N.F.L.’s Push Ahead With Season Rankles Workers in the Home Office

[machine gun kelly]

17 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

Which boomer is MJS?

 

 

 

Loved Grace Park as Boomer.  Not bad at 5O either.

[Mikie2times]

Each employer treats this a little differently. That said, essentially all employers need to do is not be grossly negligent. States want people off unemployment. If you have socially distanced working conditions and you are asked to return back, most states are instructing employers to separate from that employee if they refuse to do so. I think rightfully so. For every person who has a legit concern that directly impacts them, five more cry wolf.  All of this I have seen first hand too many times to count. 

 

If you want to play six degrees of separation all of us have somebody we come in contact with that is at risk. I think it's smart to work with the people who have a direct issue. But that's about it. Then as far as companies go, they really are just playing it safe. This is the wild west. Nobody is going to win lawsuits because an employer let somebody go that refused to return to work. Just isn't going to happen. MAYBE if that individual was clearly high risk, but not based o a family member or other contact. It's dog eat dog right now and I really don't mind, enough people have taken advantage of the stimulus and just been lazy piles of crap for 4 months. Not everybody fits that criteria, but a lot do, and as a hiring manager I'm sick of seeing it.

[GunnerBill]

9 hours ago, KzooMike said:

Each employer treats this a little differently. That said, essentially all employers need to do is not be grossly negligent. States want people off unemployment. If you have socially distanced working conditions and you are asked to return back, most states are instructing employers to separate from that employee if they refuse to do so. I think rightfully so. For every person who has a legit concern that directly impacts them, five more cry wolf.  All of this I have seen first hand too many times to count. 

 

If you want to play six degrees of separation all of us have somebody we come in contact with that is at risk. I think it's smart to work with the people who have a direct issue. But that's about it. Then as far as companies go, they really are just playing it safe. This is the wild west. Nobody is going to win lawsuits because an employer let somebody go that refused to return to work. Just isn't going to happen. MAYBE if that individual was clearly high risk, but not based o a family member or other contact. It's dog eat dog right now and I really don't mind, enough people have taken advantage of the stimulus and just been lazy piles of crap for 4 months. Not everybody fits that criteria, but a lot do, and as a hiring manager I'm sick of seeing it.

 

I am no expert in US employment law, and likely it is different - just given the cultural differences when it comes to workers rights, but in UK law someone who was offering to continue working from home in a way that had proven effective during the lockdown and was then dismissed because they refused to return to the office would, prima facie, have a case for wrongful dismissal.

Edited August 12, 2020 by GunnerBill

[Mikie2times]

13 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am no expert in US employment law, and likely it is different - just given the cultural differences when it comes to workers rights, but in UK law someone who was offering to continue working from home in a way that had proven effective during the lockdown and was then dismissed because they refused to return to the office would, prima facie, have a case for wrongful dismissal.

Most employees in the US work in states that are considered  "at will". Which basically means I can term you anytime, any reason, it only gets hairy if somebody can make an argument that I'm terming you because something discriminatory. It would be hard to make a case right now in the US for anything like that to occur. It's such a crap show right now with employers having blends on site and off site, trying to bring back poor performers offsite, but do so in ways that have some structural process. So many are flying by the seat right now I just don't see the courts ruling in employees favor unless it's egregious.  

Edited August 12, 2020 by KzooMike

[Beast]

Don't like an employees rules or demands? Then quit and find a new job that meets your needs......or start your own business and make the rules yourself.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Beast

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

Most employees in the US work in states that are considered  "at will". Which basically means I can term you anytime, any reason, it only gets hairy if somebody can make an argument that I'm terming you because something discriminatory. It would be hard to make a case right now in the US for anything like that to occur. It's such a crap show right now with employers having blends on site and off site, trying to bring back poor performers offsite, but do so in ways that have some structural process. So many are flying by the seat right now I just don't see the courts ruling in employees favor unless it's egregious.  

 

Thanks. I mean to me that is beyond bonkers but I suspected it would work that way. 

Edited August 12, 2020 by GunnerBill

[Punching Bag]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Thanks. I mean to me that is beyond bonkers but I suspected it would work that way. 

 

They are trying to make law which allows employers to sue you if you sue them for COVID-19 changes.

[Mikie2times]

26 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Thanks. I mean to me that is beyond bonkers but I suspected it would work that way. 

Right. So what it amounts to is say I term somebody citing job performance and that person is a minority. Then I don't term somebody who meets the same job performance levels as the other individual, then the former could say I did so based on race. Then they would have grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit.

 

With Covid it's just extra weird. Say I have two employees, both performing poorly off site. One is a minority who is 19 and the other is not and he's 60 years old. I tell the 19 year old you need to return on site, they refuse. I term that person. They try and file a wrongful termination lawsuit because I allowed the 60 year old to remain at home. Can that person really make an argument I did so based on race? Perhaps, but it would be pretty easy to argue I did so because I was protecting the health of somebody in a higher risk group. 

