Should these workers have been fired?

[Colleen27]

I'm honestly surprised at the first business owner in the story. Around here, bricklayers aren't easy to find. It would take more than a one-day sickout to convince most of the small contractors I know to fire even 2 or 3, much less 30, because of the hardship involved in replacing them.

The second group I have no sympathy for. Call in. Even public employees, when using "sick outs" to get around legal prohibitions on striking, do that. No call/no show just isn't the right way to go about it.

But generally speaking, I have no problem with a firing for a no-call/no-show. If they called in and were fired anyway, I think that is needlessly harsh. The reason for the absence shouldn't be the deciding factor on firing someone who is otherwise a reliable employee without an absentee problem.

Why do people not recognize the issue not about immigrants but about illegal aliens?

It is a difficult line to draw because so many families encompass both legal statuses (and often, American citizens as well in the younger generation), and recent events have even legal temporary and permanent non-citizen residents feeling threatened.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

It is pretty basic. The rule is, if you don't call, you are fired. They didn't call, they got fired. (Not rocket science.)

 

[dish rag]

Of course.

 

[Wendy31]

I would agree that the employer was within his rights to fire the employees, depending on what the work place policies are.

However...

Agree with others on here that say they made a decision to no-show and owner made a decision to terminate them. Both parties' actions were within the law.

I will say that going forward, the business owner should be extra careful to dot his "i's" and cross his "t's" with regard to how he runs his business as there will most definitely be many eyes upon him in the future.

I also agree w/ this.

If there has been another instance prior to this one where an employee has not shown up for work & was NOT fired, I can imagine that the employer could possibly find himself in a tricky situation now.

Or, moving forward, he's made it where if he has another employee that doesn't show up for work for whatever reason, he'll have to fire the person.

And that may be his strict policy already, & he may have previously fired other employees for not showing up to work.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

It doesn't matter what his political affiliation, he is a business owner and can set whatever rules he wants for his business. My BIL is not a registered republican but he is a small business owner. He likely would have done the same thing. He relies on his employees to be there to work because he has deadlines, and contracts. When his employees don't show up he loses money, and in the end that hurts him and his employees. It has nothing to do with what side of the aisle you are on when it comes to being able to pay your bills.

Thank you for saving me the trouble of saying that, although there are two people cited in the story, we're talking there were thousands of business owners affected that day, and their political affiliations are really irrelevant, IMO. I'm sure many owners were sympathetic to their cause, but when little consideration was given to their bottom line, it stung.

 

[BigAlsGal]

The employee/employer relationship is an agreement. An employer says "I will hire you to do work for me. In exchange I will give you money". The employee says "I will do the work you need done in exchange for money."

When the employee decided to say "See how hard it is to run your business without me?" The employer decided to say "See how hard it is to feed your family without me?"

See how that works? It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

[DizBelle]

I'm honestly surprised at the first business owner in the story. Around here, bricklayers aren't easy to find. It would take more than a one-day sickout to convince most of the small contractors I know to fire even 2 or 3, much less 30, because of the hardship involved in replacing them.

The second group I have no sympathy for. Call in. Even public employees, when using "sick outs" to get around legal prohibitions on striking, do that. No call/no show just isn't the right way to go about it.

But generally speaking, I have no problem with a firing for a no-call/no-show. If they called in and were fired anyway, I think that is needlessly harsh. The reason for the absence shouldn't be the deciding factor on firing someone who is otherwise a reliable employee without an absentee problem.



It is a difficult line to draw because so many families encompass both legal statuses (and often, American citizens as well in the younger generation), and recent events have even legal temporary and permanent non-citizen residents feeling threatened.

Feeling threatened and actually being threatened are two very different things.

 

[Wendy31]

Thank you for saving me the trouble of saying that, although there are two people cited in the story, we're talking there were thousands of business owners affected that day, and their political affiliations are really irrelevant, IMO. I'm sure many owners were sympathetic to their cause, but when little consideration was given to their bottom line, it stung.

And, in fact, the following quotes from Serowski in the article stuck out at me:

“They were warned, ‘if you do this you’re hurting the company, and if you go against the team you’re not a member of the team.'”

