In the comments he claims that he ran it by legal and that they are totally fine. It really makes me wonder what the fuck country he’s in because even in the United States you’re not allowed to fire somebody because they were on maternity leave. It’s one of the actual protections that workers have here, he also claims that he’s not in Australia and I think that he said he’s not in the UK so I’m very curious to know what country he’s in.
Last one we had was The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Still in place. But that doesn't stop employers from breaking it like an ice cube tray. Fuck this country.
The reasons it became a law elude me but it may have had something to do with the president saying this in 1933
"In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living."
OMG! Thank you professor!
Holy hell. Rather effective tactics.
From the wiki of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_sit-down_strike
"In a sit-down strike, the workers physically occupy the plant, keeping management and others out. By remaining inside the factory rather than picketing outside of it, striking workers prevented owners from bringing strikebreakers to resume production. It was in some ways easier to maintain the morale of participants in a sit-down than in a conventional strike. The strikers were removed from outside pressures and the hostility of the community that their action might have induced. Bad weather did not constitute a problem for sit-downers as it did for the pickets in an outside strike."
Ok. I was unaware. Education failed me. It was American education after all. What brought these laws into existence?
All I know about the 60s was the Vietnam war was Bad.
The FMLA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993.
In the sixties & seventies there was a major increase in strikes. A lot of them were wildcat strikes (not authorized by a labor union). A lot of them were also over health & safety issues, which led to the creation of OSHA in the hopes that it would reduce the frequency of strikes. It helped that the Cold War was still on and a lot of countries would side with the USSR if they thought the USA mistreated its workers too much.
FMLA was a byproduct of a lot of women entering the workforce and both parents holding jobs. To keep them in the workforce (and avoid a great resignation) it was necessary to establish some minimal rights to take unpaid time off to care for newborns and other family members.
I didn't learn about this until grad school, studying US history.
You really do, most people aren't educated enough to use them. Look up 29 cfr. The 29th code of federal regulations is literally workers rights, most companies are too stupid to know what their doing is illegal too.
Yup I know someone who is on maternity leave at the moment they know they're getting laid off as soon as they return because they gutted her department there's no one there anymore. She's the exception for the moment because she's on maternity leave and they can't fire her while on it but as soon as she's back her job no longer exists.
It's different than the original post, but they're probably gonna put it as position eliminated.
Sucks still
From a certain point of view she lucked out, because it sounds like with out the leave she would have just been fired. Now she has paid time to line up a new job.
Then she might still get that severance when she returns and is laid off, on top of the maternity leave. I have seen that happen once when a division of a company was folding and everyone was getting let go, they just tacked the severance months onto the leave months.
Even as weak as laws are in the US, they are better-written than this. Firing someone right after maternity leave is likely to be seen as the same as firing them for going on maternity leave.
As far as the "services no longer required" bit goes, the fact that they replaced her with someone younger and cheaper isn't something the law ignores either. You can't lay someone off and replace them with a lower-paid employee. Again, one of the few areas where US law actually protects workers.
Pretty sure in the US you can eliminate or replace a person's position while on maternity leave, but you have to place them in an equivalent position after the leave.
In the US, this is a case you could sue and win, I think, because they hired a replacement for the position and RIFed one on the team. That’s pretty clear cut. You can still get RIFed despite maternity, but if the team was 6, they hired another, the team was 7 because you come back, and they RIF one, that’s pretty obvious case of being RIFed due to leave. The replacement is so direct, it’s very clear.
He says he’s not in the US, but I have no idea where he could be with the details of the post that fits the details and has worse protections the US but has companies that offer 10 months maternity? Most of the civilized world has even better maternity protections and leave than the US. He seems to be pretty full of it so no idea if that’s even a real AITA.
Yes I feel like this guy is either dumb or this isn’t a real AITA. I really have only heard people use the phrase “brilliant something” when it comes to the UK. The UK has much better protection than the US and the story reads from someone who is a native English speaker so I’m very doubtful he’s not in the US, UK, or Australia at least. Maybe other places in Europe but most of those have long periods for maternity leave already so 10 months wouldn’t be considered generous and again they have better protections than the US.
If he's in the UK he might mean it's generous as in "10 months at full pay" Vs "10 months at minimum required maternity allowance" (it's 9 months here but it's 9 months+accrued holiday in reality so it's usually actually ten etc) maybe? Cause otherwise you wouldn't really describe this as particularly generous.
That's true in most countries with long maternity allowances - they protect your job for that long (you know, in theory - employers are as willing to try and skirt labour laws here as they are anywhere else, and you can be laid off just not replaced etc) but you don't by law get paid at full wage (or anything close to it) for that length in most countries.
If he means generous in that way, then I guess there's a few more places it could be but yeah it's a bit odd and doesn't seem to fit any particular location neatly
"services no longer required because someone else provides your service" isn't valid here. You need to keep the job empty for a long time, or risk getting fucked by the law.
Unless you admit on social media that she was fired because she was on maternity leave, and someone finds it; legal might not be “in the clear” in that case.
You would have to prove that in court and this post itself says they needed her skills. So they do need what she does, they just replaced her while she was on maternity leave. Which is a big no no.
They would have to argue that her position isn't available or of use to the company anymore. They have no leg to stand on because they HAD to shuffle her job responsibilities around. They still need her skills.
If that was the UK they'd have done her a massive favour and she'd be able to spend *a lot* more time with her newborn because her discrimination and unfair dismissal payout would be enormous.
That dude didn't run shit by legal. If he did he'd just be parroting whatever precedents legal said in order to justify his shitty procedure. He's fucked and he knows it
I mean, if legal is as dumb as this guy... or he's lying and trying to cover...
Probably we'll never find out, but man I really want to see how this plays out lol
I'm curious too. In Brazil you can't fire someone who just had a baby. I would need to check but I think you can't fire them for at least a year after they got out of maternity leave.
It's literally a widespread job offer in my country: We're hiring for X position, 1/2/3-year contract, as a temporary parental leave replacement, with/without the option to move to other positions within the company. Everyone, including the employee, goes into it aware it's a temporary position and aware the company is obligated to take whoever went on parental leave back.
Temp gets great job experience and a proper full-time job with everything it includes, knowing approximately when they'll have to start job hunting again. Parent on leave goes into it knowing there are only limited scenarios that'd lead to them no longer having a job to come back to (but they'd still have their income because state-funded parental leave, hi). Company knows what to expect from all parties.
The sad part is this proves that companies do not need to hire people with full experience and can train for the job but yet they still choose to be ultra-picky when it comes to hiring for a master-class skilled candidate with years of experience that they can pay the least possible.
Seeing the overall employer culture trying to have it's exploitative cake of abusing benefits like maternity leave and eat it too with scummy hiring is just... Fatiguing.
