Comments
Follow Comments Sorted by time
guest_
· 2 years ago
· FIRST
I think there has to be a balance. Logically though yes, it would make sense to fire someone you “need” under similar circumstances. You needed them at the time you denied the request, had the request been for the next day or week etc. you may not have needed them at that time. Secondly, this applies to relationships outside business as well- if you rely on a person and need them for something but they aren’t reliable- the short term disruption of separating to try and find someone else who can fill that need and is reliable will likely be a better result long term than keeping the unreliable person who likely can and will let you down again when you need them. More over, to not separate or otherwise make a clear statement of boundaries can embolden that person or teach them it is ok and while you may balk they can continue to behave that way because you “need them” and thusly won’t or can’t be without them.
3
guest_
· 2 years ago
To the subject of balance- our relationship with work should be a balance in my eyes. If we take the stance that we don’t owe them anything and we have our own priorities that are more important… this is true for the company too then. We can’t get mad at a job for looking after it’s interests first if we take that same approach really. I prefer a system where the job treats us with respect and we do the same for the job but often jobs take advantage of people. We don’t really have the details here to say who is “in the right,” was this a request for time off due to a personal emergency? A once in a lifetime opportunity? Much needed “mental health” time; or was it something more frivolous? Could the time off have been rescheduled without issue and the employee simply didn’t want to? Was there a critical event at the office that everyone was working on? Could or did the person ask for the time off sufficiently in advance and the management should have had relief in place for foreseeabl…
2
guest_
· 2 years ago
…e issues? We just don’t know. I’m not going to take the side of the employee simply under the assumption companies are inherently bad, I’ve met plenty of bad people too lol. If there was a way to handle the situation diplomatically or with compromise I’d fault the party or parties that didn’t take that route. If there was some pressing issue of personal interest the employee absolutely felt they needed to see through that specific day, I feel the company should have done everything in their power to allow that if it is the rare exception. If they fired this employee for an offense like this there are good odds it either wasn’t a first offense or the employee wasn’t considered a very good employee. A hospital needs janitors but Surgeons tend to be more difficult to replace and their absence tends to be more immediately noticed with more immediately severe results. So “need” is a relative term.
2
deleted
· 2 years ago
For once, I agree
2
funkmasterrex
· 2 years ago
depends on the time and circumstances; like if someone family suddenly died, they should be given time off for a few... if they ask 2 weeks in advance cuz they are going to cabo, sure.. if they let you know they are going to cabo a day in advance, fire their ass.
5
metaanalysis
· 2 years ago
And... that's why I'm a self-employed sole-propietor. I've been in both positions and have seen jerks on either side. This way I always get to be the jerk, regardless of the situation.
1
metaanalysis
· 2 years ago
*proprietor
1