- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Pretty much anyone can be sued for anything. If you let that drive you or your business, you will never do anything.
DeHire
- Thread starter Rewire
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
I agree 100% and I never worry about a lawsuit. I do my job well and that makes me feel safe.
Rewire
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake of the Ozarks
The best offense is a great defense. We do things to limit exposure especially as we grow. The larger the business the greater the potential for exposure which increases the awareness. We work with an outside HR company that helps us develope our procedures so that we can limit our exposure.
Just fire the guy if he is no good.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
None of that stops someone for sueing you...it just makes it more difficult for them to win...it still costs you time and money to put up a defense.
What is "big"? A million dollars a year, 10 million, a billion?
fmtjfw
Senior Member
- Location
- Fairmont, WV, USA
Big is "big enough to cover the attorney's fees, maybe with a little left over for the plaintiff".
renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
We're a construction trade, for pete's sake.
That is, it ought to be clear to everyone that working for a contractor is NOT a lifetime committment. No, we're hired for a job - then we JOURNEY to the next job. That's why we're called 'journeymen.'
We've got the course of the job to monitor someone. Then it's time for even the best to move on. Our question isn't whether tolet someone go - but whether to ask them back for the next job.
I once had a guy who really wound up liking me. The job ended, as scheduled, right before Christmas. He felt bad letting me go. I assured him that was no problem- he had been clear at the start. That's our biz.
That is, it ought to be clear to everyone that working for a contractor is NOT a lifetime committment. No, we're hired for a job - then we JOURNEY to the next job. That's why we're called 'journeymen.'
We've got the course of the job to monitor someone. Then it's time for even the best to move on. Our question isn't whether tolet someone go - but whether to ask them back for the next job.
I once had a guy who really wound up liking me. The job ended, as scheduled, right before Christmas. He felt bad letting me go. I assured him that was no problem- he had been clear at the start. That's our biz.
Rewire
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake of the Ozarks
That is the point it makes it more difficult to win and when you make it more difficult you also reduce the likelyhood of it happening.
Rewire
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake of the Ozarks
if it were only that simple
renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
"Big" has specific meanings, and there's no sense in parlor-BS'ing about it.
Sometimes it's a matter of statute; other times it's the result of court decisions; and, sometimes, it's a 'guideline' laid down by whatever bureaucracy is involved.
Most of the rules go by the number of employees. 10,15, 25 ... these are all figures I've heard in different contexts.
Anyone can sue? Not quite correct. Perhaps it's more accurate to say "Some can sue harder than others." Get some government bureaucracy involved, with their unlimited resources, political agendas, and complete lack of accountability, and it's anyones' guess when the nightmare will ever end.
Today's headlines involve an employer and his quarrel with the bureacracies. (Rubashkin vs. USA). Personally, I suspect the guy is a skunk, but the story shows some insights into employment actions. One of the insights is that once you're 'on the radar,' all manner of investigations come out of nowhere. I'm pretty sure none of us got into the trade so we could spend all day arguing with clerks!
Whatever you do, document it. That's the first part. The second part is harder: then shut up. Limit your statements to date hired, date left, and whether you would re-hire. Naturally, you'll have to give a different set of answers to the Unemployment folks. Always, though, have a diary of the specifics, and your opinions / decisions at the time.
Ultimately .... if you were telling your version of events to the guy's mother, would she accept it? That's almost the yardstick you need. You can't have a guy on the payroll for 40+ years and suddenly decide 'he's just not working out.'
Sometimes it's a matter of statute; other times it's the result of court decisions; and, sometimes, it's a 'guideline' laid down by whatever bureaucracy is involved.
Most of the rules go by the number of employees. 10,15, 25 ... these are all figures I've heard in different contexts.
Anyone can sue? Not quite correct. Perhaps it's more accurate to say "Some can sue harder than others." Get some government bureaucracy involved, with their unlimited resources, political agendas, and complete lack of accountability, and it's anyones' guess when the nightmare will ever end.
Today's headlines involve an employer and his quarrel with the bureacracies. (Rubashkin vs. USA). Personally, I suspect the guy is a skunk, but the story shows some insights into employment actions. One of the insights is that once you're 'on the radar,' all manner of investigations come out of nowhere. I'm pretty sure none of us got into the trade so we could spend all day arguing with clerks!
Whatever you do, document it. That's the first part. The second part is harder: then shut up. Limit your statements to date hired, date left, and whether you would re-hire. Naturally, you'll have to give a different set of answers to the Unemployment folks. Always, though, have a diary of the specifics, and your opinions / decisions at the time.
Ultimately .... if you were telling your version of events to the guy's mother, would she accept it? That's almost the yardstick you need. You can't have a guy on the payroll for 40+ years and suddenly decide 'he's just not working out.'
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
Actually, it happens pretty regularly that long term employees are let go. Long term employees have no more of a "right" to keep their job than the guy hired yesterday.
As a practical matter, it is very hard to explain to the rest of the employees why a long term hard working and useful employee was let go and a snot faced brat kid kept on.
Rewire
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake of the Ozarks
Its even harder to explain to a jury.
renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
There's the point, and why I said you have to be able to convice the guy's mother. If you can convince her, you can surely persuade a bureaucrat or jury.
