Woman Fired for Doing Work at Lunch Wins Unemployment Claim

[vienna]

http://gma.yahoo.com/chicago-woman-f...-abc-news.html

[Sailor Steve]

"You work too much. This is clearly against company policy."

[kiwi_2005]

She got fired for skipping lunch so she could finish her project

[Falkirion]

She's done nothing wrong. If she hadn't worked through lunch would they have paid her the overtime she needed because she had to work late to finish the project?

She got fired for skipping lunch so she could finish her project

Did she?

"I was under the impression that because I was punched out and I could do what I want."

Can you see the problem with her line of thought?

She's done nothing wrong.

Accesing work computers when you have declared you are not at work?

[kiwi_2005]

well okay punching in for lunch but still working? But still no need to fire her unless she has been warned many times before, never read the whole article so maybe she has.

During my shifts if I need to catch up and smoko has arrived I will grab a coffee and carry on working boss doesn't like it but he knows if you have to catch up you have to catch up, we all do it. I mean the only reason I take a break is to have a smoke & coffee anyways!

10yrs on the job a stressful job, obviously a good worker shouldn't of been fired maybe a warning.

[Falkirion]

The issue being the punch on, punch off system which that particular workplace uses? I'm unfamiliar with the system, don't have it where I work.

I don't see anything wrong with working through lunch. If the project needed to be done ASAP, wouldn't working through lunch be a good thing? Showing initiative etc?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Falkirion

She's done nothing wrong. If she hadn't worked through lunch would they have paid her the overtime she needed because she had to work late to finish the project?

Depends on the company and the state. We have this issue at my company. Even though I work in North Virginia, my corporation headquarters is in CA. This means that we are constantly trying to figure out what laws pertain.

Our non-exempt employees are required by law to take 30 minute lunch. This can not be waived nor can they work through lunch. We were instructed not to ask any of our non-exempt employees any questions during their lunch break.

Many of the non-exempt employees were unhappy when this ruling came down. Many non-exempt employees worked through their lunch break and then took off 30 minutes early. But it is the law and whether we agree or disagree, we are obligated to follow this law.

[vienna]

I don't see anything wrong with working through lunch. If the project needed to be done ASAP, wouldn't working through lunch be a good thing? Showing initiative etc?

One would think so, but here in the U.S. workplaces, sometimes the obvious is the most overlooked...

When I posted this topic originally, I was curious as to how the response would be given the international demographic of these forums. In the U.S., much stock is put in following orders and policies and the maintaining of corporate structure (I recall a magazine article in the 1980s describing how moving up the corporate ladder involved keeping one's nose firmly in the posterior 'cheeks' of the person on the ladder rung above you). There are places where infractions are taken as virtually personal affronts, regardless of well-intentioned motives. I, personally, have had situations over the last 40+ years of employment where I have had to deal with 'superiors' who cared more their orders were followed than any benefit gained by a bit of 'stretching' of the rules. Fortunately, I have never really had a seriously adverse result from my 'waywardness" but, I have come close quite often...

Accesing work computers when you have declared you are not at work?

I've heard this one before (once or twice towards me) and I would agree if the access was for personal use, but she was doing company work on the company computer; it is not indicated in the article, but the question is begged: would she have been fired if she had't completed her project on time and was she actually afforded sufficient time to complete the projct in the first place?...

The article states at the time of her dismissal, she had marked her 10th anniversary at the company a month earlier. If there was no other reason to dismiss her, and the article does not cite one given by the employer in the court proceedings, it seems a frightful waste of a proven, apparently well-regarded employee merely to enforce a fairly arbitrary rule. The company might be better served to reconsider the tenure of the middle-manager who made the decision and cost the company so much time, money, and bad public realtions...

[Agiel7]

Worked as a checker at a grocery store for a year to help me through college. At one point they told us to take an extra 15 minutes on our lunch breaks, the reasoning being that they're fined $100 if our time-cards (we used an electronic card reader rather than old-timey punch cards) said we came back even so much as a second early. Eventually, they told us to take a an extra 15 minutes on top of that.

never read the whole article so maybe she has.

'nuff said.

obviously a good worker shouldn't of been fired maybe a warning.

ooops you identified the problem with your coments already, try following through on them.
Maybe then you would have noticed that she never contested the firing at all, it was only about the reciept of welfare/social security.

@Falkiron

I don't see anything wrong with working through lunch.

Depends on the set up and depends on if you can be procesuted for violating labour laws or sued by the employee for unpaid overtime.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Maybe then you would have noticed that she never contested the firing at all

Okay and what that really tells? Do it tell that she was wrong? No. Just that she opted not to take that path for reason which I don't know. Maybe she saw that as not worth of effort and time? What she would have gained with that anyway?

Okay and what that really tells?

It tells that it wasn't about the actual firing.
It tells that they could have fired her for any reason or no reason at all and it would have been fine to sack her as long as it wasn't breaking discrimination laws.

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

'nuff said.

ooops you identified the problem with your comments already, try following through on them.
Maybe then you would have noticed that she never contested the firing at all, it was only about the reciept of welfare/social security.

You forgot to add 'Your Welcome'

Your welcome.

You forgot to add 'Your Welcome'

You are certainly most welcome , it is always welcome when someone makes a comment on something without reading any more than the title, its even more welcome when they comment again but say they don't know anything about it ....and then choose to comment even further after that.
Pure comedy is always welcome.