Don't know about Illinois, but in California, when you fire somebody, you have to pay them that day, or as immediately as possible. None of this, come get your money at the end of the week crap.
Speaking seriously now, as a food service worker: any place that has a logo like (or website, for that matter) Snarf's is not providing a fine dining experience.
BigDTBone, I guess my question for you is, assuming you hire your ideal set of employees for your storefront, and assuming it loses so much money that you have to close it, would you notify your ideal set of employees 2 days before christmas, with a mass email? Cause it's that last thing that puts management on a whole new level of douche-bag, not the first two.
I wouldn't give any employee news about changes in their job via email. Timing is what it is... if something catastrophic happened and I needed to tell my employees that they would be out of work I would do it as soon as possible, even if that means December 23rd is the date.
That scenario is unlikely however, because even if I decided to shut down (my hypothetical) retail operations I would offer those employees positions in the other segment of my business. I expect some of them would say yes and some would say no, but it would be their choice.
It seems to me that the management of Snarf's (Larry Elmore oughtta sue over that restaurant chain's name, let me tell you) has done none of the things you describe, Big. (Yeah, I'm just going to call you Big from now on, it's easier to type, and it sounds awesome.) Maybe I've got it all wrong, I'm no where near Chicago, but it really looks to me like the employees of the least successful outlet in a restaurant chain were trying to unionize and the management closed down the storefront in response.
Edit @ Bruunwald: I think the come get your paycheck at the end of the week thing is a "We're still going to issue paychecks until the end of this pay period because we're legally required to pay you for your labor" type situation.
...which is their choice.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless all of the employees got tatted and pierced after being employed there, then I doubt that is the cause for the closing and layoffs.
And for those of you coming to Paizoncon this year, you may get a glimpse at the future with a $15 minimum wage. The city of Seatac where it is being held just had a $15 minimum wage passed. I'm not sure when it goes into effect or if the legal challenges to it have all been dismissed yet, but it is just a matter of time. In this year's election, both of the Seattle mayoral candidates were tripping over each other to declare who was more in favor of a $15+ minimum wage. Thankfully the one with some demonstrated competence won, so it may be a real possibility.
|
Speaking seriously now, as a food service worker: any place that has a logo like (or website, for that matter) Snarf's is not providing a fine dining experience.
Oooh! They're opening a location just down the road.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the closing at Christmas, that sucks, but it happens. And has happened to me. Just something you have to deal with sadly. Though an email is a crappy way to do it.
As far as the piercings item, where I work the policy is pretty simple. Piercings in ears only, no tattoos showing. This does mean many people have to wear long sleeves even in the summer to cover on the arms. Worked with a person who had to wear a long necked shirt all the time because of a tattoo on the back of their neck. Piercings in the face come out while working. An exception is made while healing, but that's or clear studs only. These are not extreme policies in any way that I know of. I'd put them in the same category as dressing in business casual and showering. Express yourself on your time, express the company on their time.
@HD, I agree that the situation in Chicago was pretty bad and was likely done to prevent unionization. I was really responding to the posters on this thread who seem surprised that a person who attempts to set themselves apart from society gets set aside by society. I also believe that the burden of creating acceptance falls on those who choose to stand apart, not on the society which allows them to do so.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a *serious* difference between firing someone because of the level of attraction the boss feels to them, and firing someone because their dress code doesn't suite your place of business, and they insist/are unable (in the case of tattoos) to change that.
An effective Human Resources officer isn't there to protect the employees, he or she is there to protect the business from the employees. The best can find cause for firing anyone, regardless of the actual reason. But does requiring female employees to wear makeup and hose and skirts really impact the business' bottom line and her interaction with customers? Or is it just the expected/traditional unexamined "norm"?
...discrimination based on sexual-orientation/race/gender or any of a dozen other similar things is illegal...
...you are allowed to "discriminate" (I feel "differentiate" would be a better word here) based on the choices, actions and behavior of other humans. For example, a certain kind of behavior, combined with the misfortune of getting caught could cost someone most of their basic freedoms, by getting them thrown to jail. There is room for that in democracy, and it's also common sense.
...However, tattoos and piercings are a willing deviation from what is considered the acceptable norm. Nobody would be surprised if a guy who refuses to wear pants would have a hard time securing a "job with good pay", and this is not much different.
I've yet to see any evidence that tattooed or pierced employees are lawbreakers or violating safety regulations (like not wearing appropriate footwear or pants, or not wearing certain piercings around certain machinery). In most states, food service workers aren't even legally required to wear gloves while handling food! It shouldn't matter if their tattoos/piercings are self-expression or had a youthful/ill-chosen indiscretions, they shouldn't be penalized forever for it when no one was harmed by it. Really, who gives a s@#%. If they are clean, polite, and do their job safely and competently, why should tats or piercings matter for appearances sake alone?
