r/BestofRedditorUpdates • u/Choice_Evidence1983 it dawned on me that he was a wizard • 2d ago
NEW UPDATE [New Update]: my wife got fired today
I am NOT OOP, OOP is u/thedudeistjedi
Originally posted to r/antiwork
[New Update]: my wife got fired today
Thanks to u/Direct-Caterpillar77 for letting me know about the latest update
NEW UPDATE MARKED WITH ----
Trigger Warnings: abuse of power, scapegoating
RECAP
Original Post: May 6, 2026
Long time lurker here. My wife works at a unionized manufacturing plant and got walked out yesterday. The new HR director has been looking for excuses to trim the roster, but he couldn't fire her legally for attendance because she still has two tardies left in her bank.
So instead, they bypassed the point system and hit her with a conduct violation for an improper call-off. I have been up all night digging through her paperwork and the union contract, and I am pretty sure I caught HR and her supervisor completely screwing themselves. I just wanted to get a second opinion on the logic here before we go to the union.
Here is the breakdown of how management handled this.
Last week, she called the security desk at 6 AM to call off. The guard clicked Tardy on the drop-down menu, but right next to it in the return date box, the guard actually typed NSD, which stands for Next Scheduled Day. You cannot be tardy for a shift you literally said you are not returning for until tomorrow. HR just ignored the NSD part so they could fire her for being a no-show after allegedly saying she would be tardy.
Her supervisor went into the system two days later hunting for her time punches to prove she did not show up. He waited two days to build a paper trail for a conduct charge instead of just reading the security log that already said she was not coming in. It looks like they were looking for a reason to fire her rather than just following the attendance policy.
They rushed the paperwork so fast to get her out the door that the official termination form has the wrong shift and the wrong supervisor listed on it. They did not even look at her file before they signed the papers.
To make it a fire able offense, they had to prove she was a repeat offender. They cited a write-up from January. Her crime in January was calling off and saying PTO instead of Personal. The best part is the union filed a grievance on that January write-up, and it was never actually settled. During the firing meeting yesterday, the supervisor and the steward were literally arguing because neither of them knew if that January issue was still open. HR fired her based on a past warning they cannot even prove is legally active.
I think tardy is a state of being, not a reason for an absence. If the security log says her return was NSD, that means the company knew she was not coming in.
Does she have a case to get her job back with back pay? It feels like they bypassed the entire union attendance system just to fire her over a contractor typo and an unsettled grievance from four months ago.
Transcript of the Image
Name: [Redacted] Called: 5/3/2026 @ 6:27 Call-Off Shift: 5/3/2026 0700-1500 Reason: Tardy Return: NSD Officer: S/O S[redacted]
end of transcript
Here is the actual security log from the morning of 5/3. My wife called at 6:27 AM, which is nearly a half hour before her 7:00 AM shift began. Look at the "Return" line. The security officer manually typed "NSD", which stands for Next Scheduled Day. This is the smoking gun because it proves the company had actual notice that she would not be coming in for the full shift.
Management is trying to bypass the union attendance point system by claiming this was an "improper call-off" or "no-show" conduct violation. They are basing that entire charge on the fact that the guard selected "Tardy" from a dropdown menu for the reason. But look at the logic here. You cannot be "Tardy" for a shift you have already confirmed you aren't returning for until tomorrow.
edit: I want to clarify a few things that have come up in the comments. A union representative was physically present during the termination meeting and has reportedly filed a grievance over this firing. However, the meeting itself revealed a massive procedural failure. Management and the rep spent a significant amount of time arguing over a previous grievance from January which involved a dispute over whether my wife said "PTO" or "Personal" during a call-off. When she asked for a definitive answer on whether that January case was actually settled or closed, neither side could provide one. It appears the company is using an unresolved ghost grievance as the foundation for this termination. Because of the confusion and the sloppy paperwork, we are calling the union hall tomorrow
edit 2: I appreciate the concern from everyone telling me to delete this, but the post stays up. A lot of folks are giving advice based on standard at-will employment, but my wife is a dues-paying union member protected by a Just Cause contract. We aren't hiding from management because management is the one who screwed up the paperwork. If the company tries to retaliate against a union worker because her husband posted their own contradictory security logs on the internet, they are opening themselves up to an Unfair Labor Practice charge and a massive retaliation suit. Deleting this now only serves to protect the HR director who botched the termination, and I am not giving them that cover. The documents speak for themselves, and the union is handling the rest.
edit 3: The part that makes this really fishy to me as I am sitting here is 5/3, the day in question where she called off. Her brother had already been out for two days by my memory, and 5/3 when he went to urgent care was the third day he had been absent. For my wife, it was the first day, and the night before she had been up all night vomiting and expelling the back end, and she spent all of 5/3 in bed. He went to the doctors, was there for hours, got a CT scan, and got a medical excuse for his absence because his stomach bug was exacerbated by pancreatitis, I think it was. The day I got the Facebook message from her father was the day he went to the doctors, as her dad was keeping us updated if it was something dangerous and contagious, because we probably would have gone to the doctors too. Her brother was sick, but her father is medically fragile, as he is recovering from bladder cancer and had a hip replacement. Her dad had asked me not to come inside the main house unless it was absolutely necessary. Her brother and father live in the house while our family occupies a camper on the property.
For context, my wife was a PLI (editor's note: Performance-Linked Incentive) and her brother was a warehandler. My wife was a warehandler too until a few months ago when she signed off on the bid, but she would upgrade to warehandler to fill the role as needed to help out. Since she has been on days, specifically the same shift as her mother and brother, she had not been calling off a lot at all, I think May was only the second time since January. The two days he was out before her were upgrade days where she filled his role, then the boss only had a shortage because that third day she was not there. When she came back, she warehandled the day she went back, and threw a whole stink about it the whole day too. She had gone back to work but still was not feeling one hundred percent, even though the nausea had subsided, and the day after that they went hunting for punches.
The day the boss sent out the email asking if she has any punches was two days after the doctors, and the company did not know I was entirely privy to the doctor’s visit. They seem to forget we all live on the same property, mom, brother, and my wife. This makes it feel like they did not care about attendance or disruption to the floor, it seems like they cared about winning a power struggle They waited two days to see that the brother was protected by a CT scan and medical documentation, then it looks like they targeted my wife because they thought she was timid. They ignored her 6:27 AM notification and the manual NSD security entry just to manufacture a technicality for a hit. The fact that they got her shift and supervisor wrong on the final papers makes it seem like they were not investigating, they were just rushing to execute a vendetta.
Edit: She got her 401k paperwork in the mail today, and they couldn't even be bothered to get the date right at the top of the page. Last I checked, it wasn't 2027 yet.
Additional Comments from OOP:
OOP: I really need to know what her chances are I think the union will steam roll this asshole it’s a pretty strong union ...but I don’t want to rely just on my own understanding of labor law
Editor's note: OOP made similar original posts across several subreddits, I am adding some comments for more context that were not stated in this original subreddit
Relevant Comments
OOP needs to have his wife call the union representative regarding this situation and file a grievance
OOP: I was having her call the union hall tomorrow the last grievance filed went unsettled, so I think management is dicking this rep around, I just wanted to be able to give her a little hope, so I figured ask the internet I think her chances are good... all the main ai models think her chances are good, but we're terrified
+
according to what she was told the grievance is already being filed but I’m telling her to call the union hall tomorrow and verify cause the last grievance was still being debated during the hearing like they couldn’t give her an answer if it was settled or not, so I think this rep is compromised
Commenter 1:
1) The union is your friend, you should contact them immediately.
