Furious - need some clarity

[Sanchez]

I'm not jumping to conclusions! Are you telling me that HR doesn't have a policy in place in most work environments (especially a large hospital)? They have a policy. They need to follow it. It really is that simple. Facilitating a meeting between the two parties when they don't even know about the confrontation is likely not in the handbook. Follow the policy as written and there wouldn't be any need for drama.

And what policy is that? Do you know? Perhaps they are following policy. The OP does not seem to know. I do not know. You do not know and yet are jumping to conclusions.

 

[LisaR]

And what policy is that? Do you know? Perhaps they are following policy. The OP does not seem to know. I do not know. You do not know and yet are jumping to conclusions.

No, you are right, I do not know what the policy states. It is up to the OP'er to find out BEFORE going into that meeting. I would be shocked to find out that the policy reads, "When one employee damages another employees property and covers it up, HR will sit both parties down and try to come to an agreement." The OP'er didn't do anything wrong. There is nothing for her to work out. She followed the proper channels: insurance claim, police report, HR. It is up to HR to decide what they want to do with the doctor. If they are willing to weigh the OP'er opinion (which I do not agree with) they should do so in private, not when the doctor is present!

 

[Wishing on a star]

Sanchez, suffice it to say that some folks here might be a bit more in the know than others about policy and law regarding privacy, employment, etc... Especially as there are Federal laws and guidelines involved with big-time employers and anything in the medical field.

Also to mention, I have not spoken about specific policy.
But, about what is APPROPRIATE.

 

[denisenh]

Exactly...
While the OP sounds hormonal and 'dramatic'...
The guilty party here is creating every single bit of the drama.

I have NOT created any drama (as the one poster so clearly accuses).
I have, from the very beginning of this thread, advised the OP to steer clear. As have many others.

And, to those who think that advising the OP to watch her back is creating drama, over-reacting, etc....
Women lose their jobs because of situations like this. All the time.
Situations involving somebody with higher rank, or better consideration with the powers that be. Woman, who, like the OP, truly do need the paycheck to feed their family... the insurance, because they are pregnant or have other medical concerns, etc...

To those who are not seeing the possibility that the OP is in a precarious situation here and needs to proceed carefully, with no personal interaction with the guilty party except for what is necessary. I truly believe that there is a lot here that you are not really seeing.

exactly! hard working women and men lose there jobs over situations like this. Those who have experienced it or have seen it happen to others may appear to be overly dramatic to those who haven't, but really, it is out of "earned wisdom sharing" ...not the lack of anything else to do in our own lives but cause drama on an internet discussion board.
maybe OP's situation will be different but there is nothing wrong with keeping in mind the various ways this could play out and how she can "better her own game" and protect herself.

 

[Wishing on a star]

there is nothing for her to work out. She followed the proper channels: Insurance claim, police report, hr. If they are willing to weigh the op'er opinion (which i do not agree with) they should do so in private, not when the doctor is present!

amen!!!!

 

[Lorelei Lee]

I don't doubt that there are exceptions to the rule. However, the way to work it out is between HR and the OP'er and then HR and the doctor. It isn't up to the OP'er to sit through a meeting and discuss how the situation will be handled. Follow the policy....or make an exception, if they so choose, and move on.

One of the things I do as an attorney is attend mediation sessions where both sides try to settle a suit before trial. The best way to do that is to have both parties to the dispute present at the mediation. Frequently the defendants will sit in one room with their lawyers and the plaintiffs will sit in another room, and the mediator will go back and forth between the rooms. the parties don't necessarily interact with each other, but both are available at the same time and place to interact with the mediator.

do you think perhaps HR might have a similar strategy for "employee disputes" ??????

 

[FireDancer]

I don't doubt that there are exceptions to the rule. However, the way to work it out is between HR and the OP'er and then HR and the doctor. It isn't up to the OP'er to sit through a meeting and discuss how the situation will be handled. Follow the policy....or make an exception, if they so choose, and move on.

HR very well might have made the decision. They might have decided that they are not willing to lose good doctor (if that is the case of course) over this. If that is the case they need to make sure there is no tension in the work place and work it out if there is. The best way to handle that is to sit everyone down and have a discussion.

Until the meeting no one really knows but there is no reason to assume anything. Just go in ready with the facts and ready to address anything brought up in a rational, professional manner.

