Company fires 18 employees after they participated in 'A Day Without Immigrants'

[Elba]

It all goes back to the start, and you can blame old school Europeans for that

Nah, you can't blame us for paranoia, self destructiveness and short sightedness.

Taxes are awesome. They help guarantee the well being of my fellow citizens and protect public order.

Having so many cureably yet still sick, bankrupt, indebted, homeless, criminal, uneducated (all symptoms of a non existing social state) people around harms you too.

[Elegiac]

ALP protecting workers. Thanks for the laugh mate.

Theyre there to line the pockets of the CMFEU and the UFU.

And yet in Labor's absence the government is doing everything they can to attack workers' rights and the programs that made Australia what it is. Go figure.

[melodramocracy]

So he fires 18 of them, and now has lost not only those 144 man hours, but now has to find / train replacements.

[Deleted]

Not showing up to work without first asking for said day off is quite a legitimate reason to fire someone so fuck them, they don't deserve their jobs back nor should they have any right to sue their employers for their own actions that caused them to be fired

Only get fired because of that in 3rd world countries and yes the USA is one of them when it comes to employee rights.

In the EU firing someone because he doesn't show up and has a contract is virtually impossible.

[ControlWarrior]

So he fires 18 of them, and now has lost not only those 144 man hours, but now has to find / train replacements.

It's more about enforcing discipline from the company's perspective. They want to ensure there isn't a next time.

[Elegiac]

It's more about enforcing disciple from the company's perspective. That want to ensure there isn't a next time.

Here's hoping there isn't because said company goes bankrupt.

[Armourboy]

So he fires 18 of them, and now has lost not only those 144 man hours, but now has to find / train replacements.

Yup. It's his business though, if he wants to do that he has the legal right to do so.

[ControlWarrior]

Here's hoping there isn't because said company goes bankrupt.

A company that runs it's business like you want, WOULD go bankrupt.

[Elegiac]

Yup. It's his business though, if he wants to do that he has the legal right to do so.

He shouldn't. Terminating an employee without notice should be thoroughly illegal in most circumstances.

[Armourboy]

Here's hoping there isn't because said company goes bankrupt.

Living it the area, I seriously doubt that happens.

[ControlWarrior]

He shouldn't. Terminating an employee without notice should be thoroughly illegal in most circumstances.

Are you seriously trolling right now?

[Milchshake]

It's the reason I think there is probably more to it than what we know. Don't get me wrong, principal is still a huge deal down here in the South. Doing things a certain way will still get you a very long way down here, but even down here companies don't just fire 18 people because of principal. It's the reason I wonder if these same employees hadn't been keeping things stirred up, or hadn't been taking other days to protest and the owner just finally said the heck with it.

I mean it could end up being just the principal of the thing, I said no, you didn't anyways, so now your fired. I have a hard time believing it is that simple though.

From my own experience as a project managers in various Southern States, there's basically still a Warped Plantation Mentality down there.
Somehow they all see the "owners" as being virtuous and hardworking, simply because they're owners. They never think about how the owners might have gotten to that point, like maybe screwing over their workers.
Instead they're taught to blame poor people for making things worse. Especially to blame poor minorities. They never forgave the unions for trying to unionize minority workers alongside white workers.
I mean the first few hundred years of Southern Culture was built upon the premise of cheap labor. One can only imagine it will take an equally long time to break away from that mentality. Unless the ghost of Tecumseh Sherman comes around to burn it all down.

[Elegiac]

A company that runs it's business like you want, WOULD go bankrupt.

Companies that run themselves in such a way as to be able to weather events of this sort won't survive, right. You'll excuse my calling bullshit, living as I do in an area where sudden inclement weather can put a halt to even the most 'time sensitive' projects.

Even from a managerial perspective, this was a bullshit move. Rather than try to cut a deal with the employees saying 'alright, you can take the day off as PTO or sick leave which you can pull from subsequent accrual' the immediate response is 'comply or get fired'.

[Armourboy]

He shouldn't. Terminating an employee without notice should be thoroughly illegal in most circumstances.

They had notice. He told them the day before if they didn't come to work on Thursday they wouldn't have a job when they got back. They chose not to go to work, he then did exactly what he told them he was going to do. They had a full days notice on the circumstances, and they had the freedom to make that choice. That doesn't mean there wasn't consequences to those choices though.

[RuneDK]

Only get fired because of that in 3rd world countries and yes the USA is one of them when it comes to employee rights.

In the EU firing someone because he doesn't show up and has a contract is virtually impossible.

These workers are not contracted...

[Elegiac]

Are you seriously trolling right now?

Not in the slightest.

In a society where employment is a requirement for not merely welfare but actually being able to live, it is unreasonable and unethical for employers to be able to terminate people on a whim and leave them without any source of income.

- - - Updated - - -

They had notice. He told them the day before if they didn't come to work on Thursday they wouldn't have a job when they got back. They chose not to go to work, he then did exactly what he told them he was going to do. They had a full days notice on the circumstances, and they had the freedom to make that choice. That doesn't mean there wasn't consequences to those choices though.

'Notice' in this case meaning 'sufficient time to acquire alternative employment'.

I'm aware that the only workers' rights which matter in the US are that of Rust Belt whites, but try to have some perspective.

[the game]

According to what you posted, they were not warned.

Did you even read the whole article?

"Bradley Coatings, Incorporated (BCI) is a family-owned, Nashville-based business that provides commercial painting services to its clients on a very demanding schedule. Established in 1986, BCI has always celebrated diversity and supported the immigrant community. This past Wednesday night, certain employees of BCI informed their leadership that they would not be at work the following day. Because of the time-sensitive nature of the jobs these employees were assigned to, all employees were told that they would need to show up for work or they would be terminated. On Thursday, the majority of BCI’s employees fulfilled their obligations to our clients, but eighteen employees did not. Regretfully, and consistent with its prior communication to all its employees, BCI had no choice but to terminate these individuals.

[Fencers]

Hope they sue the employers. What jerks

In the US, as long as separation from employment is not illegal a company can terminate any employee for almost any reason they wish.

[Tonkaden]

He shouldn't. Terminating an employee without notice should be thoroughly illegal in most circumstances.

A tad remedial aren't ya? He gave them fucking notice. He told them show up tomorrow or be terminated. Sounds like fair warning to me.

[TITAN308]

Not in the slightest.

In a society where employment is a requirement for not merely welfare but actually being able to live, it is unreasonable and unethical for employers to be able to terminate people on a whim and leave them without any source of income.

"Employees can have whatever ethics they want, they are not responsible. Only employers should have to follow ethical decisions."