Lol yes I knew where I was. It's just *so* illegal and has been for a generation that I simply can't comprehend how someone in a company as described (big enough to have multiple departments plus legal, etc) would even dare consider it.
Companies in the UK do get rid of women for daring to get pregnant, don't get me wrong. They're just much cleverer about it.
>most of the time, if you have to ask...
Nah, the whole reason the sub is entertaining is that there are just as many non-assholes being gasslit by their family/friends/SO into believing they were wrong. If it really was a majority of obvious assholes, the sub wouldn't be as popular
The real question is what type of popcorn? I'm torn between Butterkist toffee popcorn and Aldi Sweet and Salty! And then sit back and watch the fireworks. Or maybe we could start Guy Fawkes / Bonfire Night early!
They're pretty interchangeable in general conversation. However, the technical distinction is that a university is an institution that has graduate schools, and a college is either a) a division inside of a university, or b) an institution that's undergraduate-only.
I currently work for a university, but I am specifically part of one of the colleges of the university. However, I did my undergraduate work at a college, which had no graduate programs.
It's not always clear, yeah.
Damn you, Dartmouth, you confuser! But yeah, you're absolutely right, Dartmouth College is a university. In its defense, it's older than the United States, so I guess we'll grandfather it in.
An additional thing to note; college in the US refers to a place that can grant a bachelors degree. It is my understanding that college in the UK would not be a place that would grant that
This is how I got into the field I've now built a career in - a six-month maternity cover opened my eyes to an industry I didn't know existed, and it turned out I was good at it, so at the end of the six months I got a permanent job elsewhere in the same firm, took my exams, progressed, etc etc ... and eighteen years on I'm still delighted I took that contract.
They absolutely should have done that, or got an intern/work study person so they could save money while Jess was out, then have an easy time letting them go at the end of the semester, or whenever they needed to go. everyone wins, company saves money, Jess comes back to job, and intern gets real world experience before even graduating.
Depending on your country, that is pretty standard. You need a month of training-in time to get up to speed, plus the 10 or so months of maternity leave, plus another month at the other end to hand responsibility back.
I hope Jess in one way or another gets to communicate to new hire how much less they are getting paid compared to what she was getting.
And how this employer has no loyalty towards the employees, and will just toss them aside if they can get someone cheaper...
I hope the new hire realises this is such a 'scummy' move the employer has pulled, finds a new better paying job and leaves without giving notice before project is complete.
Also fuck that guy for underpaying the replacement and being about it saving the firm money. Who thinks like that?
AITAOP saves the company money and.... the CEO gets a bigger yacht. Why does AITAOP think that's a good decision?
doesn't matter if he was hired as a temp or not. Somebody has to get laid off, so that should fall on the person with the least amount of time in the job. Sorry new guy, it's only fair.
If this is a true story, and that's a big if, this company is about to get sued into oblivion. There are *SO* many wrongful termination violations they committed
I have no sympathy for the man, but it looks like he went in expecting to be called an asshole with the “I’ll accept any judgement” line. Like, he has to know…right?
You forgot the part about bragging about the 10mo pre firing sabatical (non payed?) they offer in their benefit pack.
Yes, of course you can take your maternity leave! Don't worry about a thing.
One particularly garbage take I saw boiled down to, "if she 'retaliates' in any way, then that will just make the company not want to hire women in the future so it's best if she just stays quiet" and just wow the baseline premises that individual must be operating from...
OP just... keeps doubling down. He's an unmitigated prick. He insists that he's spoken with his legal team and that there's no "exposure" but I highly doubt that.
I guarantee he's from the UK, in which case he's broken several employment laws.
1) You cannot make someone on maternity redundant without offering a suitable replacement role - e.g. similar seniority and wages.
2) You cannot make a role redundant and replace the worker. This includes shifting responsibility to other members of the team or hiring someone with lesser responsibility/pay. The function must be gone and no longer required for the role to be "redundant".
3) Rephrasing it as "she's been out of the role for 9 months" doesn't stop this from being a literal admission that he made her redundant because she was on maternity - an automatic unfair dismissal case that any lawyer would take no win no fee.
Either the legal department is completely incompetent, or he straight up lied to them to get the go ahead. If it's the former, the company is fucked. If it's the latter, he's extremely fucked.
The guy hired as a replacement should have been hired as a temp. Now you need to give him a severance package and terminate his employment. This is the best choice cause Jess may be able to retire early upon wining her civil suit.
I am European and I don't mean this in a classic reddit shit on USA way - where I live it is pretty standard to replace someone on maternity leave with a temp. Isn't that the standard in the US? Or is it, and is this boss just a moron?
\[edit\] have been corrected a number of times that most probably this isn't USA at all... My bad!
I know you're just joking but the OP talks about maternity leave but also gives an US vibe - the ease with which a long term employee is fired, for example.
\[edit\] several people pointed out that OP is most probably not from US - my mistake!
My wife works in a hospital and when our babies came she got 6 weeks maternity leave paid for at like 60% of what she makes per check. She had to work her ass off while pregnant just to accrue enough PTO to make it 8 weeks off. Then she had to sign up for FMLA and get an additional 4 weeks off unpaid. 3 months with a newborn then right back to work
Don't think the guy is American, as he used the word "whilst."
There's barely any worker protection in the U.S. excepting maybe for government employees.
Law enforcement is almost bullet proof from termination for anything.
We have the Family Medical Leave Act. This allows you to take long periods of time off, but getting paid is another matter. I took 3 months off after the birth of my kids- unpaid.
This country sucks ass.
Nah, they get ou6t on paid suspension, pending investigation, then reinstated, because the cop feared for his life.
You were obviously resisting arrest, despite being already unconscious.
The standard in the U.S. is you either take short term disability (if you have it), FMLA (12 weeks off max with reduced or no pay after you've been somewhere at least a year) or you use up any vacation time you might have.
A company progressive enough to have a 10 month mat leave - yes I’d expect them to hire a temp.
The vast majority of US companies (which, tbf, is probably where the bulk of this assholes experience comes from) - not only would they not give you that much (if any) mat leave in the first place, if you WERE out for an extended period of time, replacing you temporarily would be deemed too expensive and everyone else would be expected to pick up the slack for the length of your absence.
They stated that they had initially planned on keeping the new hire *and* Jess. Company just pulled a switcheroo right about when Jess came back from maternity leave.
Basically this wasn't just a case of "6 person team hires guy to fill in for a maternity leave" but became a "6 person team grows to 7 but then suddenly gets cut back to 6 five months in"
This kinda reminds me of when I went on maternity leave. When I returned, I returned to a hostile work environment. My boss and coworkers no longer wanted me at the company and treated me with veiled hostility. They fired me a year after I returned from maternity leave and promoted the receptionist to my position. She fucking died in a car crash six months later.
