firing staff - Page 2

In Florida as has been said Right to work means no notice right now, on the spot  ,no excuse needed,  no reason needed, I have you escorted out of the building

     Want to sue me, go ahead the law here  in Florida  is on my side .Fed law is something else, but you had better have a lot of $ and a great attorney.  Canadian law is great in Canada not here, same applies to Texas

We have fired many a plant employee and even lab techs for something as minor as bringing a cell phone into the building or being late for a shift with no prior offenses and no warning.

NY here.  Whereas I have the right and ability to fire someone for looking at me the wrong way...it still doesn't make it ethical, etc.  Talk to the person, explain you're going to fire him if things don't change....that kind of thing.  Documentation is key, because if you're firing him for being a nutjob, chances are he's going to try and come back at you legally.  As things are right now (in NY at least)..."haha mother****er you just lost your job for being a douche." isn't a great way to go.  Once you enter the workplace, we're all adults, and will be treated with the due respect.  Once that respect is violated through either your actions or someone else's, $hit's going down.  There's no stopping it.  But keep that line of respect and things stay in order.

Chefhow !

In a plant setting possibly you must be that strict . I let them explain and if a valid reason would not let them  go. Everyone makes a mistake now and then

Here goes. 

You are misusing two terms. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. At will employment, the idea of, basically, "I can quit leave my job with no prior notice, and you can fire/let me go with no prior notice," i.e. "I can fire you for anything if I want to for no reason," is a different law/idea than the "right to work" state, which has to do with unions, and prohibiting them. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! One doesn't have anything to do with the other. 

The two terms are commonly interchanged and misused. It is important to differentiate between the two. People read chef talk for information, and if someone were to read this thread and want to learn more about the law on hiring/firing practices, etc, they should know, at least, what terms to look up and what the difference is. 

If someone wrote a post and stated that lemons are orange and oranges are yellow, I'm sure we'd correct them, yes?

OK, listen. Maybe it is you who should do a little research. It took me 2 minutes of clicking on google to prove to you that you are using the wrong terms for stuff. If YOU want to learn more, I suggest you start by possibly learning the difference between the two. 

I don't understand what point you are trying to make, other than agreeing with me. So....thanks? By the way, I fixed it for you in bold. 

I haven't overlooked anyone working under contract. People under contract, or part of a collective bargaining group (i.e. a union) are exempted from the "at will" law and therefore do not fall under its umbrella. But you're right, my statement was broad and I shouldn't have assumed you would understand what I was talking about. Sorry. Also, please, don't call me grasshopper, especially if you are trying to prove a point and you are wrong. 

I also put "no reason" in quotes because usually people aren't fired for no reason. 

And hey, it's OK to admit you are wrong. It's how we all learn. Thats why cheftalk is great, cause we can all have a place to come discuss things and learn from each other. 

Again, that is not what right to work means. Please, just do a quick google search for "Florida, right to work" and you will see some stuff come up about labor unions, etc, but nothing about hiring/firing practices.

I'm sorry to be a stickler but I think it's really important that we use the right terms when we talk about this stuff. If we are going to offer advice to people, as a group (meaning chef talk) we should strive to be the best and make sure we use proper terms so that when people research/read old topics they know how to go further. Hypothetically, how can I take advice from people who don't even get the terms right about what they are talking about? 

All right, I'm about purple in the face from this, and I think the thread has veered off topic enough. 

There are places in Florida that do not even recognize labor unions. In fact I know a few painters and sheet rock setters who are non union and wont join one simply because the union pay  scale is less then what they make.. As far as my statemnt of right now, on the spot I have seen it done over and over. So therefore I go by practical application and actually seeing it done. Can't remember anyone who got hired back so far. (And thats since I have been here (1988).New York was different in the way things were handled.

ahhhh but just because you don't understand doesn't make every one else wrong.

I'm glad it finally sunk in (perhaps?) that you realize what we are all saying is in essence the very same thing. While there are differences in legal doctrine right to work states often have labor laws that are far more favorable to employers. Your base argument seems to be that all states are equal in this regard which leaves me to wonder how many states (if any) you've run a kitchen and have been responsible for employee termination. Why do you think auto manufactures and companies like Boeing are moving plants to right to work states?