No one will believe a guy you've had on the payroll for 40+ years 'just didn't work out.' Or that you suddenly didn't like him anymore. 40+ years of satisfactory - satisfactory as evidenced by your keeping him on- service doesn't translate into the guy being inadequate. More likely, the jury will think you're both lying to them, and treating them with contempt. Juries respond to that by deciding against you.
No, that's why I said "document." Whatever your reasons - document them. That is, write them down. If it's something you think can be fixed, you will get brownie points for trying to fix it.
The legal environment is also why you so rarely hear the REAL reason you're being let go. The boss isn't going to say "I just don't trust you" or "your weekend barhopping in a dress gives me the creeps." No, you'll just be told 'we just don't need you anymore.' It might even be wrapped up in 'business is down' or 'we have to make cuts.'
Or, of course, for our business: 'we hired you for this project, the project is complete, so farewell.' No fault, no blame, no problems. Just keep your mouth shut - and be honest with yourself. If the last 100 folks you've ever let go at the end of jobs just happen to all be black jewish lesbians with speach impediments .... it's going to come back to bite you. No amount of BS on your part will counter that amazing coincidence.
By comparison, if that 'protected' person also has trouble showing up on time, and you have documented both their poor attendence AND your attempts to remedy the matter, then you are safe. You've persuaded all that your action was based on their attendence and nothing else. That you continue to employ others of that particular 'protected' class can only help you persuade others that your motives are pure.
No one will believe a guy you've had on the payroll for 40+ years 'just didn't work out.' Or that you suddenly didn't like him anymore. 40+ years of satisfactory - satisfactory as evidenced by your keeping him on- service doesn't translate into the guy being inadequate. More likely, the jury will think you're both lying to them, and treating them with contempt. Juries respond to that by deciding against you.
No, that's why I said "document." Whatever your reasons - document them. That is, write them down. If it's something you think can be fixed, you will get brownie points for trying to fix it.
The legal environment is also why you so rarely hear the REAL reason you're being let go. The boss isn't going to say "I just don't trust you" or "your weekend barhopping in a dress gives me the creeps." No, you'll just be told 'we just don't need you anymore.' It might even be wrapped up in 'business is down' or 'we have to make cuts.'
Or, of course, for our business: 'we hired you for this project, the project is complete, so farewell.' No fault, no blame, no problems. Just keep your mouth shut - and be honest with yourself. If the last 100 folks you've ever let go at the end of jobs just happen to all be black jewish lesbians with speach impediments .... it's going to come back to bite you. No amount of BS on your part will counter that amazing coincidence.
By comparison, if that 'protected' person also has trouble showing up on time, and you have documented both their poor attendence AND your attempts to remedy the matter, then you are safe. You've persuaded all that your action was based on their attendence and nothing else. That you continue to employ others of that particular 'protected' class can only help you persuade others that your motives are pure.
Fulthrotl
~Autocorrect is My Worst Enema.~
- Occupation
- E
california is an "at will" employment state.
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits
employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"
age was added later.
unless it can be demonstrated successfully that
the employer has discriminated on the basis of
one of the above, the claim is without merit.
their is no seniority except under some collective bargaining
arrangements.
i don't care HOW long you have been working somewhere,
you can be laid off due to "reduction in force" and for all
practical purposes, you can't do crap about it.
and if you are laid off and you are older, and there is
not a demonstrable HR pattern of this being done, you
are squat out of luck.
Rewire
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake of the Ozarks
I'm 55 you drop me and keep the 25 year old and I am going straight to a lawyer and you then will need to explain why I was let go and the 25 year old kept.Now the rub is you now have to spend money on a lawyer and if you have not documented reasons why I needed to be let go over the 25 year old the cost of litigation will be much more than the several thousand dollars I will settle for.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
You seem to have a serious fear of the legal system.
For me, I see things pretty simply. I have nothing that somebody could take, so I feel I run little risk of being sued. I don't get inclined to sue people because I figure they can afford a better lawyer than I can, so they'll win.
Simple. What, me worry?
For me, I see things pretty simply. I have nothing that somebody could take, so I feel I run little risk of being sued. I don't get inclined to sue people because I figure they can afford a better lawyer than I can, so they'll win.
Simple. What, me worry?
readydave8
re member
- Location
- Clarkesville, Georgia
- Occupation
- electrician
It's worked out pretty well for Alfred E. Neuman.
Fulthrotl
~Autocorrect is My Worst Enema.~
- Occupation
- E
i'm 57, and you won't do any such thing. we both know you won't,
so lets park this silly chrome plated noise. i'm not discriminating,
you are younger than me, you young punk. ;-p
what if i lay you both off, and hire someone next week when i need
more help? i can do that, it is entirely within my rights as your
soon to be ex employer. don't think that can happen? i've seen a
whole crew get spun to get rid of one guy. nothing you can do about it.
i personally observed a structured labor "dispute" that resulted in
almost 200 guys walking off a job, to "show management" solidarity.
every one of them was terminated for walking off the job, including
the three guys they really wanted to get rid of.
not a one of them could do squat about it, either. the next day the
job went six 12's and an eight. and nobody got hired back.
honestly, you seem pretty adversarial for someone
who just completed a positive mental attitude weekend.
you've got four or five threads running on everything from
smoking to bedwetting with regards to handling staff,
and you seem in contention with a number of opinions.
why not take all that energy and saddle up some more customers
and add another van?
enjoy the ride.
- Status