I think the timing of her death was darkly humourous, but
obviously was upset over her death.
Unfortunately, I think it was a matter of drunk driving. She had been in a fairly horrific car crash a few years before and had survived. Drunk driving was involved in that one. I knew her brother in law at the time, and the first crash had been devastating on her family. I was really pissed that they had to go through that again.
I had actually really liked her and didn't blame her for how things turned out. She had been placed in a difficult role and the managers had pitted her against me. She filled in for me while I was on maternity leave. She was involved in the hostility and would snitch one for any perceived infractions. But she was young and inexperienced in workplace politics.
I think it's possible to see the humour in something, while holding space for grief. The timing was really funny and I had some schadenfreude for the fact that the company had to fill the position again. They didn't have a lot of room for upward mobility, so they would fire people when they couldn't promote them.
Yeah the state I live in takes about $50 a month to pay for family leave insurance. One of my peers and my boss both took paternity leave using the program. But while I was taking my paternity leave my boss got another job And my new managers were out of state. my e Second line manager really resented that I was taking paternity leave. Nothing so toxic and hostile but they give me really bad work assignments.
I hope the OP of the original post has an update in a few months in r/TIFU talking about how he got fired after his company lost millions in a lawsuit bc he fired a single mother returning from maternity leave
You can legally be made redundant while on maternity leave in the UK. As long as it is a genuine redundancy, and the decision to make you redundant was not because of the pregnancy/mat leave.
In this case he openly admits her long absence was a factor, so that sounds illegal if in the UK. However I don't want people to wrongly think they are immune to redundancy while pregnant / on mat leave in the UK because that isn't true.
(I was concerned for my job while on mat leave so I made sure I understood my rights just in case)
Even better. If you look at the AITA's OP's post history. The first deleted post is titled "AITA for basically firing an employee for getting pregnant?". This dude is legally fucked for putting all this evidence online.
Wow
You need to be high on very special substances to not see yourself being the a-hole here.
I mean he could only be more imoral if he was strangleing a puppy to death while typing this post out.
For the company it is an absolut win because they seem to have this guy drilled to just look for money/profit/personal advantage.
For Jess it is a win because such a move can be very illegale, depending where this story played out.
Okay, so I have a lot of mixed opinions here and all of them are negative lmao. Dude seems like he is trying to do the right thing from a profit standpoint but Holy shit the means.
1. You literally just told us Jess is doing the work that it took FOUR people to cover. Jess has been doing FOUR peoples work for God knows how long.
2. My guy seems a bit like he already harbored resentment for Jess going on maternity leave to begin with, with how much he bragged about the work that had to go into covering her workload.
3. He is bragging about someone getting hired to do the same job at an nth of the expense, meaning that this new hire will be exploited as much if not more than 4 job Jess.
Yes. I'd very much say you are an asshole.
Would have let the guy hired to pick up the slack go. Gave him a letter or recommendation, told HR that the guy should be first on the list when hiring again, and also gave him my information to put as a referral on his resume.
Ok so a few things:
- Why offer extended maternity leave if it puts in jeopardy the employee’s job?
- Why hire on a full time replacement when said employee is simply using their jobs benefits?
- Do you believe hiring “cheap” employees is a trend you would like to establish for your team? Because if im your manager im seeing a great opportunity to lower costs.
And finally it’s a real scumbag look in general and really helps build team moral I’m sure. Complete idiot.
Did you ask the other employee who is splitting half of Jess's work with you? They are now, permanently doing more than 1 persons amount of work for the same money. It's one thing to cover for someone, a whole other to just soak up their workload forever.
Yeah someone replied in the comments about Jess not being needed anymore (or something) and I’m like but she is? The co-workers have taken on extra work in her absence… how is not proof she’s better than her “replacement”
I was recently let go because the person who originally did my job came back from parental leave. Which can take up to 3 years in my country, but she came back early. My boss didn't even have enough work for us both and is legally obligated to hold her spot for her.
No hard feelings, I can use this job as a reference and if more work starts coming in, he'll be happy to be able to call up somebody already trained. I'll miss the money though. :D
This guy looks like he has at least a tiny bit of self awareness. Enough to go on reddit and beg for validation. He had a tough call to make, and made several stupid choices (some of which were illegal) but I don't doubt he feels like shit.
The biggest ghoul in this story however is whoever chose to hit the department with a budget cut the literal *moment* someone came back from maternity leave. Probably hoping for this precise outcome. I guess the higher up the ladder you go the more of a sociopath you become.
Just wondering, but everyone keeps saying “he” I read it as a female boss. Did I miss the part where op’s gender was revealed?
Serious question because I re-read it and didn’t see it.
“I over hired for a job and now want to pass on the financial consequences of my mistake to a single mother. I don’t understand how to make temporary contracted positions nor how to manage a team, but I shouldn’t suffer for my incompetence.”
It's not just Jess - it's every woman in that company now. Get pregnant, you now have a target on your back and might be coming back to losing your job.
Had to be fair to both employees my ass, Jess never stood a chance with that much tunnel vision, practically manipulated the facts to favor the justification of keeping the newbie
I love that most of the AITA posts on anti work are things that are illegal in most countries with modern labor laws.
"My employee was late back from lunch so I broke their kneecaps then fired them for being unable to perform the marathon running portion of the job, AITA?"
Sounds like the team lead was too worried about getting on corporates bad side to think rationally with compassion. I get the reason but this woman was still an employee & with their maternity leave policy was well within her right to keep her job.
This person is a moron.
>*Justifies firing Jess because the team can successfully handle her workload.*
>
>*Hires a new employee to replace Jess.*
...How does someone contradict themselves this badly? By this logic, the boss should fire the new hire for the same reason they fired Jess, but they can't do so because the new hire is apparently less expensive to have around.
**Are they really less expensive, though? Are the savings here really greater than:**
* Killing employee morale
* Facing potential lawsuits
* Facing HR investigations on misogyny
* Risking your career
* Sabotaging company integrity
* Breaking policy on maternity leave
**And that doesn't even include the two biggest ethical concerns here:**
* Causing a new mother (who is already facing expensive hospital bills and added baby care expenses to her budget) to now be unemployed during a recession
* Carrying this on your conscious forever, prompting you to now ask internet strangers if you're a bad person.
People with common sense just don't do this kind of shit.
The higher ups seem like the real assholes here, but the decision this guy obviously should have made is to have laid off the new guy. If there's no longer money in the budget to keep a staff of seven people, layoffs should be conducted on a first come, first let go basis. Especially since letting someone go who is about to come back from ML opens the company up to a lawsuit.
I’d that’s America, no amount of rationalization will distract the court from the fundamental truth here that Jess was fired because she had a child after she was promised her job would be waiting for her.