Democracy should, and does, have the means to enable a functional society with norms, without dabbling in questionable morality.
Which employees have demonstrated any questionable morality?
Other examples that spring to mind are being naked (/wearing clothes that are too revealing to be considered decent in public), serious lack of personal hygiene, or wearing anything offensive (like a T-Shirt with a harmful slogan or something).
No one here or in the article has advocated for any of these things.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's outrageous?!?
Poverty wages!!!
What's disgusting?!?
Union-busting!!!!
[Sets barricades on fire]
|
@Ambrosia Slaad, I'm not really in the mood to go into the kind of discussions where every participant is breaking down the other's posts into several quotes and comments on them, effectively spawning twenty different parallel discussions without reaching agreement on any of them before splitting them ever further.
So I'll just quote this, because I feel it encapsulates the difference in our opinions:
Other examples that spring to mind are being naked (/wearing clothes that are too revealing to be considered decent in public), serious lack of personal hygiene, or wearing anything offensive (like a T-Shirt with a harmful slogan or something).
No one here or in the article has advocated for any of these things.
I didn't say anyone was advocating these behaviors, I was saying in my opinion (and I know for a fact that I am not alone on that), extensive piercings and tattooing are comparable to and of the items on those list. Maybe not actual nudity, but certainly the rest. Since these is a group of people who see things this way, and it's not a negligible one at all, I see it as any employer's right to either not hire someone like that at all, or to later regret hiring said pierced person and fire them based on that. It's anyone's right to enforce a dress code in their business, and "don't look like a living voodo doll" is not even a very restrictive one. It doesn't matter of pierced persons don't actually pose any menace to anyone, they chose a certain appearance that conveys certain signals that many people find unpleasant. The fact remains that some people *do* give a s@#+.
You refuse to wear a tie? don't expect to find work in a law firm. You refuse to wear a uniform? don't expect to be able to be a street cleaner. You willingly chose to pierce your body way beyond what most people would consider sane, in a way that many would find disturbing to look at? people might not want to share any space with you at all, let alone hire you for any customer service job. Your choice, and your responsibility to find a way to live with it. Law can't (and shouldn't) force people to hire you in such a case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking seriously now, as a food service worker: any place that has a logo like (or website, for that matter) Snarf's is not providing a fine dining experience.Oooh! They're opening a location just down the road.
Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that fine dining has anything to do with cleanliness and/or food poisoning. There are plenty of one star restaurants that provide a great, if simple, dining experience.
I'm just saying that anyone who goes to buy a sandwich from any of the storefronts listed on that website, and is surprised (shocked and dismayed, even) to find that the counter attendant has tattoos and piercings, has showed up at the wrong sort of restaurant, and that's on the customer.
|
|
Now this is not to say you have to be an ass about it. You could approach the employee, explain you wish to maintain a dress code, see if the employee can remove the piercings and cover the tattoos while at work. Even if they refuse, firing them by email at Christmas eve while inviting them to the grand reopening of your establishment is probably not the most decent way to go at it. Also, for all we know the people are not actually pierced or even if they are, firing them might have been an entirely unrelated affair.
Fact remains that "unusual fashion choice" are reason enough to fire anyone. It's not a very good reason if the fired person is not specifically handling customers and if a dress code is not important for the job... but it's still a legitimate reason. It's important to also be able to see things from the viewpoint of the employer - generally speaking, social security aside, the employer cannot be forced to keep someone they don't want on a payed job. They have rights, too, and as long as they don't harm the rights of other they can go about making personal choices, even some you might find disputable, such as firing pierced employees.
@Ambrosia Slaad, I'm not really in the mood to go into the kind of discussions where every participant is breaking down the other's posts into several quotes and comments on them, effectively spawning twenty different parallel discussions without reaching agreement on any of them before splitting them ever further.
So I'll just quote this, because I feel it encapsulates the difference in our opinions:
Other examples that spring to mind are being naked (/wearing clothes that are too revealing to be considered decent in public), serious lack of personal hygiene, or wearing anything offensive (like a T-Shirt with a harmful slogan or something).
No one here or in the article has advocated for any of these things.