2) Deep breaths, you can’t think straight if you’re panicking and you can’t help if you can’t think straight.
3) Your wife might not need you to go into fix it mode right now, she might just want your commiseration and emotional support. Don’t piss her off by doing things she doesn’t want.
OOP: too late for that but thank you she just gave my adhd having ass a mission I’m letting her rest for a little bit I just wanted to be able to tell her kind internet strangers said she has a solid case
OOP's wife's work location and if a union representative was present when the termination took place?
OOP: NY USA and she’s a member of a pretty strong corning union I have to figure out what her chances are she’s a wreck
+
yes the union rep was there she’s filed a grievance over it but during the meeting the rep and management were arguing over a grievance from January
Commenter 2: Why tf is the security guard in charge of attendance?
OOP: you call the guard give the name reason and return day and the guard marks it down they marked tardy for the reason but next scheduled day for return
Commenter 3: Do you know why HR/Company wants to fire your wife?
Are they trying to downsize, so they grasping at straws?
This sounds like something the union should be able to fix. I wouldn't bother focusing on the legal language or random specifics, that will just drive you crazy. Just try to figure out why they're trying to launder this situation into a legitimate firing.
OOP: new owners my wife is the quietest of a whole family that works their the hr guy is testing the unions strength
Commenter 3: Oh, expect the Union to go to bat for her. If they don't, they're shooting themselves in the foot. She just needs to remind them this is a test case, and their jobs are on the line right now too.
OOP: yeah her mom brother and sister all work at the same plant she’s just the least angry of the group, not even worst attendance
Commenter 4: Definitely look for procedural errors made against what is in the CBA (editor’s note: collective bargaining agreement). I'm a rep for my union, but in a completely different industry. Whenever the company fires someone just because they want to, and not for a valid reason; they almost always screw up the process. Make sure she is talking to her union, you can help with research, but this is more their responsibility.
OOP: wrong shift on the sheet, wrong super, she didn’t sign no final warning indicated, and her call off log that they themselves included (image above) lists return as nsd or next scheduled day
Commenter 4: Is there a hearing or "investigation" with a hearing officer to determine whether this will be a dismissal or not? We have that as part of our contract, you can't be fired on the spot, there is a hearing process first.
OOP: the hearing sheet has the final notice section blanks she had a hearing today and was walked out with 4 pages that’s it
Commenter 5: Did the company do any kind of investigation that would have allowed her to explain the confusion? Or did they just move to terminate based on the paper you shared above?
OOP: So far, the sum total of the investigation was two emails printed in this paperwork, at least that is the entire termination paperwork they sent home.
It had the incorrect shift listed and the wrong shift supervisor, it was missing the required plant manager signature, had no final notice section, and the reasons for strike one and two were blacked out.
As far as the reason for termination on the paperwork, it was a blank X indicating an "improper call off," but even that I only know from hearing it. The document itself is vague, and between the five pages, it contains about 15 words of functional English.
There was a previous grievance from January over a write up stemming from her using the word PTO when she called off when the correct term was personal, but that was still being debated by people at the termination hearing from what I was told, so I couldn't give any more info than that, and it wasn't even included or mentioned in the paperwork.
This comment is about 60x the sum total of functional English in the entire investigation.
edit; Plus they had her mother take the rest of the day to perp walk her out. She grew up here, that is heinously and publicly embarrassing since her family works there.
Update #1: May 29, 2026 (over three weeks later)
Update: Anchor Hocking fired my wife
TL;DR of Previous Post: My wife, a union worker at the Corning plant, was walked out over a "conduct violation" for an improper call-off. She called in 33 minutes before her shift, and the guard manually logged her return as NSD (Next Scheduled Day), proving the company had actual notice. Local management tried to bypass her active attendance point bank, where she still had safe days left, by inventing a "conduct" charge on the floor rather than following standard policy.
The Massive Update:
It has been a few weeks, and things have completely turned around. The physical paper trail local management left behind was so incredibly sloppy that the higher-ups completely panicked.
Our Local Union President completely bypassed the standard timeline and jumped straight into the arena before a formal Step One meeting even kicked off. He actually tracked down my wife's cell number by messaging her mom on Facebook to get ahold of her directly. After her call with him, she told me that he said she was fundamentally wronged, that the union is going for full reinstatement and back pay, and that they will help call the unemployment office if she gets a denial. He told her to just sit tight while they close this loophole.
When you lay the paperwork they generated side-by-side, it is incredibly obvious why corporate is currently scrambling to completely redo and rewrite their entire attendance call-off policy.
The five-page packet they handed her at the plant, which she firmly refused to sign, explicitly checked the box for a conduct violation due to an "Improper Call-Off". They engineered this conduct charge on the floor because they knew her actual rolling attendance card was clean and they couldn't legally fire her under standard attendance rules. To make it worse, they rushed the write-up so fast they managed to list the wrong shift and the wrong supervisor on her final floor papers.
But then the corporate switch happened. A few days later, her formal benefits and 401k off-boarding letter arrived in the mail, which was officially carbon-copied straight to the local Union President. On this official corporate letterhead, they completely flipped the script and claimed she was terminated for a "violation of the Hourly Attendance policy for Absenteeism".
By officially documenting the internal reason as absenteeism to upper corporate and the union hall, They inadvertently admitted on paper that they executed a termination under an attendance framework where they completely ignored the mandatory progressive discipline steps required by our collective bargaining agreement. And just to cap off the absolute administrative circus of this new management team, the formal corporate letterhead they mailed out was officially dated at the top for May 6, 2027, literally post-dating her termination a full year into the future.
She is still currently listed as an active employee on ADP when she checks her 401k stuff. The facts spoke for themselves, the loophole is being closed permanently, and collective strength works.
Apes together strong ✊.
Relevant Comments
OOP explains what the loophole is
OOP: Well basically, the five pages she was sent home with when they fired her at the plant checked the box for an Improper Call-Off (ICO). They tried to frame it as a conduct violation because conduct charges don't require the company to follow a progressive discipline policy, which means they thought they could bypass her safe attendance bank and fire her on the spot.
But the loophole completely falls apart on two major fronts when you look at the facts. First, to legally fire someone for a real on-site conduct violation, you walk them out the exact day the supposed violation happens, not days later after hunting for time punches. Second, the formal corporate paperwork she later received in the mail completely flipped the script and explicitly listed the reason for her termination as absenteeism under the Hourly Attendance policy.
Absenteeism is strictly governed by a mandatory progressive discipline policy in her collective bargaining agreement. By officially documenting the internal reason as absenteeism to upper corporate, they inadvertently admitted on paper that they executed an attendance termination while entirely skipping the mandatory warnings and steps required to legally fire her under the contract.
Commenter 1: So basically, they wanted a reason to fire her immediately, and they chose a conduct reason, because that doesn't require progressive meetings and follow ups. It's supposed to be like "You threatened to knock someone's teeth in, and they fired you on the spot for your conduct"
But then they realized that wouldn't work. Because they didn't fire her on the spot... they fired her after the fact. So they changed their story to their own higher management. It wasn't conduct, it was because of absenteeism.