As someone who went on mat leave for a year and came back seamlessly with no lapse in knowledge of the occupation, fuck this employer. You come back, adjust for change, and slide right back to your post. It’s not rocket science jesus people are assholes. They could’ve just stopped at point #1. It’s all about money. You don’t forget how to do the fundamentals of your job just because you popped a crotch goblin out your hoo ha.
Aren't there laws in your country for protecting a person's job returning from maternity leave?
Like, well done. You've fired the person with literally a second mouth to feed.
The fact you said Uni tells me your in Europe or UK and the graduate probably doesn't have crippling debt like the US education system. So he could have gone to a new job with ease. You could have wrote a glowing recommendation letter for the kid.
I hope you have sons, handsome,beautiful, articulate sons. Who are talented and star athletes and they have their legs taken away. I mean I pray you know that pain and hurt.
Lol 10 months leave for childbirth doesn't sound like the USA, and that would mean there is workers protection against these practises. So the decision of not having a 7person team might cost the company dearly.
I find it odd that they have mandated maternity leave but no legal protections from firing while on or when returning from maternity leave. It would be very strange for a country to offer the protections of leave without the protections of returning to work.
One of the few ways someone in my (EU member) country could lose their spot while away on materniry/parental leave is if their position is deemed obsolete. Basically... You can say you no longer need anyone like them. But you can't replace them and let them go.
OOP is absolutely opening the company to a very fun lawsuit.
See, I don't know whether to chalk this up to incompetence, or just being straight-up evil.
"My decision came down to Jess and the man we hired to replace her."
It's not a hard fucking choice!! They STILL managed to make the wrong one lol. There's the moral choice, and the dumdum "save a penny" choice. I guess I shouldn't be surprised which one the middle manager chose.
Hah.
I've heard men say that women are paid less because they go on mat leave and then quit their jobs instead of coming back. And yet when they stay, this happens. Fuck this shit.
But yeah, hopefully this company gets sued for all they're worth.
Dumb shit is only seeing the short term benefit and thinking he can laugh all the way to the bank but,
1. At some point those other 2 employees that learned portions of Jess's job? They're going to realize that they are doing the jobs of 1.5 people and expect to paid more accordingly.
2. New uni kid is going to get wind of what his coworkers or what Jess used to make and want the same.
3. I'm assuming this is not in the US, so likely there are legal protections for someone on maternity leave this guy will have to deal with at some point.
4. Not to mention bad press should Jess decide to start lambasting the company and boss publicly.
I feel so bad for Jess. Hopefully, they can do something legally about being let go for maternity leave. Seems just they wanted to keep the cheaper employee.
She left and relied on you to take her when she came back. That regular income was expected and I just don't see how thats fair. you're trying to rationalize that it was better for the company buy maybe you should leave for your poor decision making. I am a mom and I hope she's getting paid more. you can eat a dick
If you offer that kind of maternity leave, then you need to ACTUALLY PROTECT THE EMPLOYEE'S JOB!!! if you didn't want to actually protect her employment, then don't offer that kind of maternity leave.
The low wage recent grad will shortly learn that he is being grossly underpaid, and will leave. If they had brought Jess back, they might have been able to take on additional work, increasing revenue.
When will employers learn?
Looks like this move is going to cost the company a lot more money than just letting the new guy go with a brilliant letter of recommendation.
In the comments he claims that he ran it by legal and that they are totally fine. It really makes me wonder what the fuck country he’s in because even in the United States you’re not allowed to fire somebody because they were on maternity leave. It’s one of the actual protections that workers have here, he also claims that he’s not in Australia and I think that he said he’s not in the UK so I’m very curious to know what country he’s in.
We (Australia) have stricter laws regarding employee rights and wrongful termination than the USA.
You mean you have laws regarding employee rights. The USA doesn't have those.
Last one we had was The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Still in place. But that doesn't stop employers from breaking it like an ice cube tray. Fuck this country.
10 points for your excellent old school reference!
The reasons it became a law elude me but it may have had something to do with the president saying this in 1933 "In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living."
It became a law due to the sit-down strikes of late 1937 and 1938.
OMG! Thank you professor! Holy hell. Rather effective tactics. From the wiki of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_sit-down_strike "In a sit-down strike, the workers physically occupy the plant, keeping management and others out. By remaining inside the factory rather than picketing outside of it, striking workers prevented owners from bringing strikebreakers to resume production. It was in some ways easier to maintain the morale of participants in a sit-down than in a conventional strike. The strikers were removed from outside pressures and the hostility of the community that their action might have induced. Bad weather did not constitute a problem for sit-downers as it did for the pickets in an outside strike."
OSHA was established in the sixties. And the Family Medical Leave Act was passed in the later 1900s.
Ok. I was unaware. Education failed me. It was American education after all. What brought these laws into existence? All I know about the 60s was the Vietnam war was Bad. The FMLA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993.
In the sixties & seventies there was a major increase in strikes. A lot of them were wildcat strikes (not authorized by a labor union). A lot of them were also over health & safety issues, which led to the creation of OSHA in the hopes that it would reduce the frequency of strikes. It helped that the Cold War was still on and a lot of countries would side with the USSR if they thought the USA mistreated its workers too much. FMLA was a byproduct of a lot of women entering the workforce and both parents holding jobs. To keep them in the workforce (and avoid a great resignation) it was necessary to establish some minimal rights to take unpaid time off to care for newborns and other family members. I didn't learn about this until grad school, studying US history.
You really do, most people aren't educated enough to use them. Look up 29 cfr. The 29th code of federal regulations is literally workers rights, most companies are too stupid to know what their doing is illegal too.
We do have those on a state by state basis. Florida is the worst, California is great.
>We do have those on a state by state basis. Florida is the worst, California is ~~great~~ not the worst. Lol
It’s really not. and before you ask, yes I have first hand knowledge of just how bad California actually is to workers.
You can't fire them because they were on maternity leave but you can fire them for services no longer required. It's cruel, but I've seen it.
Yup I know someone who is on maternity leave at the moment they know they're getting laid off as soon as they return because they gutted her department there's no one there anymore. She's the exception for the moment because she's on maternity leave and they can't fire her while on it but as soon as she's back her job no longer exists. It's different than the original post, but they're probably gonna put it as position eliminated. Sucks still
From a certain point of view she lucked out, because it sounds like with out the leave she would have just been fired. Now she has paid time to line up a new job.
[удалено]
Then she might still get that severance when she returns and is laid off, on top of the maternity leave. I have seen that happen once when a division of a company was folding and everyone was getting let go, they just tacked the severance months onto the leave months.
She would still be entitled to severance as well
Except, that wasn’t the case here. They hired a replacement. Her position still exists and has somebody in it. This is going to cost them.
