(01-02-2019 01:31 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote: (01-02-2019 12:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: (01-02-2019 08:04 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: (01-01-2019 11:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: Develops cancer.
https://www.cjr.org/local_news/reporter-...nclair.php
Shame...
From the article.....
George’s long-term disability benefits, which allowed her to take partially-paid time off for 90 days, were extended for another 90.
In other words, they DOUBLED the amount of benefits she was entitled to before the decision was made to release her.
Do you think that ALL businesses should just keep people on the payroll who aren't capable of working?
While I'm sure they feel sorry for her and her situation, SOMEONE has to DO THE JOB.
People forget about that part.
I didn't forget about that part. And I agree that technically Sinclair did double her cover her time away. But in spite of all that and those of you who think this is fine, it's not.
That is why I responded as I did. There are decisions made within these corporations that are less dramatic, have nothing to do with the ability, production capabilities, or competence of employees. They simply are terminated before benefits have to paid into retirement, before they hit the targeted age for insurance liability, and if they kick up about it their resume' is toast.
What happened to this woman simply should draw attention to a host of other issues that it's easy to dismiss until it happens to your friends, your family, or to you, and it has and will, unless you are my age and spent most of your life self employed.
The largess that permits the abuses stems from legislation. I was fortunate to live most of my life with employee files that recorded job excellence. In my last years I worked for a corporate structure that only wanted negative information in that file so that employees could be terminated at anytime with justification. We were specifically instructed not to put positive information in the file. I lived in an age when an employee had access to that file and when annual reviews covered the positive work habits, the areas of improvement, and discussed openly the accomplishments of the employees. In most companies those days are gone.
If employees left the company they gave notice and could count on the recommendation of their employer because it would be what hey had seen in their annual review. That's not how most HR operates now. If an employee caught the company, or a high ranking official in it, in an unethical action, or in criminal behavior, or in something embarrassing, they may very well find that their recommendation is not there when they are literally rejected everywhere they apply. I have known too many who have suffered these kinds of abuses. With HR files closed this personal sabotage can occur without redress. That's an abuse of power.
Yes the young lady at Sinclair could have paid for COBRA. Does anyone here stop to ask the question of what the whole purpose of insurance is? Rates are low for the young and healthy because the odds that they will get a serious disease like this are very low. Why is that not an acceptable risk for the Insurer within a large group policy? Sure the legal two step around this situation is to double the short term disability and then let the employee go. That's why long term disability insurance was invented. But if you terminate them you make all of that go away for the insurance company. And odds are most unemployed people can't afford COBRA, or any other alternative to their group policy, especially if there is a lapse and insurability is lost due to a pre-existing condition. The Devil here is in the details.
The issue here is not Sinclair so much as it what motivates Sinclair to do what they did. Late in life I worked for a short time for a corporation, a big one. Everything was tied into to corporate computer banks. They tracked everything.
My point is that finding another reason to terminate employees who were about to become a liability to the insurance structure was common practice, but always for some other more defensible reason. That excuse for economic triage then followed that employee when they applied elsewhere since nobody could say it was for medical reasons. The fact that the employee couldn't get access to what their previous employer said about them provided all the cover the corporations needed to sidestep the medical insurance liability, terminate the employee, and then essentially lie about their job performance as justification.
This kind of corporate world should not be permitted to exist. Sinclair in this case can not say that this woman was terminated because of health reasons. The best their HR person can do for this woman is to fail to discuss the conditions of her termination because health issues are off limits for sharing. To most companies failure to discuss the conditions for termination is a big red flag. So if this woman recovers, getting another job is going to be terribly difficult. If she had gotten hostile with the company over her termination that would have been part of the reason for termination and any negative information in her file then becomes crucial for building that excuse.
This is why I'm not partisan on this issue. It affects all of us, our children, and our grandchildren. It is not what a free society does. You don't concoct a reason for termination because you can't discuss health, need to protect your liability on your major medical group plan, and then let the person who suffering from an illness which is likely life threatening or life altering suffer the inability to land a job because of it, or have their reputation ruined because of complaining about their treatment. Transparency is needed in all HR issues, employees should be permitted access to their files and have redress for errors or untruths, exactly the same way you should have access to your credit file. The fact that we don't is an abuse of power. And that is not a conservative/ liberal, or Dem/Rep issue. That's a human rights issue, and a Civil Liberties issue in a free society.
I am rather appalled at how pervasive corporate group think is on this issue.
I'm coming from this as a member of a family who owned a business and now works for a family owned business.
I can't help but wonder if some of the outrage comes from the fact that Sinclair is a large, profitable corporation. I wonder if the outrage level would be the same if this were a Mom & Pop hardware store or manufacturing company. The company I work for isn't huge, it is profitable. While I doubt my boss would just let someone like this go, I could see his side if he decided that he didn't want to pay for someone not to work plus pay for someone to do their job.
Aside from the being of the school that believes a corporation's first and foremost responsibility is to the shareholders and fiscal responsibility to said shareholders, I don't consider it the duty of a corporation to go above and beyond what they consider to be their standard practice.