 

[LisaR]

One of the things I do as an attorney is attend mediation sessions where both sides try to settle a suit before trial. The best way to do that is to have both parties to the dispute present at the mediation. Frequently the defendants will sit in one room with their lawyers and the plaintiffs will sit in another room, and the mediator will go back and forth between the rooms. the parties don't necessarily interact with each other, but both are available at the same time and place to interact with the mediator.

do you think perhaps HR might have a similar strategy for "employee disputes" ??????

This isn't an employee dispute!!!!! One employee severely damaged another employees car. Based on the video, it is clear what she did and that she did not report it. What exactly is the OP'er disputing??

 

[LisaR]

HR very well might have made the decision. They might have decided that they are not willing to lose good doctor (if that is the case of course) over this. If that is the case they need to make sure there is no tension in the work place and work it out if there is. The best way to handle that is to sit everyone down and have a discussion.

I disagree with this. The best way to handle that is to sit the OP'er down without the doctor in the room and explain what they have decided. If they feel there may be tension, they can set up another meeting to work things out.

Until the meeting no one really knows but there is no reason to assume anything. Just go in ready with the facts and ready to address anything brought up in a rational, professional manner.

I agree. We have no way of knowing what they want. But as we all know, this is a message board and we are simply discussing possible scenarios. Maybe they are promoting the OP'er or giving her a years paid maternity leave for her inconvenience! Who knows?

 

[Skywalker]

I don't get all this at all. If another employee hit my car in the lot I would be of course ticked off, and think they were a bit of a jerk for only checking their own damage and driving off, but all the tears and hand wringing and talk of harassment and lawyers and getting her fired.. WTH?

Report to insurance, report to police, done and done. It was a car accident / fender bender, not a freaking vehicular homicide or something.

 

[Sanchez]

I disagree with this. The best way to handle that is to sit the OP'er down without the doctor in the room and explain what they have decided. If they feel there may be tension, they can set up another meeting to work things out.



I agree. We have no way of knowing what they want. But as we all know, this is a message board and we are simply discussing possible scenarios. Maybe they are promoting the OP'er or giving her a years paid maternity leave for her inconvenience! Who knows?

The money quote. As I said prior, most of this hand wringing is pure speculation and drama. The OP is better off by not listening to what is said here.

 

[Jennasis]

Hoping the OP is getting through this lunch meeting okay.

 

[OceanAnnie]

exactly! hard working women and men lose there jobs over situations like this. Those who have experienced it or have seen it happen to others may appear to be overly dramatic to those who haven't, but really, it is out of "earned wisdom sharing" ...not the lack of anything else to do in our own lives but cause drama on an internet discussion board.
maybe OP's situation will be different but there is nothing wrong with keeping in mind the various ways this could play out and how she can "better her own game" and protect herself.

That's right. It is a good thing to be prepared especially when there is drama already in this situation. It's not a bad thing to be prepared for more.

HR stated the policy. It isn't unknown:

I feel I should mention that when this happened on Monday, I was told by HR that if it was an employee then it would be punishable by "termination" and was a "code of conduct" violation. We assumed it was an employee since it happened in the employee parking lot. They did not mention to me that there were security cameras which I had not paid much attention to before. Now they are pretty obvious (doh) I 100% feel that if I did this to HER car I'd have been canned immediately, I think she is getting handled with kid gloves because of her title. When this happened on Monday I was not furious, I was crying. It was not until I saw the video and how callous she was that I got so angry.

HR doesn't appear to be following policy and if that is the case there would be ramifications for HR if it doesn't get straight (ie., getting OP on same page because they aren't doing what they told her they would do). Therefore, this meeting. It isn't about the vehicle.

If HR is squirming over it, it could be a problem for the OP. People have lost jobs over this kind of thing. CYA. Of course there would be some other creative reason given. It happens all the time.

So take it for what it's worth. Some people say "drama", I say reality. It happens. Seems like some people are applying a rational model to an irrational situation. Best not to ignore what has transpired. IMO.

 

[Disney Springs]

OP, I would have done everything you are doing in this situation. The doctor made two mistakes; one, she didn't even leave a note on the two cars affected by this accident. And two, she did NOT report it to HR or police. Had the surveillance cameras never identified her, she would have gotten off scott free.

The doctor made choices, and now she has to deal with the consequences. If that means she loses her job, then maybe next time she'll learn to report an accident the next time it happens.