The combination of an at will employee in a right to work state creates a very favorable and profitable environment for employers.

Even for those with unions.

If you really think that in every state you can let any one go at any time for any reason after their probationary period then you've either been mislead, ill-informed or simply lack experience. Instead of trying to educate every one via Google or Wikipedia at least consider taking in what not one, but several Chef's with decades of combined experience are trying to convey to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Someday 

But you're right, my statement was broad

So basically you made the same error in posting an overly broad statement as those who you are trying so hard to correct. The bottom line is that what you posted was inacurate by your own standards. Soap boxes ........ they can be slippery!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Someday

Every state is considered an at will state, so basically anyone in the country can be fired for "no reason."

Pop quiz....Which state makes this inaccurate even if we exempt contract employees?

Hint; In the words of the late great Frank Zappa

"I'm gonna move to Montana and raise a little dental floss".  ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Someday

And hey, it's OK to admit you are wrong. It's how we all learn. Thats why cheftalk is great, cause we can all have a place to come discuss things and learn from each other.

I agree. So lets both accept that and put this thread back on the rails. 

Dave

My base argument isn't that all states are equal. In fact, if you actually read and understood my posts you would probably know that. My base argument is that you, and several other people, have misused the term "right to work" and confused it with "at will." That is all. 

You said this:

You seem to think that I said anyone can be fired for no reason. I don't think that. In fact, I think the opposite of that. You are using this one sentence I wrote-- "Every state is considered an at will state, so basically anyone in the country can be fired for "no reason" out of a whole set of paragraphs I wrote about the dangers of simplifying statements like that. If you want to take that once sentence, quote it in your post, and then accuse me of being to broad, while ignoring the mountain of follow up sentences I wrote in that post, and later posts, that expound on my idea, then you fail at arguing. Taking out one sentence and using that as some sort of evidence based "GOTCHA!" moment is misleading. I'll go ahead and quote MYSELF on that statement, and if you take the time to read it, will see that you agree with me. So accusing me of "being too broad" by just using that one quote is, again, misleading. I go on about it at length actually:

Please, read my whole posts before deciding what to quote me on and argue with me about. In fact, my first post in this thread was taking issue with someone doing what you seem to think I was doing, and that is making a broad statement about the ability to fire anyone at anytime. My INITIAL post to this thread was a direct response to that mis-information. 

The main point I'm trying to convey to you is that you have misused and interchanged the term "at will" and "right to work." If anything needs to be "sunk in" its you understanding my basic argument. Thats what the wikipedia quoting was all about. I didn't and don't want this to become a discussion on the nitty gritty of unions, and labor laws, etc. I just wanted to make sure that you, everyone else, and people in the future who might read this post/thread use the correct terminology when referring to "right to work" and "at will." Since they are different, and you (and several others) used the incorrect term for what you meant.

I also wrote that I didn't understand what point you were trying to make, not because I didn't understand what you were saying, but why you were saying it. You basically said the same things I said a post or two above the one you posted (and as evidenced in my multiple self-quotes above)....so why are you using something we seemingly agree on to prove your point? That's what I didn't understand. We clear?

For example, if I wanted to have a discussion with you about the differences between citrus fruit, we could talk all day about sugar content versus acid content, aroma of limes versus aroma of lemons, which are best for what applications, blah blah blah. But if, for example, you keep calling lemons oranges, that is something we should clear up before we move forward. You want to talk about sugar and acid, I want to make sure you stop calling lemons oranges. 

I have no doubt in your experience or practical applications in this matter. I recognize that you have more "real world" experience dealing with this stuff than I do. You may have done it in different states, with different laws, etc. But, for the love of God, please make sure you use the right term. That is all. If nothing else, it makes stubborn younger people such as myself more prone to listen to you if you get the basics correct. Call a lemon a lemon. 

So, you've addressed about 3 sentences of what I wrote. If you want to take small snippets of the wall of text that I wrote and only address that, while ignoring the other, larger issues that we are having, than I can't help you. You have yet to comment on the whole "at will" vs "right to work" thing, and if you choose to ignore 90% of what I wrote, and take the other 10% out of context in a failed attempt at proving me "wrong," then I guess there isn't much I can do at this point. 

