For those of you too lazy to click the link, here's the rundown in a nutshell...
Sharon Smiley was a receptionist/administrative for a Chicago real estate company until she was fired from her job because she was working on an assignment during her lunch break. A manager approached her and advised her she needed to leave for her lunch, she refused and was terminated. She had been denied unemployment benefits THREE TIMES by the Illinois Department of Employment Security because they determined the reason for her termination was related to "misconduct connected to her work". She then took the case to circuit court where it was determined that the should, indeed, receive benefits.
Now let me say, I can definitely understand both sides of this story. I understand the employer's actions because they have a policy regarding lunch breaks that they had spoken with her about more than once. She was asked to stop working during her lunch and she refused, which is insubordination by its definition. Most employers (though I can barely tell) see this as grounds for termination and rightfully so. They're paying you to do what they want you to do and if you refuse to do that, they can refuse to allow you to keep working for them, at least in her state and a few others, mine included. I don't know when it started but it seems as though we're moving to this mentality where we tell our employers, the people that pay us, what we are and aren't going to do and then we want to sue them when they fire us. When did that become acceptable? I could go on about that all day. But let's talk about the other thing that pisses me off...
Why was this even an issue? It was HER time to do with as she pleased and she CHOSE to spend it doing additional work for her employer in order to complete a project. Seems like her desk was in a reception area so interruptions must have been frequent and unpredictable and the extra time was probably a necessity in order to get it done right. It was certainly her stupidity because clearly the job was stressful enough to induce a stroke in 2009. I know firsthand what it's like to become so engrossed in work that you burn yourself out and before you know it, you're somewhere on your back. No bueno. Still it was her choice and the health issue aside, they should have been glad to have an employee that was willing to put in extra work in an era where you can barely find people willing to do it.
I work(ed) with people every day who could care less about doing the job they're actually there to do. I work(ed) with people who spend so much time trying to find a way to NOT do their work that they could have actually had it done twice by the time all is said and done. Now I do realize that there is probably more to the story that we will probably never know, but based on this, I think it's damned sad that people who want to work hard (insubordination aside) are encouraged not to.
No comments:
Post a Comment