Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 22 2012 @ 04:14 PM EST |
I agree with you in principal, that is, an employer has to have the right
to let go an employee who's presence has a disruptive impact on the
functioning of the company.
However, ending that employer/employee relationship and assigning
blame are unrelated. If no blame can be assigned to the employee, the
employee better receive normal notice and severance pay.
We don't know who is to blame in the situation described, or indeed if
even considering blame is appropriate. It is simply a situation
that.developed and cannot be permitted to continue.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 02:27 AM EST |
When people act on what *may* happen, we are crossing a boundry with alomst
unimaginabe consequences.
Why should the assistant pay for the husbands roaming eye and the wife's fear of
keeping him honest?
This couple should take their nuptual issues to a councilor or take the
consequence and get a divorce.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 25 2012 @ 09:14 PM EST |
Bit rough on everyone involved. But there was probably no alternative solution
other than going through the sham of closing the business then re-opening
without the assistant. I'm in my 60s and have had 7 dentists. One did 'run off'
with with his assistant. So it happens (and I was going out with his daughter at
the time). There is, and will always be, potential 'difficulties' in small
businesses where nobody has room to move.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|