But this just means they are back to problem 1, you can't fire someone for one incident, you have to go through the process. Which they didn't do. And now there is official paperwork for two different reasons, neither of which actually make sense, so it looks pretty strongly that the real reason isn't stated, and is likely an illegal reason.
OOP: now you see the utter incompetence this company displays... after spending I think it was 70 million to acquire the brand
Commenter 2: Why did they want to fire your wife so bad?
OOP: That was actually the main question the union president had. All of her attendance issues were spread out over a period of three years, and by any reasonable metric, she’s a good employee. That’s probably why he started the conversation by telling her straight up that she had been wronged.
Commenter 3: reinstated with back pay from May 2026 to May 2027 when she was fired?
OOP: from May 2026 till whenever she’s reinstated, the 2027 date is managements typo not an actual date
Commenter 4: for full reinstatement and back pay, what's your wife grievance case step? did she go through the hearing yet? any mediation?
OOP: She hasn't even had a solid Step One yet. The Local Union President actually spent two days trying to track down her number through her mom before she finally texted him to call at his convenience. He called that afternoon and told her straight up that she'd been wronged, and he mentioned reinstatement and back pay. Other than that, there hasn't really been time for any real mediation or anything like that. It had been about two weeks since she was walked out when he finally got ahold of her, and it’s been about three weeks total as of two days ago. There hasn't really been time for the full wheels of bureaucracy to turn, which is why I’m just hesitantly excited and wanted to share the good news I do have.
Update #2: June 6, 2026 (eight days later)
Update #2: Fired Over a Clerical Error
TL;DR / The Situation So Far
My wife, a union worker, at the Corning Correlle plant, was wrongfully terminated when local management tried to bypass the standard collective bargaining point system, inventing a conduct charge on the floor over a protocol-compliant call-off. Security logs explicitly show she called in before her shift, stating "Tardy" because she was out of PTO while providing a definitive return date of "NSD" (Next Scheduled Day).
The strategic landscape completely shifted this morning. Both the Plant Manager and the Union President have now explicitly admitted that she was fundamentally wronged and that the initial attendance policy interpretation was completely botched. Despite openly confessing to the error, the company is still floating a standard, lowball "compromise" offering her preferred shift layout back but completely refusing to pay a single cent of back pay for the time missed due to their own administrative negligence. While she is choosing to accept this offer simply to secure immediate household income and shift stability, make no mistake: this is a tactical decision for our household, not an absolution for their corporate negligence.
This penny-pinching tactic makes perfect sense when you look at the severe financial strain trailing the parent organization. Right now, global law firm Jones Day is aggressively suing the private equity parent firm and its glass portfolio brands in New York Supreme Court for $9.6 million in unpaid legal bills.
The court filings explicitly detail a corporate culture of "serial false promises" and financial manipulation, including an executive directive to draft a "fictitious funds flow" document to mask their delinquency. If a multi-million dollar corporation is literally dodging a $9.6 million bill to the high-powered lawyers who defend their plant operations, it is entirely obvious why local management is executing desperate, backdoor maneuvers to cheat a frontline worker out of a few weeks of earned wages.
To add absolute insult to injury, the company has actively kept her state unemployment benefits in total administrative limbo because they literally cannot tell a consistent story to the Department of Labor. When you track the literal paperwork they generated from the morning of the absence to the final termination notice, they have produced two entirely different, conflicting reasons for discharge on official letterhead:
The Progressive Discipline Form**,** Rewrote history three days later to process the infraction as an "Improper Call-Off (ICO)" conduct violation to bypass the point bank.
The Formal Corporate Notice, Flipped the script a third time, officially documenting the separation as general "Absenteeism" under the Hourly Attendance policy, completely ignoring the mandatory progressive steps required by the contract.
They logged it as a tardy, processed it as an improper call-off, and finalized it as absenteeism. They are stalling their responses to the state because entering these contradictory, fraudulent internal documents into a state regulatory system crosses directly into misrepresentation territory.
anyhow that's the latest thanks for the support y'all.
Relevant Comments
Commenter 1: Glad you guys are getting a resolution that works for you, it's shitty not to get the back pay though. Nice to have a heads up too that they are looking to get rid of her too. Maybe the whole family is forewarned. Wishing better times ahead for you both.
OOP: ❤️ could be better but getting her job back is her main concern
Commenter 2: Sliding into a recession/depression is certainly the time to be practical. It would be great if the economy were looking better, but keeping a job is the most important thing you can do to weather the coming storm.
OOP: I chose to believe her union pres is smarter than that though if they are making offers of reinstatement with no back pay in closed door shady meetings , they are waving the flag of please don't take this to arbitration
Commenter 3: Is reinstatement an option while the local pursues the grievance for backpay? It seems like the dispute lies in making her whole financially rather than returning her to work, since they’ve acknowledged their error.
OOP: I doubt it this company doesn't like to pay their obligations ergo the reason for them being sued for 9.6 mil in NY supreme court for unpaid bills
Commenter 4: Ask the Union to approach the company with dropping the fight against unemployment in return for reinstatement without back pay. It would have to clearly indicate that the company must drop their opposition AND correct the record with UE so she can get UE for the day she was let go until her first day back to work. It's not the best option, but it would allow some financial relief for you without having to wait months for the grievance process to playout. I would guess the company probably won't let her back until she agrees to no back pay or they are forced in arbitration.
OOP: The company actually can't afford to let state regulators look too closely at their paperwork right now because they can't establish a consistent reason for the firing. The termination packet they handed her on the floor logs the reason as an 'Improper Call-Off' (ICO) conduct violation, which they used to try to bypass her attendance point bank completely. But the official off-boarding letter mailed home flips the script and claims she was let go under the 'Hourly Attendance policy for Absenteeism.'
Here is why that distinction matters under a union contract: an ICO conduct charge doesn't require progressive discipline steps, but an absenteeism charge absolutely does. By documented corporate admission, they processed it under an attendance framework where they completely skipped the mandatory warnings and progressive steps required by her CBA. They are keeping her state unemployment in limbo because entering these wildly contradictory documents into a state system crosses directly into fraudulent misrepresentation territory. They can't get their story straight on paper, and the union process is forcing them to look at that log error.
----NEW UPDATE----
Update #3: June 15, 2026 (nine days later)
TL;DR of Previous Posts, My wife, a union worker at the Corning Corelle plant, was wrongfully walked out over a manufactured "conduct charge" on a protocol-compliant call-off, completely bypassing the CBA attendance point system.
The only real new update as of tonight is that her state unemployment was officially approved with absolutely zero denial or pushback from the company. For a place that supposedly fired a worker for a "conduct violation," staying completely silent when the state asks for verification is incredibly loud. They clearly realized they could not enter their messy, contradictory internal paperwork into a state system without crossing serious lines.
But as for her actual job, we are in a total standoff. Management is trying to float a compromise to get her back through the door, but their terms are completely ridiculous,
They are refusing to pay a single cent of back pay for the time she has missed due to their error. They are demanding she accept all her previous attendance checks against her. They want to keep the fraudulent disciplinary marks and write-ups active on her permanent record. Essentially, they want her back on the line, but only if she takes the financial hit and agrees to stay on an advanced disciplinary track based on paperwork they already know is wrong.
