|
|
#131 (permalink) |
|
Brian Oshman
![]() Join Date: Apr 29 2001
Location: High Bridge, NJ
Age: 39
Posts: 864
Rep Power: 12
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Ok...now I am pi**ed
Quote:
This in an overview of what was "outlined" but not the actual document that bears the victims signature.
__________________
![]()
Last edited by eileen; 01-04-2008 at 12:18 AM. Reason: sorry hit edit instead of reply! :) |
|
|
|
|
|
#132 (permalink) |
|
kiss me I'm Derf
![]() Join Date: Feb 10 2005
Posts: 7,276
Rep Power: 17
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Ok...now I am pi**ed
angelcat was the first one to say in her very first post that she was sorry she just needed to vent.... many of you are taking her venting out loud here to us and beating her up for it. in the end angelcat thought things through and came to what seems to be a fair agreement with her employee. i wouldn't be surprised if her employee enjoys being at work more then being at home with a controlling husband.
__________________
under-exposure to uv rays is as dangerous as over-exposure...This is "D" life! (eileen) |
|
|
|
|
|
#133 (permalink) | |
|
kiss me I'm Derf
![]() Join Date: Feb 10 2005
Posts: 7,276
Rep Power: 17
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Ok...now I am pi**ed
Quote:
i interpret that as angelcat did NOT make her tan.
__________________
under-exposure to uv rays is as dangerous as over-exposure...This is "D" life! (eileen) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#134 (permalink) | |
|
Brian Oshman
![]() Join Date: Apr 29 2001
Location: High Bridge, NJ
Age: 39
Posts: 864
Rep Power: 12
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Ok...now I am pi**ed
Quote:
__________________
![]()
Last edited by Brian Oshman; 01-04-2008 at 12:30 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#137 (permalink) | |
|
www.highlinecapital.com
![]() Join Date: Nov 23 2004
Location: ITA Member & Berman Supporter!
Posts: 2,496
Rep Power: 8
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Ok...now I am pi**ed
Quote:
Ok - I won't touch the part about the employee preferring work over her husband! Unless all employees are required to sign the same "agreement", this may be considered discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1979. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-preg.html A highlight: "An employer may not single out pregnancy related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work. However, an employer may use any procedure used to screen other employees' ability to work. For example, if an employer requires its employees to submit a doctor's statement concerning their inability to work before granting leave or paying sick benefits, the employer may require employees affected by pregnancy related conditions to submit such statements. If an employee is temporarily unable to perform her job due to pregnancy, the employer must treat her the same as any other temporarily disabled employee; for example, by providing modified tasks, alternative assignments, disability leave or leave without pay. Pregnant employees must be permitted to work as long as they are able to perform their jobs. " Angelcat -- have ALL your employees sign the SAME agreement and follow the SAME procedures with clients. They should be anyway. Just because someone is NOT pregnant, it does not mean they wouldn't state these same views you are banning her from saying as a condition of her job. In general, even if you think a law will NOT apply to you, err on the side of caution. Nobody wants to be dragged through a lawsuit. Even if it is "without merit", it can take a lot of time and money to get to that conclusion.
__________________
![]() ![]() Ann Wiggins Noe VP of Leasing anoe@highlinecapital.com Direct line - 720-562-0450 Last edited by sunsally; 01-04-2008 at 05:43 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#139 (permalink) |
|
kiss me I'm Derf
![]() Join Date: Feb 10 2005
Posts: 7,276
Rep Power: 17
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Ok...now I am pi**ed
angelcat I would go with what my attorney suggests, you said you would be consulting with one in an earlier post and i was thinking this is the direction he/she sent you. there are no attorneys posting here that i know of.
__________________
under-exposure to uv rays is as dangerous as over-exposure...This is "D" life! (eileen) |
|
|
|
|
|
#140 (permalink) |
|
I love Derf!!
![]() Join Date: Jul 26 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,914
Rep Power: 6
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Re: Ok...now I am pi**ed
This whole situation has been over and done with. She's happy, I'm happy, we haven't spoken about it since.
Brian, the trailer trash comment was WAY out of line. I never called her husband & ranted to him. I called HER cell phone & HE answered the phone & proceeded to get loud with me. I find it absolutely insane that a bunch of salon owners don't see a problem with an employee refusing to tan. I even gave her the option of tanning or unlimited spray tanning. She refused to do either. I feel like I was more than fair with her & it all worked out in the end.
__________________
www.myspace.com/tanatmaui Last edited by angelcat04; 01-04-2008 at 03:38 PM. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|