I didn't say anyone was advocating these behaviors, I was saying in my opinion (and I know for a fact that I am not alone on that), extensive piercings and tattooing are comparable to and of the items on those list. Maybe not actual nudity, but certainly the rest. Since these is a group of people who see things this way, and it's not a negligible one at all, I see it as any employer's right to either not hire someone like that at all, or to later regret hiring said pierced person and fire them based on that. It's anyone's right to enforce a dress code in their business, and "don't look like a living voodo doll" is not even a very restrictive one. It doesn't matter of pierced persons don't actually pose any menace to anyone, they chose a certain appearance that conveys certain signals that many people find unpleasant. The fact remains that some people *do* give a s@#+.
You refuse to wear a tie? don't expect to find work in a law firm. You refuse to wear a uniform? don't expect to be able to be a street cleaner. You willingly chose to pierce your body way beyond what most people would consider sane, in a way that many would find disturbing to look at? people might not want to share any space with you at all, let alone hire you for any...
Not to quibble with you, but when you're walking down the street and you see someone who's absolutely covered in tattoos, do you really say, "That dude shouldn't have even bothered showering, 'cause that's repulsive to my senses!"
I'm specifically asking about how you equate tattoos and piercings with "serious lack of personal hygiene."
I'm specifically asking about how you equate tattoos and piercings with "serious lack of personal hygiene."
It's a conscious choice made by an individual which has the likely and foreseeable consequence of causing others to be uncomfortable around that individual.
I'm wondering how Snow would respond to an employer who fired someone because they were circumcised.
How would the employer know? If it was important then it would be reasonable. The only example I can think of would be in the adult entertainment industry.
last post was removed, will try to be more civil!
No one is owed a living wage. People earn what they produce. If you produce more than you earn, then you could and should appeal for a raise/promotion. $15/hr as a minimum wage makes no sense whatsoever.
The term "living wage" has a different meaning to a single mom who is a high school dropout with 3 kids by age 21, than to a married gal with no kids.
It is not the employer's job to provide for its employee's families.
If the employer risked his/her life savings on opening a restaurant, only to be slapped in the face by his/her employees with a protest demanding a wage that ignores any corresponding relationship with productivity-to-compensation, then he/she did the right thing by firing them all.
I'm specifically asking about how you equate tattoos and piercings with "serious lack of personal hygiene."It's a conscious choice made by an individual which has the likely and foreseeable consequence of causing others to be uncomfortable around that individual.
You really think lack of personal hygiene is some sort of conscious choice people make, rather than some indigent situation they end up in?
'Cause I don't let Dicey wash in clean water (sorry, it's a commodity) and then I make fun of how bad he smells in front of other people; no, seriously, you should attend one of my cocktail parties, it's hilarious!
Since I see I've been quoted a few times, and it was one of my major battles in my teens, I figure I should post my thoughts on the subject.
Once again, I don't believe that the firings had anything to do with the tattoos and/or piercings. From the thread, it seems that the group tried to unionize and were fired for it. In my personal opinion, this is regrettable.
However, the thread has devolved into, "Should your personal appearance affect your employment?", and since that's something I battled for over a decade, I figure I'll express my opinion and leave it be.
In an ideal world, everyone would be judged by their actions, rather than their appearance. This was one of the cornerstones of the punk movement in California in the 1980's. "Why the h*** do you care what I look like?!?!? Judge me by my actions, not by my appearance!" (Feel free to put in "skin color, gender, sexual habits, or what-have-you".)
However, from personal experience, most people, and *especially* those in power, *DO* judge you by personal appearance. Right or wrong, it's what they do. And you can fight it. One of my favorite personal stories is about a 14-year-old girl I was tutoring. She had wealthy parents and "all the right friends", but her parents looked past my appearance, hired me as a tutor for her, and found out that I was a wonderful human being. So, specifically because my appearance was so outlandish, they took a bunch of pictures with me with their daughter, because they found it delightful. When they had the pictures developed, the clerk at the camera store commented, "...and your daughter looks like such a NICE girl...".
The parents ripped into the clerk, much to my amusement, but the fact remains that the clerk judged me based solely on my appearance without ever having met me.
And I am afraid that, no matter how much you rant and rave that it shouldn't be so, it is.
(1) Most people dislike things with which they are unfamiliar.
(2) As a result, most people dislike outre hairstyles, dress codes, piercings, or what-have-you.
(3) Most businesses are not in the business of changing people's attitudes, but rather of extracting money from them, so they have little tolerance for anyone who makes their customers uncomfortable.
(4) Therefore, since it's perfectly legal, most businesses will actively discriminate against anyone who's "different", whether it be tattoos, habits of dress, habits of speech, or whatnot.