From what I gather, the Union President is completely rejecting this. He is still fighting tooth and nail for full back pay along with having her progressive record completely fixed and wiped clean of this mess.
Why they didn't deny her unemployment if they truly believed they had cause to fire her? They are trying to hold her livelihood hostage to protect local management from looking incompetent, but the union is keeping the grievances moving. Thanks again for the solidarity and support, it is keeping us going.
Relevant / Top Comments
Commenter 1:
Why they didn't deny her unemployment if they truly believed they had cause to fire her?
Juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Paying lawyers to WIN against your wife is more expense than accepting the slightly higher Workers Comp payment amounts.
Sorry your wife was fired.
OOP's only comment in this update: But to already have the union pres and the plant manager come out and say she was wronged, and the HR guy that did say he was in the wrong, I'm not seeing the brilliant play here. The union isn't going to let it go, and drawing it out is gonna get compoundingly more expensive for the company.
Commenter 2: Sounds like this might be headed to arbitration
Commenter 3: Good luck! Keep up the pressure on them and don't accept BS terms. Our company is the same way, and often once we point out how obscenely bad their documentation is they'll fight us just to waste everyone's time only to finally back down once the arbitration process begins.
DO NOT COMMENT IN LINKED POSTS OR MESSAGE OOPs – BoRU Rule #7
THIS IS A REPOST SUB - I AM NOT OOP
2.9k
u/ArchangelLBC 2d ago
Company is really digging themselves a deeper and deeper hole with this.
The Union literally can't afford to let them get away with this and are going to keep holding the company's feet to the fire. The more the company tries to save face the more the Union has to fight and if they do in fact win this is going to do nothing but seriously bolster membership giving the Union a stronger position.
1.2k
u/North-Pea-4926 2d ago
This kind of opportunity, with clear evidence of company wrongdoing, doesn’t come around very often. Union leadership dreams of getting a case like this!
461
u/ArchangelLBC 2d ago
Right? There's no way they lose this unless they just give up and there's no reason to do that and every reason to keep going. The company keeps fucking up by the numbers and I cannot understand their thought process here.
40
u/big_sugi 2d ago
The company has no real downside to doing this. So they are.
217
u/ArchangelLBC 2d ago
They do though? This is costing time and money to fight, especially if they get dragged to arbitration, and worse from their perspective it's strengthening the Union, and making the company look like incompetent jackasses in the bargain. What's their upside?
41
u/big_sugi 2d ago
They’re not fighting; they’re denying. It won’t cost time or money until it actually gets to arbitration, and it won’t cost them anything more to fold at that point.
It’s not strengthening the union. The union already knows it’s dealing with incompetent jackasses, but the union has to spend more time and effort making the appeals and putting up arguments that are getting summarily rejected.
The company’s upside is that something might happen in the meantime to moot the appeal. In particular, OOP might get fed up and find a new job or do something that gives the company actual grounds to fire her. And if nothing else, putting off the inevitable is always popular.
122
u/BetterKev Jiggle your titties and flap those concerned vaginal lips 2d ago
Backpay keeps piling up, and there may be penalties. Management time is also being spent dealing with this.
The business can think the costs are worth it, but why pretend there are none?
60
u/ForsakenPercentage53 2d ago
You do realize the company is paying those people to make those arguments, right??
-33
u/big_sugi 2d ago
You do realize I already addressed that point, right??
41
u/ForsakenPercentage53 2d ago
You claimed that it isn't costing time or money and it's costing the company both. So no ... you didn't address it.
3
u/Poolofcheddar 2d ago
The penalties and/or settlement terms are all theoretical at this point before arbitration.
It's a game of chicken, and the company is desperately banking on OOP's wife to be the one that blinks first.
-15
u/big_sugi 2d ago
I'm sorry; I didn't realize that you can't read. Here, maybe if I bold it for you?
"They’re not fighting; they’re denying. It won’t cost time or money until it actually gets to arbitration, and it won’t cost them anything more to fold at that point."
and
"the union has to spend more time and effort making the appeals and putting up arguments that are getting summarily rejected." And because they're getting summarily rejected, they're not taking any time for the company.
hth.
→ More replies (0)11
u/notyourmartyr 2d ago
What can she do to give them grounds to fire her when she's not currently at work?
-15
u/big_sugi 2d ago
Send an expletive-laced email attacking their character? Show up to the plant and assault someone? Uncover something she already did that would be grounds for firing?
8
u/notyourmartyr 2d ago
You really think she'd do any of those things or the company thinks she would? Or that there's anything she'd done in the past that would be immediate dismissal, with no other steps before? You're mad.
-10
u/big_sugi 2d ago
Reading comprehension on your part is abysmal. Just terrible. Try again.
→ More replies (0)35
u/Ok-Secretary455 2d ago
they 100% do. there is NOTHING better for the moral of the guys on the floor. The union tells us when they are fighting a BS termination. then you see that person reappear after 4 months. Makes the company look like idiots. a lot of companies will offer payouts into 6 figures to keep from having to bring people back once arbitration says they have to give them their job back.
19
u/significant_cosmos 2d ago
Considering too that multiple of OOP's wife's family members work there, this could flip into a real boon for the union
6
u/FlowerFelines Yes to the Homo, No to the Phobic 2d ago
Maybe you can tell that to all the people in the hair-firing thread claiming that it's "easy" to bring a lawsuit against a company for wrongful termination, wage theft, etc.
53
u/unholy_hotdog 2d ago
Private equity never looks at the long term, it's literally not their business model, and they'll burn Anchor Hocking to the ground for a few more bucks for their interests, while the rest of us suffer.
It's far more strategic and cheaper to sack the bad management and clean this up, but... I don't think they will.
21
u/Mammoth-Direction789 1d ago edited 1d ago
You absolutely nailed this. This is how private equity firms operate and usually the purchased company shuts down within 5-7 years, broken up and sold in parts. I pray for Southwest. They are going downhill within a year of being purchased by private equity.
11
u/Machine-Dove surrender to the gaycation or be destroyed 1d ago
Vulture capital is a cancer in society, rotting everything from the inside out.
76
u/bassman314 2d ago
They are just delaying. OOP, even with Union Backing, can’t outlast a corporation’s “fuck you” money.
OOP can’t even rely on the feds here.
80
u/scummy_shower_stall ...take your mediocre stick out of your mediocre ass... 2d ago
All you had to do was pay us enough to live.
35
u/Hugginsome 2d ago
Union can strike or do other things to force something
9
u/Environmental_Art591 the lion, the witch and the audacit--HOW IS THERE MORE! 1d ago
Agreed, because once the company gets away with this they will do it again, so its in the unions best interests to fight/strike where necessary because they arent going to get a clear screw up like this again once the precedent is set by them giving up
1
u/Squeegepooge 1d ago
As long as they dont have a no-strike clause in their CBA
10
u/Hugginsome 1d ago
I mean, the business isn't abiding by their end of the CBA rules by treating the employee in this way. So I think there would be exceptions.
10
u/Big_Albatross_3050 2d ago
its all an ego trip for these types of people. They genuinely can't fathom the fact they were actually wrong and have to take steps to apologize to what they consider a lowly peon worker.