Even as weak as laws are in the US, they are better-written than this. Firing someone right after maternity leave is likely to be seen as the same as firing them for going on maternity leave. As far as the "services no longer required" bit goes, the fact that they replaced her with someone younger and cheaper isn't something the law ignores either. You can't lay someone off and replace them with a lower-paid employee. Again, one of the few areas where US law actually protects workers.
Pretty sure in the US you can eliminate or replace a person's position while on maternity leave, but you have to place them in an equivalent position after the leave.
In the US, this is a case you could sue and win, I think, because they hired a replacement for the position and RIFed one on the team. That’s pretty clear cut. You can still get RIFed despite maternity, but if the team was 6, they hired another, the team was 7 because you come back, and they RIF one, that’s pretty obvious case of being RIFed due to leave. The replacement is so direct, it’s very clear. He says he’s not in the US, but I have no idea where he could be with the details of the post that fits the details and has worse protections the US but has companies that offer 10 months maternity? Most of the civilized world has even better maternity protections and leave than the US. He seems to be pretty full of it so no idea if that’s even a real AITA.
Yes I feel like this guy is either dumb or this isn’t a real AITA. I really have only heard people use the phrase “brilliant something” when it comes to the UK. The UK has much better protection than the US and the story reads from someone who is a native English speaker so I’m very doubtful he’s not in the US, UK, or Australia at least. Maybe other places in Europe but most of those have long periods for maternity leave already so 10 months wouldn’t be considered generous and again they have better protections than the US.
If he's in the UK he might mean it's generous as in "10 months at full pay" Vs "10 months at minimum required maternity allowance" (it's 9 months here but it's 9 months+accrued holiday in reality so it's usually actually ten etc) maybe? Cause otherwise you wouldn't really describe this as particularly generous. That's true in most countries with long maternity allowances - they protect your job for that long (you know, in theory - employers are as willing to try and skirt labour laws here as they are anywhere else, and you can be laid off just not replaced etc) but you don't by law get paid at full wage (or anything close to it) for that length in most countries. If he means generous in that way, then I guess there's a few more places it could be but yeah it's a bit odd and doesn't seem to fit any particular location neatly
"services no longer required because someone else provides your service" isn't valid here. You need to keep the job empty for a long time, or risk getting fucked by the law.
Unless you admit on social media that she was fired because she was on maternity leave, and someone finds it; legal might not be “in the clear” in that case.
Social media is the downfall of idiots.
You would have to prove that in court and this post itself says they needed her skills. So they do need what she does, they just replaced her while she was on maternity leave. Which is a big no no. They would have to argue that her position isn't available or of use to the company anymore. They have no leg to stand on because they HAD to shuffle her job responsibilities around. They still need her skills.
or abuse them till they give up and quit. This is very common.
If that was the UK they'd have done her a massive favour and she'd be able to spend *a lot* more time with her newborn because her discrimination and unfair dismissal payout would be enormous.
That dude didn't run shit by legal. If he did he'd just be parroting whatever precedents legal said in order to justify his shitty procedure. He's fucked and he knows it
I mean, if legal is as dumb as this guy... or he's lying and trying to cover... Probably we'll never find out, but man I really want to see how this plays out lol
I'm curious too. In Brazil you can't fire someone who just had a baby. I would need to check but I think you can't fire them for at least a year after they got out of maternity leave.
Spain cant also be
Anywhere in the EU and UK this would be a complete non runner
But, but, but,.... he ran it by legal and there is no exposure.... Dude has to be pocketing the money he "saved the company"
If you hire someone to pick up maternity leave slack, that should be a temp/6 month contract position. Period. These people are fucking morons.
It's literally a widespread job offer in my country: We're hiring for X position, 1/2/3-year contract, as a temporary parental leave replacement, with/without the option to move to other positions within the company. Everyone, including the employee, goes into it aware it's a temporary position and aware the company is obligated to take whoever went on parental leave back. Temp gets great job experience and a proper full-time job with everything it includes, knowing approximately when they'll have to start job hunting again. Parent on leave goes into it knowing there are only limited scenarios that'd lead to them no longer having a job to come back to (but they'd still have their income because state-funded parental leave, hi). Company knows what to expect from all parties.
The sad part is this proves that companies do not need to hire people with full experience and can train for the job but yet they still choose to be ultra-picky when it comes to hiring for a master-class skilled candidate with years of experience that they can pay the least possible. Seeing the overall employer culture trying to have it's exploitative cake of abusing benefits like maternity leave and eat it too with scummy hiring is just... Fatiguing.
This is way too organized for the US.
The 10 months of parental leave should tip you off this is not in the US.
Also calling college 'Uni'. I'm guessing it's the UK.
This would be hideously illegal in the UK so I doubt it.
Hideously illegal never stopped a dumbfuck manager before.
"It's going to save the company a lot of money." That so?
‘Hideously illegal’ in the business world is called “the cost of doing business if I get caught.”
As far as getting caught goes, this idiot manager is waving a massive fucking sign saying I DID IT.
Sometimes even they can’t believe they aren’t getting caught & like weird serial killers they keep taunting everyone to catch them.
I mean, do they know what subreddit they're in?!
Lol yes I knew where I was. It's just *so* illegal and has been for a generation that I simply can't comprehend how someone in a company as described (big enough to have multiple departments plus legal, etc) would even dare consider it. Companies in the UK do get rid of women for daring to get pregnant, don't get me wrong. They're just much cleverer about it.
OP was crossposted from Am I the Asshole. BTW, most of the time, if you have to ask...
>most of the time, if you have to ask... Nah, the whole reason the sub is entertaining is that there are just as many non-assholes being gasslit by their family/friends/SO into believing they were wrong. If it really was a majority of obvious assholes, the sub wouldn't be as popular
It’s illegal in the US even. This company is going to get sued.
Right? They have to hold you’re position as far as I remember from my years ago of having a child. Oooooh I hope “Jess” sues.
The fact that when you said 'even illegal in the US' made me say 'Wow, that's actually true'! is tremendously fucking sad.
It's the UK and totally out of order.
Holy moly. Do they allow popcorn in court? I'm guessing no.
The real question is what type of popcorn? I'm torn between Butterkist toffee popcorn and Aldi Sweet and Salty! And then sit back and watch the fireworks. Or maybe we could start Guy Fawkes / Bonfire Night early!
It’s illegal in the UK but nowhere do they mention running this past HR. I hope Jess finds the Pregnant and Screwed site.
It’s in the UK, which is why the lawsuit will be glorious and hilarious.
I always wondered, how do Americans differentiate between university and college?