Is it OK? No. Is it regrettable? Yes. Can you personally change the world? If you're willing to fight the fight, then yes, you can change a few people's opinions. I managed to get at least a dozen "older conservative people" to like who I was, and to look at the punk movement in California in a whole new light. But I was one person, I changed a few minds, and then I realized that I couldn't personally revolutionize the world in my lifetime, so I conformed.
Condemn me if you will, but I at least accepted the reality that the rift between idealism and reality is too great for one person to overcome. You can spend your lifetime fighting, and I'll admire you for it, but I chose to conform so that I could raise a family.
So I admire Ambrosia Slaad for his/her thoughts on the subject, and I agree that in an ideal world what you looked like wouldn't matter in the least, but I fought that fight and lost, so I'm ready to look "normal" for a while. (Yeah, wait 'til I retire...)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's far more likely because of the strike/labor issues.
You want to know one thing that it's illegal to fire people for? Union activity. It's even illegal to threaten to close the business to stop unions. Not that it's rare to do so or that the law is often enforced.
I'm also not enough of an expert to know if their particular strike activity would be protected or not.
In Illinois, sure. In a "right to work" state? "At will" employment means that. This is a HUGE reason Japanese and European car manufacturers set up shop predominantly in the South. They have ZERO interest in dealing with American unions.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many people see exposed tats and facial piercings as the uniform of trash and troublemakers. you might be a great person, you are wearing the uniform by choice. If someone dresses like a klansman or neo nazi do you assume they are or that they are just dressing comfortable/ Same goes for the baggy hoods and pants around the knees, you are wearing the uniform of a criminal so you get watched closer
Making judgments based on appearance is natural. It is not some bigoted thoughtless conclusion. It is based on simple observational deductions.
Without too much personal disclosure, I dressed "outside of the norm" as a kid, and so did most of the people I knew. We were also a bunch of delinquents who deserved every bit of attention we garnered.
If you dress like a thug, you probably act like a thug.
PROBABLY being the key word here. You may be an angel who dresses like a punk, but most punks are not angels.
Most people who dress like thugs are not angels. They're in fact thugs more often than not.
Most people who dress like stoners are not angels. They're in fact stoners more often than not.
Except of course that you're not paid according to what you produce, other than as a hard limit. You're paid the least the employer can get away with hiring people for. Or at least people up to whatever standard of skill he needs.
You may produce $20 worth of value an hour, but in the absence of laws or unions, if you demand $15 and someone else will take $10, you're out the door. Even if he only produces $18 worth per hour. And in bad economic times, that produces a nasty downward spiral, only halted by the minimum wage.
The employee who has no education and no job skills has risked nothing. The business owner has literally risked their life savings in order to turn a profit. There is nothing wrong with that. The point stands: if the employee feels he is not compensated enough, he is free to make his money elsewhere. The profit margin of the owner is 100% IRRELEVENT to the discussion.
Unions are an entity of the past. In modern times they do nothing but increase costs to the consumer, make opening a business harder than ever for endeavoring small business owners, and worst of all: Unions price low-skilled workers out of jobs they would normally qualify for.
I'm wondering how Snow would respond to an employer who fired someone because they were circumcised.How would the employer know? If it was important then it would be reasonable. The only example I can think of would be in the adult entertainment industry.It's really immaterial.
Maybe they overheard a conversation. Maybe they have a hidden camera in the shower room. Maybe they assume based on the employee's last name.
The point is that he (and you) are saying "Oh, you mutilated yourself and it sickens me so I'm not going to hire you to do a job your perfectly capable of doing because I've decided you're a freak."
That sickens me.
Doubly os because his examples were for the most part tame. Pierced eyebrows, noses, ear plugs... I'd hate to see his response to actual body modification and piercing enthusiasts.
I actually haven't said that. But read in my posts what you will... As for how they found out it does make a difference. If I overheard an employee talking about their genitals at my place of business I would fire them on the spot.
Additionally, they don't tell anyone about their genitals and don't show anyone their genitals then there is no way for the employer to find out. Same story with the tattoos and piercings. If you keep them covered or removed at work then there are no image issues.
Part of customer service is making the customer feel comfortable in the shop. If your image makes a large quantity of the public uncomfortable then you are actually NOT perfectly capable of performing your job functions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Illinois, sure. In a "right to work" state? "At will" employment means that. This is a HUGE reason Japanese and European car manufacturers set up shop predominantly in the South. They have ZERO interest in dealing with American unions.
It's far more likely because of the strike/labor issues.
You want to know one thing that it's illegal to fire people for? Union activity. It's even illegal to threaten to close the business to stop unions. Not that it's rare to do so or that the law is often enforced.