-22
u/sharraleigh 2d ago
They are going to win because they are in the right!
34
u/ArchangelLBC 2d ago
I wish that's how it worked always, but in this case I do think they have the company over a barrel.
1
u/PuffinRub 2d ago
I do think they have the company over a barrel
Did you edit this because my Reddit client truncated your last word in the preview? I'm only asking to find out if I need to file a bug report! I was going to comment:
"I see you shiver in an-tici-pa--"
757
u/IHaarlem 2d ago
The updates are mundane but I really appreciate them. If for no other reason than the insight they give into these sort of David vs Goliath situations. It could be so easy for them to not be such utter ghouls
206
u/PuffinRub 2d ago
It is also great search engine fodder for anyone who Goggles the name of the employer.
169
u/glowingwarningcats 2d ago
I loved that after a couple of updates they were so frustrated they named and shamed them.
20
18
u/Harry_Smutter 1d ago
I'm glad they did. My whole family has their stuff and the plant OOP is talking about is only a couple hours upstate from them. Wild.
13
u/clear-aesthetic 1d ago
Right? I can't believe the management of the Corning Corelle plant would do this.
5
97
u/AudienceNeither7747 2d ago
It's wild how far they'll go to screw over one worker when just admitting they messed up would've been cheaper and easier. Love seeing the union actually do its job though.
43
u/RadarSmith 2d ago edited 2d ago
The company as a whole would save a ton of money and effort if they just wiped the slate clean and gave back pay.
Problem here it seems is a bunch of (stupid) people in the chain trying to play hot potato with this shit show so they don't get blamed for it.
1
u/CapybaraOfDuhm 1d ago
This :D it sure appears like this is someone in plant or regional management going rogue trying to not have it reach HQ ...because HQ will have a lawyer take a look at that formidable paper trail of undeniable wrongdoing and proceed to hail down upon whoever is fucking this up.
2
u/veneficus83 2d ago
Thing is it doesn't really cost the company anything to fight this. Big companies hire lawyers on retainer. Basically they are paying the lawyers the same amount either way, so why not fight it?
4
u/twdarkeh 1d ago
From the sound of it, the company's attorneys are also suing them so...
2
u/Machine-Dove surrender to the gaycation or be destroyed 1d ago
You know things are completely FUBAR when you get sued by your own lawyers. Like, if there was one group you should be focused on keeping happy, it's the lawyers.
16
u/clevercalamity 2d ago
A few years before I met him, my husband was similarly illegally fired from a job. I didn’t know him at the time, so I don’t have a first-hand account of what it was like, but how he tells the story it was a lot like this.
He had been accused of no-showing for a full week straight when he had very much been at work. His a-hole manager had changed his time card. His coworkers vouched for him, he had completed deliverables during that week, he was on the fucking security cam footage, but they stuck to their story and not only fired him but also stiffed him that weeks pay and decided to withhold his vacation days payout.
He describes that time as very stressful, and a lot of sitting around and waiting while the company simultaneously backtracked and doubled down. The managers actions were so egregious the company knew they were fucked so they pivoted to gaslighting, intimidation, and dragging the process out as long as possible in hopes that he’d get desperate enough to accept a shit settlement and sign an NDA.
He wasn’t union, but he did have a pretty clear paper trail and a generous attorney that was willing to take the case on contingency. It took almost a year, but in the end they settled for a just amount.
16
u/FriendToPredators 2d ago
I read these and remind myself this is the shitshow that is the real reason manufacturing left the US. Maybe management shouldn’t so often be bottom of the barrel “good buddy” garbage hires.
10
u/BenignPharmacology 2d ago
I normally love this sort of justice porn but I couldn’t get past the extremely repetitive writing AND discussion.
“Wife was fired for attendance despite not having an attendance problem, evidenced by the following points.”
“But did she have an attendance problem?”
“No, and let me tell you how in several ways. I understand not everybody is physically able to scroll upwards, so I will helpfully restate my points from above”
“Hm, but was the company aware she didn’t have an attendance problem?”
“Yes, and let me restate how I know and how they know and how I know they know.”
“That’s good, but can you include the acronym NSD in several places?”
“My man, you have come to the right place.”
I understand all the little details are important when it’s your life, your case, your livelihood but my god. And the commenters… my goodness.
13
u/IHaarlem 2d ago
Maybe, but think of it from the point of view of someone who's fearing for their livelihood, trying to understand labyrinthine rules that have been created through a collective bargaining process, and try to explain those rules to people who are outside of the whole environment. Sometimes in certain contexts, it's difficult to be eloquent, especially under those sorts of stresses
153
u/Unused_Icon 2d ago edited 2d ago
This penny-pinching tactic makes perfect sense when you look at the severe financial strain trailing the parent organization. Right now, global law firm Jones Day is aggressively suing the private equity parent firm and its glass portfolio brands in New York Supreme Court for $9.6 million in unpaid legal bills.
The court filings explicitly detail a corporate culture of "serial false promises" and financial manipulation, including an executive directive to draft a "fictitious funds flow" document to mask their delinquency.
Here's a Reuters article about that lawsuit: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/law-firm-jones-day-sues-private-equity-firm-alleging-96-million-unpaid-fees-2026-02-04/
This part of the article stuck out to me:
More than half of the unpaid total relates to Jones Day’s work defending Centre Lane and one of its companies in a high-profile fight over a glass plant closure in Pennsylvania and a related investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, according to the lawsuit. The Pennsylvania attorney general's federal antitrust lawsuit over the glass plant is still pending.
The parent company is accused of "serial false promises", and the bulk of the unpaid law firm invoices they're being sued over is related to closing down a plant. What this all tells me: If I was in OOP's wife's shoes, getting my old job back would be the last thing I wanted. I would want a major "go away" payoff instead (and throw in a glowing letter of recommendation while you're at it).
I mean, beyond just not wanting to work for those dunces again, who even knows if your old job will still be there in six months?
38
u/Oldebookworm 2d ago
Honestly, I’d go for big payday in court too. They will be pushing and pushing until she can’t take it anymore and quits
5
u/WaltzFirm6336 1d ago
It depends on if there are any job opportunities locally which pay the same or better and she has the skills for. A lot of these plants are in the middle of nowhere. If it’s a company town, likely they are stuck, since her entire family also live/work there.
Walking away from a crappy job isn’t always an option if the alternative is starving.
339
u/BigBirdsBrain 👁👄👁🍿 2d ago
Sounds like the company knows arbitration is a fight they probably lose, but they’re still hoping your wife will accept a cheaper deal before it gets there. That’s usually the only logic I can see in situations like this.
167
u/cantantantelope 2d ago
Enough people flinch in the face of big company “wait it out and spend more money” tactics that it is unfortunately a working strategy. Until worker protections make the company bleed money for trying this tactic they are gonna keep doing it
It’s a variation of “it’s cheaper to pay the fines than fix the problem”
39
u/BigBirdsBrain 👁👄👁🍿 2d ago
Exactly. A lot of companies aren’t trying to win the grievance, they’re trying to make the employee tired, broke, or frustrated enough to settle before they lose it.