But Serowski said it was a slap in the face to people like him who have long supported immigrant labor. He’s known many of his employees for nearly two decades, ensuring they were paid when he did not have work for them.

“I’ve gone above and beyond for these people,” he said, seemingly distraught. “No one is going to dictate how my company is run.”

Also, completely off-topic, but this quote made me giggle:

"...we have rules at I Don’t Care Bar and Grill.”

 

[North of Mouse]

Lots of businesses I know have deadlines and have put their word/reputations on the line in full filling certain jobs. Not showing up to do job promised can have a domino effect on other jobs following. We have been on the receiving end of 'promised' jobs not done. Wasn't happy!

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I think one thing you have to consider is that this protest was in effect a disorganized strike. It was meant to harm the employer in order to "teach them a lesson".

This isn't the same as wanting a day off for the women's march, Roe v Wade, or some other cause unrelated to their job. This was a giant middle finger directed at their employer. That's not going to go over so well.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

No call / no show is a no-brainer --> termination.

As far as the reason for the absence factoring in, to me, this is also simple. Either you have the paid time off to take, or you don't. If you don't, it wouldn't matter to me if you're at a protest or sitting home watching TV. If you have the time off to take, you give notice and are granted that day off, enjoy your protest or your TV! If not, it's appropriate to have to deal with the consequences.

 

[DopeyDame]

Why do people not recognize the issue not about immigrants but about illegal aliens?

Deleted because it was totally political.

 

[Hikergirl]

Because it's not.

LOL, your entire post is already overtly political.

 

[Magpie]

Feeling threatened and actually being threatened are two very different things.

Hm... let's see if this is allowed (because I really do want to respond to this statement, in some fashion).

There HAVE been threats.

There has not yet been action.

Certain people are justified in feeling "threatened" because they literally have been threatened. However, with luck and hard work, we can all hope nothing comes of the various threats that have been made.

 

[DopeyDame]

LOL, your entire post is already overtly political.

Yup, you're right. I've deleted it. I just got pretty enraged. Venting helped.

 

[Magpie]

LOL, your entire post is already overtly political.

It's so hard not to be political these days!

 

[AustinMommyofThree]

Can and should are very different questions with different answers in my book. The business owner is allowed to fire his or her employees, but the thing about karma is, well, we all know. Brick layers and line cooks will have new jobs in a matter of days so I doubt it matters to them, and if the jobs aren't plentiful where they live

Let's hope these two stalwart employers are only employing legal residents and are paying everybody above the table (and the guy saying he does so does not count), because those immigration violations can add up quickly and bankrupt a company pretty quickly.

 

[bellebud]

Can and should are very different questions with different answers in my book. The business owner is allowed to fire his or her employees, but the thing about karma is, well, we all know. Brick layers and line cooks will have new jobs in a matter of days so I doubt it matters to them, and if the jobs aren't plentiful where they live

Let's hope these two stalwart employers are only employing legal residents and are paying everybody above the table (and the guy saying he does so does not count), because those immigration violations can add up quickly and bankrupt a company pretty quickly.

Why does karma not count against the employees who let their boss down and the business they work for suffer? If the business suffers because they don't seem reliable to their customers, that affects how many employees the boss can hire, and how well he can treat them. It sounds like you hope the business owner gets in trouble.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Can and should are very different questions with different answers in my book.

Agree that they are different questions. In my book, they have the same answer.

 

[DopeyDame]

Can and should are very different questions with different answers in my book. The business owner is allowed to fire his or her employees, but the thing about karma is, well, we all know. Brick layers and line cooks will have new jobs in a matter of days so I doubt it matters to them, and if the jobs aren't plentiful where they live

Let's hope these two stalwart employers are only employing legal residents and are paying everybody above the table (and the guy saying he does so does not count), because those immigration violations can add up quickly and bankrupt a company pretty quickly.

Yup. I also wouldn't be surprised to see a backlash against the businesses because they chose to fire the employees. The owners *can* fire them. And people *can* chose to eat elsewhere or hire a different contractor.

That said, I think it was pretty crappy of the cooks to not give the owner a heads-up so that he could have let everyone else know and either gotten some replacements for the day or closed the restaurant. It was also pretty naive of the owner not to pro-actively ask his employees about it, as it's been pretty big news.