 

Would US courts pay that much attention given nearly every employer is dealing with this situation and nobody has the HR playbook? Probably not. What I'm describing is rampant in the states right now. It's a very bizarre climate with work. So many took the Federal stimulus and made out with higher income than when they did work. People who did keep working felt frustrated they weren't getting the hand out. I saw a massive surge in applicants when the stimulus ran out. Obviously not everybody fits into this. Some people are really dealing with some serious hardships, but the climate is just totally messed up. I'm sure other hiring managers would agree it's just been a very bizarre time. Probably similar in many other countries.     

Edited August 12, 2020 by KzooMike

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, KzooMike said:

Right. So what it amounts to is say I term somebody citing job performance and that person is a minority. Then I don't term somebody who meets the same job performance levels as the other individual, then the former could say I did so based on race. Then they would have grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit.

 

With Covid it's just extra weird. Say I have two employees, both performing poorly off site. One is a minority who is 19 and the other is not and he's 60 years old. I tell the 19 year old you need to return on site, they refuse. I term that person. They try and file a wrongful termination lawsuit because I allowed the 60 year old to remain at home. Can that person really make an argument I did so based on race? Perhaps, but it would be pretty easy to argue I did so because I was protecting the health of somebody in a higher risk group. 

 

Would US courts pay that much attention given nearly every employer is dealing with this situation and nobody has the HR playbook? Probably not. What I'm describing is rampant in the states right now. It's a very bizarre climate with work. So many took the Federal stimulus and made out with higher income than when they did work. People who did keep working felt frustrated they weren't getting the hand out. I saw a massive surge in applicants when the stimulus ran out. Obviously not everybody fits into this. Some people are really dealing with some serious hardships, but the climate is just totally messed up. I'm sure other hiring managers would agree it's just been a very bizarre time. Probably similar in many other countries.     

 

So in your specific circumstances where you can demonstrate someone is not performing offsite and you are asking them to return to the office and they are refusing then so long as you went through the proper warning processes before termination even in UK law they would struggle to bring a case. 

 

But if you couldn't prove that the offsite performance was demonstrably worse than their in office performance and, so long as they had been employed for two years, then in our law any attempt to dismiss them would likely be breach of employment law and they wouldn't even need to bring discrimination into it. 

[Mikie2times]

17 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So in your specific circumstances where you can demonstrate someone is not performing offsite and you are asking them to return to the office and they are refusing then so long as you went through the proper warning processes before termination even in UK law they would struggle to bring a case. 

 

But if you couldn't prove that the offsite performance was demonstrably worse than their in office performance and, so long as they had been employed for two years, then in our law any attempt to dismiss them would likely be breach of employment law and they wouldn't even need to bring discrimination into it. 

Very interesting. I would only be concerned with a protected class employee under the conditions of your second statement. That would have some risk. But if it wasn't a protected class employee, not much the employee could say. They would likely win an unemployment claim if the company fought it. That's about the most they could do. 

[stuvian]

I'm no fan of the wokester NYT but this is a bad look for the NFL. There's a lot of hubris in saying its business as usual now that our almighty dollar is threatened. Allowing players but not employees to opt out sends a mixed message. Viruses have their own lifecycle and don't care about your business model. 

 

The NFL looks badly out of touch on this and if current events haven't sufficiently demonstrated it, you can lose everything quickly in the current environment. No institution is more ripe for a fall than hubristic Big Football.

[Punching Bag]

1 hour ago, stuvian said:

I'm no fan of the wokester NYT but this is a bad look for the NFL. There's a lot of hubris in saying its business as usual now that our almighty dollar is threatened. Allowing players but not employees to opt out sends a mixed message. Viruses have their own lifecycle and don't care about your business model. 

 

The NFL looks badly out of touch on this and if current events haven't sufficiently demonstrated it, you can lose everything quickly in the current environment. No institution is more ripe for a fall than hubristic Big Football.

 

NFL players get this opt out opportunity because NFLPA is their "partner" and aside from those who have vetted medical issues are only getting advances.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that the employees should be able to opt out for a year, get salary advances, and come back and get their jobs back with no guarantees other than taking employees to court to get money back?   There are so many holes in that besides the holes already in NFL plan currently.

[stuvian]

14 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

NFL players get this opt out opportunity because NFLPA is their "partner" and aside from those who have vetted medical issues are only getting advances.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that the employees should be able to opt out for a year, get salary advances, and come back and get their jobs back with no guarantees other than taking employees to court to get money back?   There are so many holes in that besides the holes already in NFL plan currently.

 

not once did I say that employees should have the same pay package as athletes. They should however be given the option to work from home.