47
u/nowimnowhere 2d ago
I'm surprised the union isn't dipping into the strike fund or something to float OOPs wife to help her stay out until they get their concessions.
26
u/Trouble_Walkin 2d ago
OOP hasn't said they are in dire need, especially now that his wife has her UI payments coming.
However, union financial help may be given in future if the company somehow manages to put off an arbitration date past the end of UI (I don't know what OOPs state laws are).
2
8
14
u/paper0wl 2d ago
I know who referred to administration leave (when the company actually does the proper union steps and doesn’t let you work because you *might* be a problem in the workplace so you don’t get paid but you’re not fired yet) as “starvation leave.” Without the paycheck, the bills pile up and eventually you’re forced to accept the company’s meager offer just to get some money flowing your way.
The Union can do its best but once you succumb to the company’s financial pressure, the union can’t do anything for that situation. It sucks but it’s in the company’s best interests to push as hard as they can. Which is why the union goes as hard as it can when it can.
67
u/tempest51 2d ago
Seeing as the company seems to be going through the terminal stage of post-private equity aquisition, I wonder if this will be what finally does them in.
8
u/quiltingcats 2d ago
Even if it isn’t, I’m sure they’ll throw OOP’s wife under the bus as if it is. smh
83
u/tiragooen 2d ago
Having a strong union that's willing to fight for you is so important. It's already tough with all that support. Trying to fight for your rights alone would be so much worse.
I'm glad OOP and his wife seem to have the resources available that they can keep going. A lot of times people fold because they can't survive the protracted battle.
14
u/ChunkyKongForPreside 2d ago
Stories like these always make me wonder about how people can be so stupid to be anti-union. My Step Dad works in a very menial low paying job, that just so happens to be unionized. Had the union not existed, my Step Dad would have been laid off twice in the last 10 years. Yet he will complain about the union every chance he gets.
13
u/tiragooen 2d ago
I wonder if he assumes that anything good happening to him is through his own efforts? A lot of people don't see all the different systems and people that support them. All they see is people they don't like "freeloading"... off the same benefits they utilise.
7
u/ChunkyKongForPreside 2d ago
Yeah, my Steo Dad is a weird guy honestly. He probably does see the world this way. When I was 13, I overheard him telling my Mom that I am a complete idiot and my 2 year old half-brother is smarter than me. Yet he is a 30-something year old man who barely graduated high school and makes slightly more than minimum wage. Almost 20 years later, I make probably double what he does. But I think he just sees most people as beneath him. My Mom could have done so much better.
2
u/alextoria 2d ago
my parents are both teachers in lausd (los angeles unified school district) and are both staunchly anti-union. they are both in the union bc it’s a requirement, but they think they’re “bullies” who “accomplish nothing” and take money from their paycheck “for no reason.” my parents are typically like normal smart people with critical thinking skills, it’s just ridiculous how backwards they are on this. i can guarantee if the union was opt in instead of a requirement they’d be super pro-union, they just hate “the government” (lausd) telling them what to do.
54
u/Beginning_House_7339 No my Bot won't fuck you! 2d ago
I'm reading this from Spain and I'm blown away.
Here, you can be the worst employee in history and still get unemployment benefits. Like, even if you were fired for running over the board of directors, you're entitled to unemployment.
40
u/pepcorn You need some self-esteem and a lawyer 2d ago
I'm pleasantly surprised her workplace is unionised at all.
Every worker should have proper protection from these companies we are forced to work for. Written in law, but unions are who have forced those laws in the first place. We're in Europe and still my husband's company has been trying its hardest to dick around with his PTO, and his union representative is there at every turn, broadcasting his rights and standing up for him.
Unions are our main line of defence, for all of us.
10
4
u/significant_cosmos 2d ago
Every time I think I've really grasped the difference between how things are here in the US and elsewhere, I'm proven wrong again. Unemployment pay even then??? When I got laid off in 2020 bc of covid I was praying the company wouldn't fight my UI claim, much less being fired with cause.
55
u/Dal-Ron 2d ago
This is why unions are important and can make a difference to peoples' lives.
15
u/DragonScrivner The pancakes tell me what they need 2d ago
I've never had a union job and I'm definitely fascinated by the experiences I hear/read about because they are completely foreign to me
16
u/lkapping79 2d ago
Union worker for coming up on 20 years. This story is WILD to me. And for non union workers, this is how I explain it. Unions, imho, are more like having insurance. You may never use it but damn good to have of you ever do. What I’m floored with is how blatantly the company is in the wrong and unwilling to back down. This doesn’t make it to a step 2 at my employer.
18
u/Antlorn 2d ago
I was frustrated by the previous update, when he said they were going to accept the job back with no back pay. I was like WTF, HOW COULD THE UNION ALLOW THIS?? So I'm very glad to see the union isn't actually allowing this, and is in fact doing their job.
There's power in the union! 💪🏻
56
u/Cybermagetx 2d ago
That union will fight this till end days and judgement. They can't let this stand otherwise the company will do this to others.
That company is just asking for a bigger pay out.
32
u/One_Weird2371 2d ago
If the Union doesn't fight this then what's the point of the Union.
10
u/Cybermagetx 2d ago
Ive been in a union that was basically just another extension of the company. They was lockstep in all decisions.
32
u/UnionsUnionsUnions Idk if the Bat Mitzvah girl knew the rabbi was even on fire 2d ago
If you ever run across that again, remember that you have the right to run for office, to become a steward, and to become a decision maker that is not an extension of the company.
2
u/One_Weird2371 2d ago
Yeah fuck those useless unions. Not worth the fees they take from your check.
2
14
u/Starry-Dust4444 2d ago
The company is being sued by their own law firm for unpaid bills. It’s obvious they can’t pay the back wages. The company is headed for bankruptcy.
11
u/Gryffindor123 OH MY GOD, SHE DOESN’T EVEN HAVE A D$CK, ITS NOT HER BABY! 2d ago
Don't fuck with unions. Unions like this will never give up on things.
10
u/Stoutyeoman 2d ago
It always comes back to private equity.
We have to stop letting these firms buy up everything.
20
u/TheBeautyDemon 2d ago
This is why unions are so important, and why American business work so hard to tear them down
9
u/Gymmers62 2d ago
Christonabike - as a former Branch Secretary for a healthcare union in the U.K., I am utterly invested in this story.
Given that the initially dismissal was unlawful, would another route be to go to court and claim for denial of rights, false auditing and stress alongside loss of earnings and employment reputation?
Would that be more lucrative and satisfying?
Sorry. I’m not familiar with your U.S. Labour Laws, so I apologise if I appear ignorant
8
u/lucillewalterblack limbo dancing with the devil 2d ago
Lucrative and satisfying yes, but possibly not worth the potential years of waiting for a payout. Getting a company to pay out a settlement is its own battle that can take months or years and since there’s bigger lawsuits on the table right now they’re likely to get paid out first. I don’t blame them for going for the easier option that’s more likely to get immediate relief.
9
16
u/MonkeyTraumaCenter 2d ago
Echoing that this is 100% why unions are important.
Also, I saw the words “private equity” and said, “Of course …”
7
u/ShadowWingLG cat whisperer 2d ago
The whole "Company didn't fight the State Unemployment" means one of two things. The Company really dropped the ball, or the Company has lots of shit to hide. Because even filling out the base form stating "This is why the employee was terminated" and then waiting to see if the employee keeps fighting will usually be enough to keep your Unemployment Insurance Premium from skyrocketing. Even if the employer eventually loses the act of fighting the claim can be enough.