But whatever results from this, should not be a burden placed on the OP. The OP should NOT feel guilty about what happens to the doctor.....whether she loses her job, or whatever. OP has the right to follow through for rectifying the accident and getting justice regardless of what that entails.

OP, hope you keep us updated, and so sorry you have to go through this. Working in a hostile work environment absolutely sucks....been there, but for a different reason than yours.

 

[Robbi]

The double standard at the OP's workplace stinks.
OP< hope your meeting goes well. I'm with your husband, seek legal counsel. In fact, I wish you had someone with you for your meeting today.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

The money quote. As I said prior, most of this hand wringing is pure speculation and drama. The OP is better off by not listening to what is said here.

Again, I am in agreement with you.

 

[CaliBear]

A lot of people gave her good advice- told her to go to work, stop contacting HR, let insurance handle it. She asked for advice and people were trying to help.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

This retaliatory firing is really very hypothetical at this juncture.

Seems to me HR wanted to talk with the OP before OP reported the matter to her insurer, to see if something could be worked out "in house". OP filed an insurance claim and made a police report, she no longer has control over whether the matter gets reported. what else can HR do at this point to protect the doctor?

I'd be more concerned for OP if she didn't go to the meeting, it looks like she's being uncooperative.

But why does she need to cooperate. Technically this has NOTHING to do with the company at all. It was an accident. OP didn't go to HR, Security did. I see this as harassment. The company should be staying out of it completely and letting the police deal with it. They had no right to ask her not to report it, nor do they have an right to expect her to sit down and have a pow wow with them and the doctor. If they're going to involve themselves then OP needs to protect herself.

 

[Social Worker Sue]

OP, I would have done everything you are doing in this situation. The doctor made two mistakes; one, she didn't even leave a note on the two cars affected by this accident. And two, she did NOT report it to HR or police. Had the surveillance cameras never identified her, she would have gotten off scott free.

I agree with everything except the word "mistake". The doctor made a conscientious effort to commit a Hit and Run. She is upset now because she got caught.

What kind of person drives away from an accident and doesn't report it? She got out, looked at the damage and drove away. She CHOSE to commit a crime by driving away and pretending it did not happen. She is not a trustworthy person.

 

[WDSearcher]

Exactly...
While the OP sounds hormonal and 'dramatic'...
The guilty party here is creating every single bit of the drama.

I have NOT created any drama (as the one poster so clearly accuses).
I have, from the very beginning of this thread, advised the OP to steer clear. As have many others.

And, to those who think that advising the OP to watch her back is creating drama, over-reacting, etc....
Women lose their jobs because of situations like this. All the time.
Situations involving somebody with higher rank, or better consideration with the powers that be. Woman, who, like the OP, truly do need the paycheck to feed their family... the insurance, because they are pregnant or have other medical concerns, etc...

To those who are not seeing the possibility that the OP is in a precarious situation here and needs to proceed carefully, with no personal interaction with the guilty party except for what is necessary. I truly believe that there is a lot here that you are not really seeing.

I think some people are seeing this for what it is -- something that happened to a total stranger that most of us know only from posts on an internet bulletin board. It's a situation none of us saw and that all of us only have one side of. None of us know where she works or what kind of HR department they have or how these things are normally handled in her state / county / city / hospital.

And really ... it was a car accident. Happens, unfortunately, every day. It's why people have insurance. And it happened at work, which is why there are HR departments. All of these conspiracy theories swirling around regarding what the mean doctor and the skeevy HR department are going to try to do to the poor helpless pregnant woman who is being forced to drive a compact car ... Come on people. First-world problems.

OP is a grown-up. But some of you are treating her like a child who has apparently been living under a rock all her life. You're leading her along with suggestion after suggestion and theory after theory and fear after fear. And, I'm sorry Wishing on a star, but I think you DID create drama here. Go back to post #164. You started your post with:

OMG....
I'll bet you have left for work, and this may not get to you.

Which seems to imply that the fact that she's already left for work and this may not get to her means that she won't know what to do without your (or anyone else's) advice.

I imagine OP knows that she "is in a precarious situation here and needs to proceed carefully". Again ... she's an adult. She came here looking for "clarity". Her only question was: "Am I just filled with hormones and are they clouding my judgement?" How'd we get from that relatively simple question to this?

I think that might be what people mean when they say "creating drama".