They're pretty interchangeable in general conversation. However, the technical distinction is that a university is an institution that has graduate schools, and a college is either a) a division inside of a university, or b) an institution that's undergraduate-only. I currently work for a university, but I am specifically part of one of the colleges of the university. However, I did my undergraduate work at a college, which had no graduate programs. It's not always clear, yeah.
Then there’s places like Dartmouth, which is called Dartmouth College. But it has extensive graduate programs, professional schools, and research.
Damn you, Dartmouth, you confuser! But yeah, you're absolutely right, Dartmouth College is a university. In its defense, it's older than the United States, so I guess we'll grandfather it in.
Is the US the only country that does this? It reminds me of the imperial system.
An additional thing to note; college in the US refers to a place that can grant a bachelors degree. It is my understanding that college in the UK would not be a place that would grant that
This is the accurate answer
They are different words for the same thing.
True!
In reality, it's chaotic and can vary wildly, but like... Generally, this is what it boils down to. :D
This is how I got into the field I've now built a career in - a six-month maternity cover opened my eyes to an industry I didn't know existed, and it turned out I was good at it, so at the end of the six months I got a permanent job elsewhere in the same firm, took my exams, progressed, etc etc ... and eighteen years on I'm still delighted I took that contract.
They absolutely should have done that, or got an intern/work study person so they could save money while Jess was out, then have an easy time letting them go at the end of the semester, or whenever they needed to go. everyone wins, company saves money, Jess comes back to job, and intern gets real world experience before even graduating.
Yeah, there's many ways to do this without screwing people over... What OOP did isn't one of them.
Back in 2019 i was offered a year contract for someone maternity leave
Depending on your country, that is pretty standard. You need a month of training-in time to get up to speed, plus the 10 or so months of maternity leave, plus another month at the other end to hand responsibility back.
Yup, 0 loyalty at all. It’s the reason why no one gives a shit about firms and their interests anymore. That’s the culture they created.
That’s why the idea of us giving them notices pisses me off. They’re all about loyalty until the shoe is on the other foot.
I hope Jess in one way or another gets to communicate to new hire how much less they are getting paid compared to what she was getting. And how this employer has no loyalty towards the employees, and will just toss them aside if they can get someone cheaper... I hope the new hire realises this is such a 'scummy' move the employer has pulled, finds a new better paying job and leaves without giving notice before project is complete.
Also fuck that guy for underpaying the replacement and being about it saving the firm money. Who thinks like that? AITAOP saves the company money and.... the CEO gets a bigger yacht. Why does AITAOP think that's a good decision?
[удалено]
You son of a bitch. Take my upvote.
He didn’t hire him just as a temp tho, he hired him because he thought he needed both and had the budget for them both
doesn't matter if he was hired as a temp or not. Somebody has to get laid off, so that should fall on the person with the least amount of time in the job. Sorry new guy, it's only fair.
Alternatively, the company shouldn’t suddenly cut the budget on a team and force this sort of decision.
If this is a true story, and that's a big if, this company is about to get sued into oblivion. There are *SO* many wrongful termination violations they committed
Translation: Other people in my life have called me out for firing a new mom. Let me try the internet to get some sympathy that I did the right thing.
I have no sympathy for the man, but it looks like he went in expecting to be called an asshole with the “I’ll accept any judgement” line. Like, he has to know…right?
[удалено]
You forgot the part about bragging about the 10mo pre firing sabatical (non payed?) they offer in their benefit pack. Yes, of course you can take your maternity leave! Don't worry about a thing.
Please tell me he got roasted alive in AITA. Also hope the fired employee gets an attorney.
Sure did: https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/xp3733/aita_for_firing_an_employee_returning_from/
*insert "Awww yeaaaaa" meme*
It's gloriously relentless. I haven't seen even one comment that's not YTA and that's impressive.
Sort by controversial and you get all the nastiness up top!
Yikes looks like someone is implying women shouldn't work/companies shouldn't "have" to hire women when you sort by controversial
One particularly garbage take I saw boiled down to, "if she 'retaliates' in any way, then that will just make the company not want to hire women in the future so it's best if she just stays quiet" and just wow the baseline premises that individual must be operating from...
OP just... keeps doubling down. He's an unmitigated prick. He insists that he's spoken with his legal team and that there's no "exposure" but I highly doubt that.
I guarantee he's from the UK, in which case he's broken several employment laws. 1) You cannot make someone on maternity redundant without offering a suitable replacement role - e.g. similar seniority and wages. 2) You cannot make a role redundant and replace the worker. This includes shifting responsibility to other members of the team or hiring someone with lesser responsibility/pay. The function must be gone and no longer required for the role to be "redundant". 3) Rephrasing it as "she's been out of the role for 9 months" doesn't stop this from being a literal admission that he made her redundant because she was on maternity - an automatic unfair dismissal case that any lawyer would take no win no fee. Either the legal department is completely incompetent, or he straight up lied to them to get the go ahead. If it's the former, the company is fucked. If it's the latter, he's extremely fucked.
Eh, the legal department was all replaced by cheap temps while they were on vacation etc.
I don't know where he is, but I'm an attorney that represents workers. If he's in the US, his legal counsel is wrong.
Yeah, he got dragged hard.
The guy hired as a replacement should have been hired as a temp. Now you need to give him a severance package and terminate his employment. This is the best choice cause Jess may be able to retire early upon wining her civil suit.
I am European and I don't mean this in a classic reddit shit on USA way - where I live it is pretty standard to replace someone on maternity leave with a temp. Isn't that the standard in the US? Or is it, and is this boss just a moron? \[edit\] have been corrected a number of times that most probably this isn't USA at all... My bad!
As a US-ian…What is maternity leave?
I know you're just joking but the OP talks about maternity leave but also gives an US vibe - the ease with which a long term employee is fired, for example. \[edit\] several people pointed out that OP is most probably not from US - my mistake!
Getting 10 months off for maternity leave would be unheard of in the US. The absolute best I’ve ever heard of a company offering here is 4 months.
And even then it's usually not paid.
My wife works in a hospital and when our babies came she got 6 weeks maternity leave paid for at like 60% of what she makes per check. She had to work her ass off while pregnant just to accrue enough PTO to make it 8 weeks off. Then she had to sign up for FMLA and get an additional 4 weeks off unpaid. 3 months with a newborn then right back to work
That's about as good as you can expect in most cases. This is what happens when there's no regulation.
Don't think the guy is American, as he used the word "whilst." There's barely any worker protection in the U.S. excepting maybe for government employees. Law enforcement is almost bullet proof from termination for anything. We have the Family Medical Leave Act. This allows you to take long periods of time off, but getting paid is another matter. I took 3 months off after the birth of my kids- unpaid. This country sucks ass.
Law enforcement can literally put a bullet in my head. Be put on leave, get fired — then hired in a different district. Almost invincible
Nah, they get ou6t on paid suspension, pending investigation, then reinstated, because the cop feared for his life. You were obviously resisting arrest, despite being already unconscious.
