Woman Fired for Working During Lunch ' Illinois Labor Laws '

This is a gross under exaggeration imo. She didn't just work at desk through lunch (causing the company to be in violation of labor laws and potentially be liable for pay and create a work atmosphere that could get them in further trouble) she ignored explicit instructions from her direct supervisor and from her company's HR department.

I think most people who have worked for someone before would say they would never refuse an order from their supervisor or company officials that didn't violate the law, put them in a compromising position, etc.

The position she has taken, by refusing and by her subsequent comments, imply that she owns her workstation, not her company. If they needed her to get up because they needed to exterminate, could she refuse without penalty?

 

I'm guessing there's more at play here because it is bizarre to fire for this reason after ten yrs of service. Just as crazy to presume they needed to grasp at this in order to fire in an 'at will' state.

As an aside, I don't know why you'd ever fire for cause in at 'at will' state unless it was overly blatant. Seems if you want the guy out the door it would be so much easier to let him collect unemployment rather then challenge the firing.

 

Yeah, it's strange. There's probably more to this than I've read, possibly a personality clash between current management and the employee, and not terribly good management, as seen by how this was handled. You're right. They should have simply laid her off and paid the unemployment, if they considered her such a problem. It would have been cheaper for them to do it that way. Sounds like they both made a series of bad decisions.

 

Good, ****ing w**** trying to make the rest of us look bad.

 

HR never ceases to amaze me with their lack or intelligence, ability to reason and/or inefficiencies

 

There has to be more to it. What employee in good standing after 10 years is refusing her supervisor's instructions and then refusing to comply with a directive from Human Resources? Me thinks maybe "good standing" is bogus.

 

Yes - I own a coffee shop. Managing people is one of my main responsibilities. I can't imagine telling an employee that they couldn't sit at their desk through lunch, and I would expect that if I did, they'd be bewildered or think I wasn't serious.

I think this is crazy. People use their computers at the office all the time before and after work. If an employee gets to work 5 minutes early, can they not go to their desk yet? I think the company had bizarre standards and dumb rules. As she pointed out at the end, she's in a similar position now and they don't care at all. And I'd venture to guess that most receptionists would have no problem in the same situation. I think as a manager, the idea is to view a person as a human rather than a machine. Instead of looking at the book and saying "this is what I'm supposed to do", I would think "this person has worked for us for 10 years. She doesn't want to take lunch today - big deal."

In Texas, I believe it would be the opposite. You only collect unemployment if you're fired for cause. If you're just let go for no good reason, I don't believe you get unemployment.

If the company didn't want her, I have no issues with them firing her - they have a right to hire and fire who they want. I just think if *this* is the issue that caused her to be fired, the employer was stupid. If she was a bad employee, they should already have let her go. If she wasn't, then this shouldn't be a reason to lose an employee. I think the whole situation is dumb: dumb company rules, dumb managers that apparently couldn't find a solution short of firing the employee, and dumb employee to violate the rules in a company like that.