• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Are they morally wrong?

Where the employers actions morally wrong?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 62.2%
  • No

    Votes: 15 33.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 4.4%

  • Total voters
    45
It doesn't matter what the organization is, nor the reason. The employer has a right to let the employee go.

Certain things, though, the employer has no right to fire someone for. Jury duty, for example. If you are called up, your employer MUST let you keep your job, all benefits included. They cannot fire you.
 
Putting the word "morally" into the poll is a way of steering the poll in the direction the original poster would like to see it go, that is the direction she agrees with.

There is nothing moral about this issue.

Person works for company. Person takes off because they are ordered to by an entity with which they have a previous commitment. It doesn't matter what the organization is, nor the reason. The employer has a right to let the employee go.

The employee is lucky that were able to take off and come back to a job. If you are not at work you do not get paid. It's very simple, and there is no morality involved.

I put morally in the poll because of what the union's secretary said which was

The union's assistant secretary Shaun Hudson says while the nursing home has not acted illegally, their actions are morally wrong.

So I am simply asking in the poll if you agree with that statement or not.

Employers in Australia are not allowed ro dismiss empoyeres 'at will'. One certainly cannot be dismissed for volunteering during state emergency, for doing jury service, or from taking time off for commitment to the Army Reserve.

Employers aren't even allow to sack a woman simply for being pregnant. They have to keep her job open for her during her maternity leave.
 
When I evacuated for Hurricane Rita (a mandatory evacuation during which the city required us to close shop and leave the island), once I returned, my employer told me that I had to take annual leave for each day that I was gone.

It amounted to 2 weeks worth of leave, given that our executive director and board never bothered to utilize our phone tree and tell us when we could actually get back to the island or when we were going to be open. Calling the city and the utility companies for an estimate when we'd get power and running water back on was no help, either. So I wound up having to stay away out of fear for my own safety.

When they shrugged and told me it was my problem about having to burn up my vacation days, I decided it was time to leave that dump and get a new job. We wound up being given the days back months later out of the goodnesss of the board's own heart. But by then the damage was done. They hemmoraged employees after that. Talk about bad morale and bad PR. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

And when Hurricane Ike slammed the hell out that dump, I just sat back in my nice safe house in Austin and laughed. Karma's a bitch. :lol:
 
They don't have to pay her for her time off, but they shouldn't take away her vacation.

This.

In a national emergency if you're a volunteer rescue worker and you're trained to do this sort of thing, like a volunteer firefighter, search and rescue and so on and so forth, if you're called up you shouldn't be penalized vacation days but your job doesn't pay you for it.
 
They don't have to pay her for her time off, but they shouldn't take away her vacation.

This.

Uh, what?

That's exactly what they did. When they say "you have to take vacation time..." it implies "...or you won't get paid for those days."

So what you're suggesting IS what they did. She would always have the option to keep her vacation and just not get paid.

As long as they don't touch her allotted vacation days that's fair.
 
As long as they don't touch her allotted vacation days that's fair.

That's what the "immoral" quote was describing. Just trying to make it clear, because the people who agree with the union are quite clear, but the people who agree with the company aren't being quite as obvious.

The votes are there, but that side hasn't done as much explaining in the thread itself.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top