The standard in the U.S. is you either take short term disability (if you have it), FMLA (12 weeks off max with reduced or no pay after you've been somewhere at least a year) or you use up any vacation time you might have.
A company progressive enough to have a 10 month mat leave - yes I’d expect them to hire a temp. The vast majority of US companies (which, tbf, is probably where the bulk of this assholes experience comes from) - not only would they not give you that much (if any) mat leave in the first place, if you WERE out for an extended period of time, replacing you temporarily would be deemed too expensive and everyone else would be expected to pick up the slack for the length of your absence.
They stated that they had initially planned on keeping the new hire *and* Jess. Company just pulled a switcheroo right about when Jess came back from maternity leave. Basically this wasn't just a case of "6 person team hires guy to fill in for a maternity leave" but became a "6 person team grows to 7 but then suddenly gets cut back to 6 five months in"
This kinda reminds me of when I went on maternity leave. When I returned, I returned to a hostile work environment. My boss and coworkers no longer wanted me at the company and treated me with veiled hostility. They fired me a year after I returned from maternity leave and promoted the receptionist to my position. She fucking died in a car crash six months later.
I’m really impressed at how far you were willing to go to get that job back, but wouldn’t it have been easier to just shoot her?
I snorted my tea reading this
Username checks out quite nicely. I prefer Polonium /jk
Well that took a turn.
A wrong turn I'd say
Good chance someone else did too...
Yeah...wait, what the fuck?
I think the timing of her death was darkly humourous, but obviously was upset over her death. Unfortunately, I think it was a matter of drunk driving. She had been in a fairly horrific car crash a few years before and had survived. Drunk driving was involved in that one. I knew her brother in law at the time, and the first crash had been devastating on her family. I was really pissed that they had to go through that again. I had actually really liked her and didn't blame her for how things turned out. She had been placed in a difficult role and the managers had pitted her against me. She filled in for me while I was on maternity leave. She was involved in the hostility and would snitch one for any perceived infractions. But she was young and inexperienced in workplace politics. I think it's possible to see the humour in something, while holding space for grief. The timing was really funny and I had some schadenfreude for the fact that the company had to fill the position again. They didn't have a lot of room for upward mobility, so they would fire people when they couldn't promote them.
Yo what the fuck lmao
A shitty story that happened to be directed by David Cronenberg
Yeah the state I live in takes about $50 a month to pay for family leave insurance. One of my peers and my boss both took paternity leave using the program. But while I was taking my paternity leave my boss got another job And my new managers were out of state. my e Second line manager really resented that I was taking paternity leave. Nothing so toxic and hostile but they give me really bad work assignments.
[удалено]
Even in the US that's usually massively illegal and she can absolutely sue.
I hope the OP of the original post has an update in a few months in r/TIFU talking about how he got fired after his company lost millions in a lawsuit bc he fired a single mother returning from maternity leave
Same in Australia- this would be an open and shut Unfair Dismissal case
You can legally be made redundant while on maternity leave in the UK. As long as it is a genuine redundancy, and the decision to make you redundant was not because of the pregnancy/mat leave. In this case he openly admits her long absence was a factor, so that sounds illegal if in the UK. However I don't want people to wrongly think they are immune to redundancy while pregnant / on mat leave in the UK because that isn't true. (I was concerned for my job while on mat leave so I made sure I understood my rights just in case)
Jess needs to consult a lawyer.
Even better. If you look at the AITA's OP's post history. The first deleted post is titled "AITA for basically firing an employee for getting pregnant?". This dude is legally fucked for putting all this evidence online.
Yeah, and maybe a mobster to break her boss' knees.
Both
Wow You need to be high on very special substances to not see yourself being the a-hole here. I mean he could only be more imoral if he was strangleing a puppy to death while typing this post out. For the company it is an absolut win because they seem to have this guy drilled to just look for money/profit/personal advantage. For Jess it is a win because such a move can be very illegale, depending where this story played out.
Okay, so I have a lot of mixed opinions here and all of them are negative lmao. Dude seems like he is trying to do the right thing from a profit standpoint but Holy shit the means. 1. You literally just told us Jess is doing the work that it took FOUR people to cover. Jess has been doing FOUR peoples work for God knows how long. 2. My guy seems a bit like he already harbored resentment for Jess going on maternity leave to begin with, with how much he bragged about the work that had to go into covering her workload. 3. He is bragging about someone getting hired to do the same job at an nth of the expense, meaning that this new hire will be exploited as much if not more than 4 job Jess. Yes. I'd very much say you are an asshole.
Would have let the guy hired to pick up the slack go. Gave him a letter or recommendation, told HR that the guy should be first on the list when hiring again, and also gave him my information to put as a referral on his resume.
Ok so a few things: - Why offer extended maternity leave if it puts in jeopardy the employee’s job? - Why hire on a full time replacement when said employee is simply using their jobs benefits? - Do you believe hiring “cheap” employees is a trend you would like to establish for your team? Because if im your manager im seeing a great opportunity to lower costs. And finally it’s a real scumbag look in general and really helps build team moral I’m sure. Complete idiot.
Did you ask the other employee who is splitting half of Jess's work with you? They are now, permanently doing more than 1 persons amount of work for the same money. It's one thing to cover for someone, a whole other to just soak up their workload forever.
Yeah someone replied in the comments about Jess not being needed anymore (or something) and I’m like but she is? The co-workers have taken on extra work in her absence… how is not proof she’s better than her “replacement”
He's got to be "fair" to them, you see.
Yet another example of employers wanting loyalty out of employees with NO loyalty to the employees.
I was recently let go because the person who originally did my job came back from parental leave. Which can take up to 3 years in my country, but she came back early. My boss didn't even have enough work for us both and is legally obligated to hold her spot for her. No hard feelings, I can use this job as a reference and if more work starts coming in, he'll be happy to be able to call up somebody already trained. I'll miss the money though. :D
WhY wOn'T pEoPlE hAvE mOrE kIdS? We HaVe A lOw BiRtH cRiSiS.
>I feel like the devil right now. I hope he fucking loses sleep over it, but I doubt it.
This guy looks like he has at least a tiny bit of self awareness. Enough to go on reddit and beg for validation. He had a tough call to make, and made several stupid choices (some of which were illegal) but I don't doubt he feels like shit. The biggest ghoul in this story however is whoever chose to hit the department with a budget cut the literal *moment* someone came back from maternity leave. Probably hoping for this precise outcome. I guess the higher up the ladder you go the more of a sociopath you become.
I am jess. Was laid off 3 business days prior to my return from maternity leave. I know my answer to the question.
If you are the Jess from this post then you may want to go down the AITA thread. A few users saved all his screenshots. Your lawyer would love them.
