a low quality employer they will have no problem finding low quality employees.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 447 ✭✭qxtasybe1nwfh2


    Well op said in her post that it wasn't because of the sick days but because procedure around this wasn't followed. We are all presuming you at least rang in sick but did you? Or what part of the procedure wasn't followed according to them. If I was in your position work would probably be the last thing on my mind, even for days after, my head would be checked out. If your bosses didn't have the full information, so it would be hard for them to understand why.

    OP sorry to hear about your daughter. You would have a case I would imagine, even with just the fact you should have received 5 core terms within 5 days and the rest within two months. But I don't know if it would be worth the stress and hassle.


  • Registered Users Posts: 337 ✭✭mouthful


    Well op said in her post that it wasn't because of the sick days but because procedure around this wasn't followed. We are all presuming you at least rang in sick but did you? Or what part of the procedure wasn't followed according to them. If I was in your position work would probably be the last thing on my mind, even for days after, my head would be checked out. If your bosses didn't have the full information, so it would be hard for them to understand why.

    OP sorry to hear about your daughter. You would have a case I would imagine, even with just the fact you should have received 5 core terms within 5 days and the rest within two months. But I don't know if it would be worth the stress and hassle.

    4 weeks pay is worth some stress and hassle, and teaches the ruthless employer that they don’t make all the rules


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 661 ✭✭✭work


    Dodge wrote: »
    Fair bit of generalisation there. One poster mentioned they didn’t take ‘sick days’ and you’ve established that that person is representative of the whole public service and then all employees

    We do not have a caustic environment for small business in Ireland. To give you your own advice, if you don’t like your situation l, move on


    Fair enough point I should not have generalised but should have stated some of the posters.
    I have moved on by not allowing wasters spend time in my business. The staff I now have are very well looked after (in my opinion) and we have a situation where there is mutual respect and lots of reasonable benefits. In fact they ask for stuff all the time , like extra time off paid and unpaid, increased pay, altered hours and days, altered work practices and procedures. I try and provide whatever they want as long as they keep the show on the road. The one thing I cannot work with is random sick days, funny enough that usually occur on a Monday or Friday, fortunately no such people work for me any more.

    People do get sick in which case they are off but not because they "have days to use up" or are "tired".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 447 ✭✭qxtasybe1nwfh2


    mouthful wrote: »
    4 weeks pay is worth some stress and hassle, and teaches the ruthless employer that they don’t make all the rules

    I agree but how do we know they are ruthless. We are only hearing one side here.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭AndyBoBandy


    Strumms wrote: »
    They missed 1.3% of work because of illness during their duration of employment , sign of things to come, you are dead right... better off out of there, not looking back, a bullet dodged.


    Perhaps they did the math and saw that that 1.3% could equate to over 5% of a year and felt it was too high a risk to take on a new employee.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Perhaps they did the math and saw that that 1.3% could equate to over 5% of a year and felt it was too high a risk to take on a new employee.

    If writing a sick leave policy and perhaps contracts was beyond them, I don't think they'd bother to use math's either.

    Its an interesting idea. if someone broke their leg and were off for a week after working 1 month. We should should assume they'll break a leg every month, and need a week of every month.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,336 ✭✭✭tonc76


    beauf wrote: »
    If writing a sick leave policy and perhaps contracts was beyond them, I don't think they'd bother to use math's either.

    Its an interesting idea. if someone broke their leg and were off for a week after working 1 month. We should should assume they'll break a leg every month, and need a week of every month.

    1. You've clearly never broken a bone.
    2. How many legs have you?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭bladespin


    beauf wrote: »
    Its an interesting idea. if someone broke their leg and were off for a week after working 1 month. We should should assume they'll break a leg every month, and need a week of every month.

    Yes, true but they would have something concrete (oh well plaster) to prove they needed the time off.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    You want them to come into the office in plaster to prove they can't come into the office in plaster.

    How about the Norovirus, how do you want them to prove that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    tonc76 wrote: »
    1. You've clearly never broken a bone.
    2. How many legs have you?

    You've clearly never heard of hyperbole.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    beauf wrote: »
    if someone broke their leg and were off for a week after working 1 month. We should should assume they'll break a leg every month, and need a week of every month.

    Nobody broke a leg so you're not really comparing like-with-like when you look at a sick day and a spurious car breakdown.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,015 ✭✭✭spankmemunkey


    There was no Verbal warning before the written warning btw


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭bladespin


    beauf wrote: »
    You want them to come into the office in plaster to prove they can't come into the office in plaster.

    How about the Norovirus, how do you want them to prove that.