Sorry everyone, I truly didn't mean to hijack this thread. Like I said, I just think we should all be on the same page in terms of making sure we call things what they are. I'm actually a little embarrassed that it has gone on like this. Truly sorry. 

Right to work = an employee right to seek work without being forced to join an employee bargaining unit.

At will employment = an employer right to hire and fire employees without cause.

ADA, FMLA, EEOC, ICE, and a host of other Federal, State, and local agencies that grant or restrict both employer and employee rights.

In fact, within the USA, neither the "right to work" nor the "at will" employment may be applied without a multitude of far reaching caveats, controls, and restrictions, beginning with minimum wages, workman's compensation, State and Federal unemployment insurance, State disability insurance and extending into protected classes, inter alia national origin, gender, age, religion, disabilities, marital or family status, etc. Oh, and Do not forget the I-9 compliance requirements, EVERY PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT in accordance with Federal law.

If you really have a question, you are best advised to seek the assistance of a lawyer specializing in employment practices and law BEFORE you hire the first employee and definitely before you prepare an employee handbook
 

It's never easy letting any staff go. Regardless of what the circumstances are, it's any chef/manager/boss' hardest task. Go into the meeting prepared with all the reasons and rationales written down so you can lead the meeting in a professional manor. The few times I've had to let someone go, I brought in a third party to sit in. It helps to defuse any ugliness that can arise when someone is told they're fired. Keep as much emotion out of the discussion as possible because when it comes down to it, it's business and as a chef, you must be the chief of the kitchen and do what's best for the business. Good luck!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Someday 

  I wrote-- "Every state is considered an at will state, so basically anyone in the country can be fired for "no reason". If you want to take that once sentence, quote it in your post, and then accuse me of being to broad, while ignoring the mountain of follow up sentences I wrote in that post, and later posts, that expound on my idea, then you fail at arguing.

You seem determined to to over look the fact that we agree on far more than not.

I think we all understand right to work and at will employment are two different legal doctrines.

Yes there are statutory exceptions.

We agreed on that well up-thread. 

There are also states that don't recognize any of the at will exceptions like Florida.

In reference to your statement "Every state is considered an at will state, so basically anyone in the country can be fired for "no reason"

I think you will be very hard pressed to suggest that statement is not every bit as broad and far reaching (not to mention inaccurate) as the posts you are railing against.

In fact you already admitted your statement was "broad" while at the same time lamenting about another chef speaking ......too broadly.

Capiche?

So before you decide to write a diatribe correcting several others perhaps it would be wise to make sure your own posts are accurate.

In either event you've over looked a plethora of exceptions to your statement and you missed an entire state.

That seems a titch more egregious than simply juxtaposing two terms.

Pete is spot on about hand books. This is what lawyers are for especially if you are in a state that recognizes express or implied contracts as an exception to the at will doctrine.

Dave

Damn.  You just got served.

Gonna correct Dave's italian though, it's "Capice?"  *runs away*

Quote:

Originally Posted by RBandu 

Gonna correct Dave's italian though, it's "Capice?"  

Hey not according to Wikipedia and they're always right!

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capiche

But it is a darn good example of how more than one response can be correct.

Dave

Hahaha, respect, but I've worked for too many italian chefs.  There's no "h" in italian.  I've had a man go so far as to write me a note with his instructions, all in italian, followed by "capice?"  There are indeed variations, "capico, capicee"...no "h".  Gonna stand firm here. :P

My sister is a law librarian and over the course of her years has learned, that in fact, an employer is under no obligation to keep an employee and can terminate at discretion for any reason.

Even with rules and laws in place to suggest otherwise...............the bottom line is just that.

Now this forum suggests otherwise?  I'm confused.

I  AGREE.  Again the employee has the option to go or do to the employer whatever legal or government action he or she thinks correct. You better however have the proof and the resources and the time  to back up  whatever claim you feel you have. Otherwise you are a loser before you even start.