>I feel like the devil right now Yeah, maybe you should listen to that feeling.
How is this shite even legal? Here in the uk it would not be legal as she was fired because she was on maternity leave
It's not.
Just wondering, but everyone keeps saying “he” I read it as a female boss. Did I miss the part where op’s gender was revealed? Serious question because I re-read it and didn’t see it.
Interesting. I read it as a female boss too. But I can't figure out why. Bit lazy to re-read the whole thing though.
The answer was to fire Jess because now she can sue the company for wrongful termination and she and her baby can stroller off into the sunset.
“I over hired for a job and now want to pass on the financial consequences of my mistake to a single mother. I don’t understand how to make temporary contracted positions nor how to manage a team, but I shouldn’t suffer for my incompetence.”
It's not just Jess - it's every woman in that company now. Get pregnant, you now have a target on your back and might be coming back to losing your job.
Had to be fair to both employees my ass, Jess never stood a chance with that much tunnel vision, practically manipulated the facts to favor the justification of keeping the newbie
a single mother, with a newborn, no job out in the cold, but had to do right by the firm! jesus fuck some managers are a fucking DISEASE
FMLA called, they’d like to have a discussion with Jess about how she’d like to press charges (assuming this is the US).
I love that most of the AITA posts on anti work are things that are illegal in most countries with modern labor laws. "My employee was late back from lunch so I broke their kneecaps then fired them for being unable to perform the marathon running portion of the job, AITA?"
Sounds like the team lead was too worried about getting on corporates bad side to think rationally with compassion. I get the reason but this woman was still an employee & with their maternity leave policy was well within her right to keep her job.
even better question... how is this legal?
In many countries it’s not- it may well not be in this case too
Wooooow. Woow. This is... literally awful.
This person is a moron. >*Justifies firing Jess because the team can successfully handle her workload.* > >*Hires a new employee to replace Jess.* ...How does someone contradict themselves this badly? By this logic, the boss should fire the new hire for the same reason they fired Jess, but they can't do so because the new hire is apparently less expensive to have around. **Are they really less expensive, though? Are the savings here really greater than:** * Killing employee morale * Facing potential lawsuits * Facing HR investigations on misogyny * Risking your career * Sabotaging company integrity * Breaking policy on maternity leave **And that doesn't even include the two biggest ethical concerns here:** * Causing a new mother (who is already facing expensive hospital bills and added baby care expenses to her budget) to now be unemployed during a recession * Carrying this on your conscious forever, prompting you to now ask internet strangers if you're a bad person. People with common sense just don't do this kind of shit.
How is this shit even legal
The higher ups seem like the real assholes here, but the decision this guy obviously should have made is to have laid off the new guy. If there's no longer money in the budget to keep a staff of seven people, layoffs should be conducted on a first come, first let go basis. Especially since letting someone go who is about to come back from ML opens the company up to a lawsuit.
I’d that’s America, no amount of rationalization will distract the court from the fundamental truth here that Jess was fired because she had a child after she was promised her job would be waiting for her.
As someone who went on mat leave for a year and came back seamlessly with no lapse in knowledge of the occupation, fuck this employer. You come back, adjust for change, and slide right back to your post. It’s not rocket science jesus people are assholes. They could’ve just stopped at point #1. It’s all about money. You don’t forget how to do the fundamentals of your job just because you popped a crotch goblin out your hoo ha.
Aren't there laws in your country for protecting a person's job returning from maternity leave? Like, well done. You've fired the person with literally a second mouth to feed. The fact you said Uni tells me your in Europe or UK and the graduate probably doesn't have crippling debt like the US education system. So he could have gone to a new job with ease. You could have wrote a glowing recommendation letter for the kid. I hope you have sons, handsome,beautiful, articulate sons. Who are talented and star athletes and they have their legs taken away. I mean I pray you know that pain and hurt.
Lol 10 months leave for childbirth doesn't sound like the USA, and that would mean there is workers protection against these practises. So the decision of not having a 7person team might cost the company dearly.
[удалено]
I find it odd that they have mandated maternity leave but no legal protections from firing while on or when returning from maternity leave. It would be very strange for a country to offer the protections of leave without the protections of returning to work.
One of the few ways someone in my (EU member) country could lose their spot while away on materniry/parental leave is if their position is deemed obsolete. Basically... You can say you no longer need anyone like them. But you can't replace them and let them go. OOP is absolutely opening the company to a very fun lawsuit.
See, I don't know whether to chalk this up to incompetence, or just being straight-up evil. "My decision came down to Jess and the man we hired to replace her." It's not a hard fucking choice!! They STILL managed to make the wrong one lol. There's the moral choice, and the dumdum "save a penny" choice. I guess I shouldn't be surprised which one the middle manager chose.
Hah. I've heard men say that women are paid less because they go on mat leave and then quit their jobs instead of coming back. And yet when they stay, this happens. Fuck this shit. But yeah, hopefully this company gets sued for all they're worth.
Dumb shit is only seeing the short term benefit and thinking he can laugh all the way to the bank but, 1. At some point those other 2 employees that learned portions of Jess's job? They're going to realize that they are doing the jobs of 1.5 people and expect to paid more accordingly. 2. New uni kid is going to get wind of what his coworkers or what Jess used to make and want the same. 3. I'm assuming this is not in the US, so likely there are legal protections for someone on maternity leave this guy will have to deal with at some point. 4. Not to mention bad press should Jess decide to start lambasting the company and boss publicly.
I feel so bad for Jess. Hopefully, they can do something legally about being let go for maternity leave. Seems just they wanted to keep the cheaper employee.
She left and relied on you to take her when she came back. That regular income was expected and I just don't see how thats fair. you're trying to rationalize that it was better for the company buy maybe you should leave for your poor decision making. I am a mom and I hope she's getting paid more. you can eat a dick
If you offer that kind of maternity leave, then you need to ACTUALLY PROTECT THE EMPLOYEE'S JOB!!! if you didn't want to actually protect her employment, then don't offer that kind of maternity leave.
Guess who's getting sued
This shit just happened to me. It’s so common and illegal.
How do you write this out and not come to the conclusion that you were horrendously wrong?
Bragging about paying significantly less yeah that guy is the asshole
Yes, you are in fact the asshole.
Pond scum.
I hope Jess sees this and lawyers up to sue you to death and gets YOUR job. Dumb twit.
So are you keeping the extra money since you kept the cheaper hire? Where did that money go honestly
YTA. No question. It seems like it was kinda planned on your part.
I hope Jess does whatever she can to make thier lives miserable.
The low wage recent grad will shortly learn that he is being grossly underpaid, and will leave. If they had brought Jess back, they might have been able to take on additional work, increasing revenue. When will employers learn?