    A picture, X-ray or again, a doctor's cert would do just fine thanks but if they want to come in I would find some work they could do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    bladespin wrote: »
    A picture, X-ray or again, a doctor's cert would do just fine thanks but if they want to come in I would find some work they could do.

    How are you meant to communicate those requirements to an employee?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭bladespin


    beauf wrote: »
    How would they know that?

    Know what? That their leg was broken, it's pretty obvious usually.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Graham wrote: »
    Nobody broke a leg so you're not really comparing like-with-like when you look at a sick day and a spurious car breakdown.

    I literally don't know anyone called nobody. But if you do and they have a broken leg AND a fake car breakdown they are very unlucky and literally only have one leg to stand on.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    bladespin wrote: »
    Know what? That their leg was broken, it's pretty obvious usually.

    You'd wonder why x-rays are needed at all. Completely pointless. If you can't something is broken, it can't be broken.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,331 ✭✭✭bladespin


    beauf wrote: »
    You'd wonder why x-rays are needed at all. Completely pointless. If you can't something is broken, it can't be broken.

    I've had both types, a very obviously broken arm and a fractured wrist - not so obvious until I'd seen the x-ray.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,750 ✭✭✭LillySV


    Two days off in a short period... did u provide sick cert for first day? And as regards second day... u couldn’t find any way in at all that day!?

    I would bet there was no cert for both those days... u had been out more (I’m assuming without certs) in your first month than most do over a few years working in a place.... I really don’t understand how the employer is the baddy here... he was dead right... ... u couldn’t even make a full month without being out ... and once your probation is gone by and u missed more and more days... there’s little he could do and everyone would have to carry your work in the place.....

    Let it be a lesson to ya going forward ... employers jobs is to ensure employees turn up and do their work and shared out equally ... not carry some one


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,204 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    beauf wrote: »
    I literally don't know anyone called nobody. But if you do and they have a broken leg AND a fake car breakdown they are very unlucky and literally only have one leg to stand on.


    The great Australian rugby lock John Eales was nicknamed 'Nobody' because nobody's perfect.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    LillySV wrote: »
    Two days off in a short period... did u provide sick cert for first day?...

    I would bet there was no cert for both those days... ...... there’s little he could do ...

    The issue was not given as the sick days. It was didn't follow proper procedures.

    Certified sick isn't always required depending on company policy.

    There's little he could do in the future? Why not?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,728 ✭✭✭Naos


    Perhaps they did the math and saw that that 1.3% could equate to over 5% of a year and felt it was too high a risk to take on a new employee.

    Where is the 1.3% coming from? It's 2 days of 65 days (13 weeks) - that's 3%.

    This case aside, I'm surprised at the amount of people who are defending missing 2 days in the first 13 weeks while you're on probation.

    Yes, everyone is entitled to sick days if you are sick but come on, if you're on probation you know you need to step your game up until you pass it.

    Lastly, the whole my car broke down thing. Yes, you're 25 miles away which is a pain but at least make the effort to get in, especially if you're only a few days into the job. You posted about your car having problems around 4pm and wasn't in the garage until 4 hours later - what time did your shift start?


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭AndyBoBandy


    Naos wrote: »
    Where is the 1.3% coming from? It's 2 days of 65 days (13 weeks) - that's 3%.


    not my math, I was just quoting what the reply to my post said..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Naos wrote: »
    ...
    This case aside, I'm surprised at the amount of people who are defending missing 2 days in the first 13 weeks while you're on probation....

    That's not what being defended. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,728 ✭✭✭Naos


    beauf wrote: »
    That's not what being defended. :rolleyes:

    Well what is then? The OP didn't sign a contract, so if they haven't even signed a contract, why are they expecting a sick policy?

    And if they did sign a contract and never received a sick policy, common sense would be to come in the next day and have a quick chat with the manager to ask what was required from you as you called in sick & are not aware of the procedure to follow as you received no sick policy(?).


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,336 ✭✭✭tonc76


    beauf wrote: »
    You've clearly never heard of hyperbole.

    = bullsh!t statement then


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Naos wrote: »
    Well what is then? The OP didn't sign a contract, so if they haven't even signed a contract, why are they expecting a sick policy?

    And if they did sign a contract and never received a sick policy, common sense would be to come in the next day and have a quick chat with the manager to ask what was required from you as you called in sick & are not aware of the procedure to follow as you received no sick policy(?).


    Nothing to do with sick policy.
    They were told that didn't follow the correct procedure for notifying them of being out. But they were never informed of what this was.
    Probably never warned they had broken it, at any point.

    (Probably didn't exist anyway)


Advertisement