I'm also from the school that believes that employment (unless covered by a specific contract) is "at will", meaning my boss can and should be able to make decisions on my status as they see fit and If they decide my services are no longer required, they should be able to terminate me "at will", just as I can choose to leave my company "at will".
I know it's a cold, cruel world, but I also don't want to start down a slippery slope of telling employers who they can and can't fire and for what reasons. I don't want to require employers to keep employees, and pay them for not working if they choose not to.
I wouldn't consider it corporate group think, I consider it (for myself) to be more of a free market thought process.
Again you aren't grasping the parts that I object to. I don't think anyone expects double wages to be paid. Short term and long term disability serve a purpose for both the employer and employee.
I grew up in a family run business and was self employed for much of my work life. I ran the family business while my grandfather battled cancer. I understand the pressures on Mom & Pop and fought against the perks given to the corporations that have obliterated many of our family businesses.
I'm referring specifically to the transparency of personnel evaluations, the legal bind because of HIPAA and other legislation surrounding medically related issues that lead to future job recommendations that have to list as reason for termination "undisclosed" which is a red flag, and terminations based on negative only personnel records procedures which ignore gifts and graces and accomplishment of employees specifically when the firing is done to cover up misdeeds by superiors within the corporate framework, and the inability to check your employment record to pursue corrections, and address bias.
We've gone through layoffs with the family business. What do you do for your employees? We wrote letters of recommendation, explained to them as much as was possible that the layoffs were not due to performance, and usually made the extra step of calling other potential employers for their skill sets in an effort to place them. Severance was also given.
Corporate America is clearly laying off long time employees due to age, specifically to help their group rates. My complaint is not that they are laid off, but that negative reasons are given (frequently for people the corporation saw fit to employ for 20 years or more) simply to avoid a potential lawsuit. Any negative or complaint filed against them is filed and cited as reason for a termination. The effect of that is it makes it doubly hard for them to find other employment when termination is based on cause, rather than simply noted as a layoff, or honestly cited as a bottom line corporate maneuver.
On the lower end of the non salaried employees they now give them less than 40 work weeks so no benefits are needed. They roll these folks off after 90 days and hire more so they don't have to make an employment decision on them either.
I've helped some poor people who held your basic Walmart type jobs and served their stores faithfully for 20 years, and were laid off for no other reason than their wages based on seniority exceeded what the store wanted to pay. Instead of encouraging them to move on, they fired them for bogus causes which simply made it very difficult for these people to get another job when some of them were trying to support not only themselves but grandchildren.
It is a fundamentally flawed and evil system that gives a corporate blackball to otherwise loyal employees because they exceed the risk average for expense, or have stayed loyal so long they've exceeded what the industry is will to pay for their position. It seems to me that giving he option to plateau would be the better course of action.
This is why I'm speaking almost exclusively of corporate jobs. Mom and Pop don't do this to people they have known and worked with. A faceless officer at the Corporate HQ doesn't give a damn about the people, just the bottom line. What's more is that these companies get stipends for hiring certain specified people, like parolees.
The Sinclair situation happens all of the time. But the claims that they would keep her on the payroll and have to pay another to do her work to boot are spurious. Insurance covers that, if it is provided, and if the employee opted for it.
My fundamental point here is that transparency in all of these situations, including personnel files and evaluations need to be available for the employees record as well. Seminars and explanations of benefits need to be understood in advance of illnesses an accidents and HR needs to be the point for such.
Right now the employees records and rights are a muddied and abused as people's credit records were before the Credit Reform permitted access to, and challenges to, information assembled on you without your knowledge by people who made some whoppers of mistakes about people's credit worthiness.
Nobody should be permitted to make up a lie about a termination, circulate it to your prospective employers, keep you from having access to it, and enjoy the privacy to lie as they please without reproach or culpability.
The 50 year old African American Woman I tried to help had that done to her in spite of years of stellar service at a department store. When her file just claimed she was dismissed for cause without explanation or specifics it doomed that woman's future employment capabilities since all prospective employers contact former employers and she only had 2 the latest of which she had been with for over 20 years.
It's wrong. It violates her rights to fair hearing and assessment of her capabilities, and it is abusive and destructive to her as a person when the simple truth was they could replace a 12 dollar an hour employee with a minimum wage worker.
In the case of this Sinclair company I wonder if Long Term Disability was part of a standard benefits package or if it was optional. Most Short Term Disability is standard, or at least it once was. LTD is not always part of the package.
/
Sinclair Broadcasting made 2.7 billion last year. Fires a girl when she
![[Image: UgQlijI.gif?noredirect]](https://i.imgur.com/UgQlijI.gif?noredirect)
![[Image: chaka.jpg]](https://rlburns.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/chaka.jpg)
![[Image: 64~Season%201%20The%20Sleestak%20God%20-...20eyes.jpg]](http://www.patcoston.com/images/things/tv/Land%20of%20the%20Lost/64~Season%201%20The%20Sleestak%20God%20-%20the%20Sleestack%20are%20walking%20about%20in%20the%20sun%20light%20-%20Later%20it%20is%20established%20that%20the%20sun%20hurts%20their%20eyes.jpg)