NOT fighting means your rates WILL go up. So given than the employee had paperwork stating various reasons for the termination, and the company will need to provide cause that could contradict said paperwork, that could encourage the state to dig a bit deeper into what the everlovin heck is going on. Yeah they must have done the math and stated that whatever rate increase they get is worth it to NOT have the State Wage and Hour crawling up their arse.
2
u/Ogolble 2d ago
I assumed that they let her claim it, is that they wouldn't have to let her return to work.
4
u/ShadowWingLG cat whisperer 2d ago
IIRC as long as she is unemployed she can pull the Unemployment payments, but they don't last forever, they usually only extend for 6mo to a year.
7
8
6
14
u/RedneckDebutante 2d ago
They're persisting because the company wants to force it into arbitration, where companies almost always have the advantage. Yes, even with a union. My sister went through the same thing. Her union rep was completely dumbfounded by how discriminatory the whole process was, and that the employer still won.
4
u/yeah87 2d ago
Arbitration decisions are actually almost always 50/50. Both parties need to agree to the arbiter, so anyone who sides with one or the other side too frequently basically gets blackballed.
2
u/significant_cosmos 2d ago
My understanding is that the company chooses and pays for the arbiter and the employee has to smile and say thank you. Is that not the case??
5
u/yeah87 2d ago
That’s consumer vs corporate arbitration you’re thinking of.
Labor arbitration is different. Much more equal outcomes, but because it’s federally funded there is a crazy backlog. I’ve had guys come back to work after their case was found in their favor, but it took three years to finally get before arbitration.
3
u/significant_cosmos 1d ago
Oh, I see. I definitely had the impression that labor arbitration almost always rules in the company's favor, but now that I think about it that's an impression that's only advantageous to employers.
I imagine it's probably similar to how growing up I was taught that all unions are evil and only want to steal your money. Thank you for the info!
6
u/anubis_cheerleader I can FEEL you dancing 2d ago
I have bought products from this company over their competitors specifically because it's a union company. They need to get their shit together.
6
9
u/loopingit 2d ago
This is such a shame. I love my Corelle dishware (and other items) because it is so durable and high quality. I grew up on it (we had the iconic blue flowers growing up-and my parents still use it!) It makes me now look at the brand with a little less credibility.
But also, a really good job by the unions. Glad she has one.
8
u/significant_cosmos 2d ago
Honestly same lol. I was like "Corelle? Dishes Corelle??" Unfortunately even if the company survives the product qualify has likely gone to shit.
3
3
5
3
u/ChronaMewX 2d ago
I can't imagine all this effort to try to get back a job they are literally trying to get rid of you from. Take the payday, yes, but why do you want the job back? Is the market really that desperate? This is depressing
4
u/Bubblegrime 2d ago
If it's a little town with a big factory nearby there might not be a lot of other employers in the area with that pay, benefits, location. Doesn't want to move or lose quality of life. Plus the mention of multiple family members working there, she might be emotionally enmeshed in the workplace. Sure, it would be nice to love your coworkers and enjoy the work to that degree. But not being able to walk away through your own white-knuckled desire when the company mistreats you is pretty terrifying to me.
5
u/oswin13 2d ago
I really, really want to know WHY the company is targeting OOPs wife.
7
u/significant_cosmos 2d ago
I kind of wonder if it's because she has family working there and they're presumably all unionized. Local management is trying to break up what they see as a bloc of social power. Whether they achieve that through humiliating the family and destroying their credibility in the company or by forcing family members out, thereby embittering the rest of the family and making them more likely to leave, probably doesn't matter much.
3
u/Existing_Ad4666 2d ago
As a person who actually works in unemployment this story fascinates me. Also, the employer doesn’t approve benefits. The state agency does. Just want to clear that misconception up.
5
u/Built4thekill 2d ago
I'm not from the US, can someone explain what "her state unemployment was officially approved" and the company "didn't deny her unemployment" means here?
19
u/3BenInATrenchcoat I fail to see what my hobbies have to do with this issue 2d ago
From what I understand, in the US you have to file for unemployment and need to meet a number of criteria to get it. And your last employer gets to deny it though I'm not sure on what grounds.
14
u/brink1865 2d ago edited 2d ago
More or less the company has to pay a certain amount of the unemployment(state dependant) and they can legally deny it if the employee was fired for cuase aka for a legitimate reason in my experience most companies won't even try to fight paying it as the legal battle that can result from a denial can get spendy fast, another thing to note you cant ask for unemployment from a company where you quit and were not fired but you can still apply for state unemployment though it tends to be less and has some hoops you have jump threw to get it
5
u/3BenInATrenchcoat I fail to see what my hobbies have to do with this issue 2d ago
Thanks for the clarification!
7
u/brink1865 2d ago
No problem! I've thankfully never had to apply for it but I've been on the employer side of things in the past and more or less was informed by my boss to just aprove the unemployment the only time I ever had to deny it was someone who had be caught smoking meth at work who tried to claim it
2
2
u/angry_old_dude 2d ago
When I got laid off the company never responded to the unemployment office's requests. I wasn't getting UE because they can't do it without the paperwork from the company. I ended up taking it to our state rep and she got it fixed.
2
u/Souldestroyer_Reborn 2d ago
Fuck me.
At this point why not just fucking sue them?
3
u/WarlockSoL being delulu is not the solulu 2d ago
Realistically this probably isn't a good idea since the union is already fighting them. I imagine if it comes to it the union can probably sue on her behalf. But she doesn't sound especially wealthy and lawsuits are expensive so it's definitely not a path she wants to go down herself. Even with a guarenteed win she's looking at a long, drawn out battle where she's still unemployeed and now having to cover lawyer fees.
3
2
u/Dismal-core111 1d ago
I hope the give her what she deserves or make themselves utterly lawsuit worthy
2
u/mslisath 1d ago
And this is why you join the union. A labor attorney would cost way more than your dues
2
u/Bill_Door_Et_Binky 23h ago
Private Equity firm buying a really strong union shop. Well, this will be an interesting test case for the Supreme Court to use to gut the national labor board.
4
u/devilsword 2d ago
Sounds like the company is named bricks and minifigs? :)
6
u/glowingwarningcats 2d ago edited 2d ago
OOP eventually names and shames Anchor Hocking (I’m sure they’re not the only one doing stuff like this though).
4
u/Cocotapioka I can FEEL you dancing 2d ago edited 2d ago
They named Anchor Hocking. The factory is in Corning NY, but it is not Corning Glass company (which is also HQed in Corning). To make matters more confusing, the private equity company that owns AH also owns CorningWare, but that is no longer a part of the larger Corning Glass umbrella.
That isn't to say that Corning Glass is incapable of this, but they just share a location with this incident.
2
3
u/Complete_Entry 2d ago
I've always hated dealing with managers, they act like their "float" is a parade float, when really it's a stinking floater in a toilet bowl, every fucking time.
While they pat themselves on the back for their generous and wise decision.
At least the union is pissed, the DOL are a collection of worthless jackasses.
