<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d9924031\x26blogName\x3dApathy+Curve\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://apathycurve.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://apathycurve.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-8459845989649682690', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Cutting off your nose...

Stop! Stop the ride. I want off...

A receptionist that was fired because she continued to work during her lunch break was finally awarded her unemployment benefits.

The row started when Sharon Smiley, 48, punched out for lunch in January 2010 but then remained at her desk to finish up an extra assignment that she had been given. On that particular Thursday, Ms Smiley didn't want anything to eat, so she stayed at her desk and worked. Ms Smiley had worked at the real estate firm for 10 years at that point and was very familiar with the policy of taking a mandatory 30 minute break for lunch.

'I thought, "Well, I'm not hungry; I'll just do this work … so when I get back from lunch, I can do my original work that I'm supposed to be doing,"' she said.

A manager approached her and told her to take her break. When she remained at her desk, the manager got human resources involved, who argued that she was violating Illinois Labor Laws that require employers to give their workers a break.

Legally, the company had a right to be concerned about Ms Smiley's over-eager behavior: the law says that employers are liable if they knowingly allow their employees to work during lunch.

The company then fired her on the grounds that her refusal to go to lunch - the first time she'd ever done so - qualified as insubordination and considered her behavior misconduct.

On those grounds, they were able to deny payment of her unemployment benefits.


How does this happen, you ask? Who is at fault for creating such an incredibly contorted and ridiculous chain of events? Is it the employee? Obviously not. The employer? No, not them either. The state, perhaps, for making over-zealous laws? Nope.

I'll tell you who created this illogical -- nay, idiotic -- situation: lawyers. Specifically, trial lawyers. And do you know who is the single largest employer of trial lawyers in the United States? The Federal government. Elected or appointed, the majority of so-called "beltway insiders" are current or former lawyers.

And now you are beginning to understand the truly terrifying depth of our current peril...

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home