I'm also not enough of an expert to know if their particular strike activity would be protected or not.No. That's not what "Right to work" means.
Right to work means you don't have to join the union, even if there is one at your company. And you still get at least some union protections and representation.Which has the effect of creating a serious free-rider problem and weakening unions.
But it's still illegal to fire you for union activity. Or to threaten to do so. But the penalties are fairly small and can be litigated for years and meanwhile you're out of work...
You miss the point. Here, you don't HAVE to state a reason, and if there's no physical evidence of termination due to union activity, you're SOL. "At will" employment means, here, that your employer can let you go for no reason at all if they like. On a whim. The burden of proof is almost 100% on the terminated party to prove an illegal motive.
. . . And we're only on page 2 so far? This thread is going to be pure awesome for all 3 pages!
Andrew, how much of the junk you say is spoken in an ironic tone of voice? (I'm honestly curious.)
I'm specifically asking about how you equate tattoos and piercings with "serious lack of personal hygiene."It's a conscious choice made by an individual which has the likely and foreseeable consequence of causing others to be uncomfortable around that individual.You really think lack of personal hygiene is some sort of conscious choice people make, rather than some indigent situation they end up in?
'Cause I don't let Dicey wash in clean water (sorry, it's a commodity) and then I make fun of how bad he smells in front of other people; no, seriously, you should attend one of my cocktail parties, it's hilarious!
Granted my anecdotal data is likely skewed, but the totality of people whom I have known that had issues with hygiene had those issues because of laziness not poverty.
Well at least you gave up the nonsense that you're paid according to what you produce.What I should have said instead of what you produce is "what your output is worth to your employer." Systems like minimum wage actually damage many low skilled employees from getting a job in the first place, and then being able to shine. If the federal law allows for a hard low-end wage, this incentivizes MANY employers to pay their employees nothing but the minimum. The absence of a MW law would indeed mean that some people would get paid less than the current MW, but it would also mean that competition would come into play more often. There would be much more upward momentum of wages because everyone would know they can earn what they prove themselves to be worth.
Why are unions a thing of the past (paraphrased, do you think they worked in the past)
I'm no economics professor. I read a lot of Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. They click with me and make a heck of a lot more sense than Keynesian economists do. The economic history of the USA is multifaceted and complex.
I know there were days past where the poor worked very very long hours and didn't get a lot of pay for it, and I know that many people attribute the change to a shorter work day and higher pay to Unions. I think that is in part true, but it is not the whole picture.Today's economics are different. I don't know enough about the past to comment with much fervor. Union participation is at an all time low, and there is a reason for that. In days past people could count on working the same job for decades, until retirement. In the modern world that is happening less and less. The information age has ushered in an ever-changing world where yesterday's skills are obsolete and new skills have to be obtained constantly. Most people change jobs/careers several times in their lives now. (which is why is it ludicrous for our society to have our healthcare insurance so closely tied to employment, but that's another issue!!)
All in all, I have a low opinion of most unions. Their protests are ripe with bullying and thug tactics.
So, you're all a bunch of f*~!in' scabs for even being in this thread, but I feel, after throwing a bunch of rocks and setting shiznit on fire, like taking a breather.
[Gets one of the doughnuts and coffees donated by the community]
Basically, my understanding from participating in some of these events and following them in the press is that certain union types think they're being clever and avoiding some stringent labor laws by employing these front group organizations but still getting certain protections. So, for example, it is still "illegal" to retaliate against employees for participating in these events, but it sure is a biznitch to prove.
But, by closing down the whole store and techincally laying the workers off instead of firing them, Snarf's probably bypasses all that anyway.
[Finishes doughnut and yells at [redacted]]
Hey, douchebag, can't you see there's a f&!&in' picket line here?
Unless all of the employees got tatted and pierced after being employed there, then I doubt that is the cause for the closing and layoffs.
And for those of you coming to Paizoncon this year, you may get a glimpse at the future with a $15 minimum wage. The city of Seatac where it is being held just had a $15 minimum wage passed. I'm not sure when it goes into effect or if the legal challenges to it have all been dismissed yet, but it is just a matter of time. In this year's election, both of the Seattle mayoral candidates were tripping over each other to declare who was more in favor of a $15+ minimum wage. Thankfully the one with some demonstrated competence won, so it may be a real possibility.
Vive le Galt!
More Fun Commie Links
Showdown in Seattle: Boeing’s Union Workers in the Crosshairs
And what did Comrade Kshama have to say about that? Machinists: Seize the Factories!
Vive le Galt!
Much like in the RIP philosophy thread, I hear the gorillas.