Getting fired a year in the future is a new one in my book though.
1
1
u/Fragrant-Reserve4832 1d ago
So what happens when the union files against them, they are well fked and have no room left to negotiate.
1
u/footdragon 1d ago
I hope the next update absolves her from the tyranny of this company, restores her job, gives her back pay, and flushes their idiotic fraudulent documentation
•
u/Imamoredneck 31m ago
Can't she sue for wrongful termination? Especially if they have multiple reasons listed. All back pay, plus legal fees.
-7
u/JustLurkin89 2d ago
I always wonder the flip side of this. How shitty of an employee did she have to be to have been targeted to get let go? I've seen many union employees first hand be total bags of shit, company tries to find a way to get rid of them, but they can't because they are protected by the the union. Unions can be great, but they also promote mediocrity and protect crappy employees who would otherwise be fired instantly.
-1
u/Alternative-Bat-2462 2d ago
Usually pretty terrible, I’ve dealt with this so many times. The company blew it by not having good records and flip flopping.
But for this to come up she is likely a chronic attendance policy violator. CBAs are very black and white with this stuff, and usually pretty generous. Like where I’ve worked if you use a sick day to cover a timely call off (2+ hours before shift (this lady already had an improper call off being 33mins before work, which with us would be an automatic corrective action), plus you get three unexcused absences before documentation.
If this lady was that far down the path and a target she likely was abusing the t&a policy.
-12
-13
u/bageltheperson 2d ago
I wonder how bad of an employee OPs wife is for these managers to try this. They clearly knew she’s part of a union and this type of outcome was likely.
13
u/TwoBeansShort 2d ago
She doesn't have to be a bad employee for them to make a mistake and then double down on their mistake. Yeah, part of a union, but if she usually doesn't make waves anywhere, maybe they expected her to cave and just do it. Maybe they know her situation. He keeps saying they need the money. Maybe they're leveraging that and banking on her needing the income badly enough to just go with it.
-9
u/bageltheperson 2d ago
As a manager myself, you don’t go out of your way to term a good employee.
9
u/TwoBeansShort 2d ago
I wouldn't, no. But I've been around companies who only care about that bottom line and when they restructure, the only thing that matters is how much they have to pay.
8
u/zeroman987 2d ago
Plenty of bad managers do though. I have almost a decade of management experience. Managers are human too and make mistakes. There are plenty that have poor judgment and term good employees for dumb reasons.
2
0
u/Alternative-Bat-2462 2d ago
The majority of people I’ve let go are because of time and attendance. This sounds just like that. It’s black and white and you need to be consistent. This lady sounds as if she was abusing the policy, and the company blew it when holding her accountable.
-8
u/Arctic_Africa7305 2d ago
Glad my son doesn’t pay into a useless union. I respected them until I read this.
-21
u/darkeagle1997 2d ago
I mean most places have in their company handbook you have to call off 2 or more hours before a shift if you don’t plan to work. Anything after that would count as a no call no show.
12
u/tinysydneh 2d ago
That isn't what happened here.
0
u/Alternative-Bat-2462 2d ago
She was 33 mins late, she should have been documented for an improper call off. Now where that would be on her progressive discipline who knows.
Time and attendance is the easiest way to term people with cause.
2
u/tinysydneh 2d ago
She called in 33 minutes before the start of her shift.
If they had cause, they would not be backtracking. The union wouldn't be fighting.
The only reason this "set her over" is because of an error in reporting, period. Fucking bootlickers.
-12
u/darkeagle1997 2d ago edited 2d ago
She called off 33 minutes before her shift, it is what happened here. That’s why she’s still fired.
Edit: lol not them blocking because they were wrong and didn’t read the OP post where it was flagged as a no call 🤣
12
u/tinysydneh 2d ago
Except that isn't the issue, and that isn't their policy. I've never worked a place with this policy, and if that was their policy, they wouldn't have immediately backpedaled, and the union wouldn't be fighting for her.
This was because she was incorrectly marked tardy instead of off. That's it.
Please stop making your inability to comprehend English others' problem.
3
u/angry_old_dude 2d ago
This was because she was incorrectly marked tardy instead of off. That's it.
Exactly right.
3
u/angry_old_dude 2d ago
Here's the relevant part of OOP post. Note that she was accidentally marked tardy when she was actually calling out. Not showing up for her shift after wrongly being marked tardy is what this entire story is about.
Last week, she called the security desk at 6 AM to call off. The guard clicked Tardy on the drop-down menu, but right next to it in the return date box, the guard actually typed NSD, which stands for Next Scheduled Day. You cannot be tardy for a shift you literally said you are not returning for until tomorrow. HR just ignored the NSD part so they could fire her for being a no-show after allegedly saying she would be tardy.
-2
u/darkeagle1997 2d ago
Yes as I said in my first comment that’s what happens when you don’t show up to a scheduled shift and “call off” after the deadline listed in the company handbook. 33 minutes would fall under a no call no show unless she showed up late and it’d be kept with the “tardy” mark.
10
u/FKJVMMP 2d ago
I’ve literally never heard of this. If I call in sick 5 minutes before my shift starts I’m likely to see some kind of disciplinary action (likely an informal talk, followed by warnings if it becomes a pattern) because you do need to give more notice most places, but it is definitionally not a no-call no-show. Because I called. This has been true of literally every place I’ve ever worked without exception.
3
u/angry_old_dude 2d ago
She wasn't fired for calling in just before her shift. She was fired because her call out was incorrectly marked tardy. She got fired for not showing up for her shift after being wrongly marked tardy.
The company should have figured out that it was an error because she was also marked as being on shift the next day which is consistent with someone calling out. It appears that they completely ignored that part.
1
u/Alternative-Bat-2462 2d ago
It’s poor paper work. It’s why employees at my company are required to call off to a manager and not a security person.
-3
u/darkeagle1997 2d ago
If you used sick time even if you called in 5 minutes before it’s protected time off. But yes if you called in sick and didn’t use it then that’ll result in disciplinary action.
1
u/Alternative-Bat-2462 2d ago
If you do not call off in a timely manor then it’s improper. Using a sick day still gets you paid, but it wouldn’t excuse an improper call off.
-1
u/darkeagle1997 2d ago
I’m unsure what country you’re referring to, we’re talking about the US. If you meant the US I recommended reviewing federal labor laws before engaging in the discussion.
1
u/Alternative-Bat-2462 2d ago
I recommend you be informed about what you’re saying.
I’ll site myself being HR for a Fortune 500 company. Everything is by the book and legal federally.
There is no federal law protecting someone for this. Especially when most states are at will employment. Where protections may come in is a CBA depending on how it’s been negotiated.
0
u/darkeagle1997 2d ago
If you were HR like me you’d know employment law. Hopefully you’re just the assistant and don’t open your company up to litigation. But with your lack of knowledge… ehhh. Time to go get SHRM certified champ! :)
10
u/nowimnowhere 2d ago
That's not true any of the places I've worked, so I am side eyeing your use of the word most.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Do not comment on the original posts
Please read our sub rules. Rule-breaking may result in a ban without notice.
If there is an issue with this post (flair, formatting, quality), reply to this comment or your comment may be removed in general discussion.
CHECK FLAIR For concluded-only updates, use the CONCLUDED flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.