Haha, eff that guy and his dead grandma. I'm glad he got fired. And I would support the head honcho even if he wasn't a Bears advertiser!
/polishes knife collection
10/20/10:
Originally Posted by matsellah
Look at the TBS residents; professionals from all walks of life. We've got everything from loners, stoners and drug dealers to soccer moms, active duty military and senior executive vice presidents who can't spell their way out of a pepper bag. And we've all got something in common beyond The Bears; we love f***ing with each other.
Know your job, and your company. If you work for a company advertises w/a major company and you show up wearing a direct competitor of that company your in serious shit at minimum. If I worked for a company that worked or advertised w/the Spurs I sure as hell would not be sporting a Bulls jersey if I were in public view while at work.
and as a Company can have a 'dress code" and politely asked him to remove the tie or would be fired and he refused, not sure what grounds he would be on- His boss asked him to do something and he refused, that comes with consequences( and even told what would happen), and see nothing illegal about firing an emplyeee when he refused to do what was asked- doesn't matter if think its kinda ass-hat thing to do- its well within their rights
Great point, DB! It's not about the tie, per say, it's the FACT that he refused to follow his boss' request (despite being warned of the consequences for doing so). He may be trying to catch a case and claiming bias, but that's bullsh*t. Isn't Illinois a "will to work" state (Georgia is, along with many others)? If it is, an employer doesn't need a reason to let you go, ANYWAY.
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." Abraham Lincoln
I was wondering when someone would bring up "At Will" employment.
It is NOT always carte blance for the employer to do whatever he wants, regardless of what you think.
The biggest one would be the IMPLIED CONTRACT. This is what gets most people confused. There ARE exceptions in some states unless the state has enacted an "implied contract exception". Illinois has NOT enacted one (Georgia HAS), therefore implied contacts exist in almost every employment opportunity. If there is EMPLOYEE handbook (policy or otherwise) that is sufficient to imply a contract is in place. Please remove the idea of an ACTUAL contract from your mind. This is IMPLIED... and it's as legal as it comes. The only caveat... burden of proof is on the employEE. And that burden can be easily met with a copy of the handbook, employment application, HR documents, etc.
If the employee handbook discusses, AT ALL, that an employee will not be fired without JUST CAUSE - that is cause for a lawsuit UNLESS there is a dress code in place that prohibits specific items of apparel. If the dress code requires a TIE, but doesn't specify anything about the tie... well.... he's gonna win that lawsuit. Remember, the law is based on what can be proven or is in the books - NOT on common sense (such as being an ass and wearing articles of clothing you KNOW are gonna piss everyone off. Your selling cars, for gods sake, how do you gain the trust of a customer in Illinois wearing packer goods, you dip!).
Likewise, if the handbook discusses a procedure for firing someone... and he was fired outside of that procedure (YOU'RE FIRED!)... grounds for a lawsuit exist. Being told "Take it off, or your fired" is more than likely NOT the official company procedure if, and I emphasize IF, they have a written and practiced procedure.
.
┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe
"Possibly, but it's not to early to start loading ammo!" - Loki
Figures a packer fan would try to defend the boss.
Figures a Bears fan would misconstrue a discussion of the law with defense of an employer. Point out where I defended the boss, as opposed to discussing a small snag in the idea of true "at will" employment.
Contrary to that 1920's belief system you got there, BOSS is not same as LAW...
.
┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe
"Possibly, but it's not to early to start loading ammo!" - Loki
Figures a Bears fan would misconstrue a discussion of the law with defense of an employer. Point out where I defended the boss, as opposed to discussing a small snag in the idea of true "at will" employment.
Contrary to that 1920's belief system you got there, BOSS is not same as LAW...
If, said Article of clothing, Could cause economic harm to the company, either through customers leaving when seeing it in sales job- or causing a sever of the realationship with your major Customer the chicago bears who you advertisewith, by wearing a Packer tie, that would be sufficient evidence esp the day after a loss to the packers, to be "justified" in asking the employee to remove the tie.. and when the employee refuses the request of management, it then becomes grounds for dismissal. They did not fire for wearing the tie, and would ahve kept him at his job, if he had removed the article of clothing that potentially culd cause ecominic harm to the business- he refused, that is why no valid lawsuit
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Originally Posted by matsellah
Great point, DB! It's not about the tie, per say, it's the FACT that he refused to follow his boss' request (despite being warned of the consequences for doing so). He may be trying to catch a case and claiming bias, but that's bullsh*t. Isn't Illinois a "will to work" state (Georgia is, along with many others)? If it is, an employer doesn't need a reason to let you go, ANYWAY.
soulman High-fived for this post.
Riczaj01 disliked this post
Reply With Quote
