Employer requires employee to report symptoms of illness. Employee has a cough and sort throat, reports it to employer. Employer tells employee they may not come to work until they have been tested for Covid and may be terminated for not coming to work if they don't obtain a doctors note that clears them of Covid, which they must obtain on their own time and with their own money. Someone I know is in this situation. Seems sketchy to me. I totally understand the employer wanting to be protected from having a potentially infectious person on shift. And I totally understand requiring a doctors note for someone who isn't coming to work. But can they legally order the employee not to come to work and then fire them for not coming to work?
Need to see if it's a fire at will state. If so, yes. She is free to quit anytime, for any or for no reason, and he is free to fire for any or no reason. But ... that is subject to the limitations on the employer of federal and state employment discrimination laws. Illness is not a protected class like race, national origin, or sex. Montana is notable as the only state in the nation that requires just cause for employers to terminate employees. https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnew...t-will-employment-equals-fewer-employee-suits
Someone pulled this on my daughter. She called me and I told her to stay right there till her shift was over. Between the Dr. visit and the testing it was going to cost more to get the test than she made there in 2 weeks. Force them to fire on the job and then collect unemployment. Of course, this is Florida, and it took me almost 2 weeks to navigate the unemployment system to get her benefits. If she leaves and does not return with the Dr. excuse they can fire her for abandoning the job and not have to worry about unemployment. If they fire her for refusing to leave till the end of her shift they're on the hook for unemployment. Seems like the employer is being something of a Dingus. Unless the money is LITERALLY to die for they're probably going to be happier (and safer) elsewhere.
She called prior to her shift and was told not to come in. Also she hasn't been working long enough to accrue much if any unemployment. Its a crap job, prolly not worth the hassle either way, except to avoid having 'terminated' on her job history.
It would be in my state due to a health department emergency order that runs through Christmas or thereabouts. Whether it is in the person you are talking about's state, IDK.
Both of my older kids have been fired. I told them how many times I've been fired and then found a new better job I can't advise on anything but this I do know. Staying in a job because you're afraid to lose it is not "holding on," it's really being "held back." Luck
if they come back to work without getting a Covid test that comes back negative, yes they can be fired.
We live in times of mass hysteria. We live in lawless times with governments usurping powers not theirs. So far 2 courts have reached that conclusion, that governor's have acted unlawfully in response to the virus. That employers would follow suit and act hysterically out of fear is logical.
What's "hysterical" about it? It may not be how you would proceed, but the employer's motivation is to protect the business for his customers' and his employees' and his own benefit. It's perfectly honorable. And legal.
It is kind of unfair, you could say, but it is not illegal. It could potentially constitute a violation of minimum wage laws, if the employee is being paid a wage near the legal minimum, but that might be open to interpretation of the courts.
What's hysterical about it is that the employer's and government's actions are based upon ignorance of facts, and fear promulgated by greedy leaders including Anthony Fauci. First, the PCR tests which are the cornerstone of public and corporate policy are notoriously unreliable. Secondly, 10 months of data show the almighty virus to be about as lethal as the flu virus. Government and corporate rules are based upon superstition and fear, right here in the land of the presumably rational, free and just. A perfect example is that of John Elway. He along with the rest of the intellectually challenged NFL staff have dutifully worn their silly masks for the first half of the season, and last week John gets the crud. Not as high profile as John Elway are the several ordinary people I know who've had the same thing happen to them. Wearing masks with religious fervor, they've still caught the crud.
Well, we have different definitions for hysteria. On masks in general, there is zero doubt that the virus exists and that it is transmitted via cough, sneezes, shouting, etc. If it is worn correctly, a good mask significantly reduces the chances of infecting others with droplets. And that's where the rub is; we do not wear them correctly. You can go anywhere and see numerous people with a dumb bandana or even a surgical mask not fully covering the nose. One might as well have no mask at all as to wear it incorrectly. No one knows how any particular person gets it (the crud? COVID is only one kind of crud). But wearing a mask doesn't prevent your catching covid. It reduces the number if droplets you spew into ither people's faces. Someone John Elway came into contact with wasn't being careful and infected him. So it isn't a perfect example of anything, other than the transmissibility of Covid-19.
Rationalize it as you need. Proper lab tests conducted in this country since 1946 regarding the efficacy of masks in preventing the aerosol transmission of the flu virus have all come to the same conclusion: it's a push. There is no evidence or proof that the masks work at preventing transmission of that virus. I'm using 'hysteria' / 'hysterical' in the sense described by Webster: "Excessive or uncontrollable emotion, as panic or fear."
You're applying the term to a person (an unnamed employer) whom you have not personally observed or interacted with in any way. All you know is that he told an employee "they may not come to work until they have been tested for Covid and may be terminated for not coming to work if they don't obtain a doctors note that clears them of Covid, which they must obtain on their own time and with their own money." And you haven't even heard his side of the story. Do you really need me to tell you what's wrong with that? You're mask "analysis" is similarly defective. No one claims that a viral particle cannot pass through a mask. No one. We get it. The purpose is to reduce the amount and number of virus-rich droplets that are sure to pass from an infected person when he coughs or sneezes. "Masks are useless" sounds like saying "umbrellas are useless in a rainstorm because your shoes can still get wet." I'll look at a report of your "proper lab tests since 1946", which you do not cite, and will keep an open mind. But I suspect it is an outlier and fails to control for the fact that people "wear masks" while leaving their nose exposed..
I appreciate your civil post, thank you. Yes, I am operating on the presumption that the OP is true and accurate, and maybe that is a bad presumption. This is the court of public opinion, like it or not. If I were seated on a jury, and if the jury were allowed to see all the facts and evidence, it would be a different manner. I am judging now the supposed actions of the employer, and it correlates strongly with the actions of many in society, including numerous public officials around the country, regarding the matter of mandatory mask wearing, the new religion. Mass hysteria is an appropriate term, considering how the masses are behaving. You are entitled to your skepticism regarding tests conducted in this country regarding the efficacy of masks in stopping the aerosol spread of the flu virus. I read it many long months ago at the Lew Rockwell site. The article contained many footnotes. Sorry for not providing it, but for me, the fact that so many have caught the virus while wearing a mask confirms the general spirit of the article.
Why? Florida is at will state, they can fire you just because they take the notion, is that incorrect?
The only exception being fired for discrimanatory reason, I believe. Hell, they dont even need a reason, "just because..."
Yes, but To avoid increases in unemployment insurance employers need a reason for termination. The employer can fire you for no reason but If he provides a reason it must be supportable In this case, being fired for following instructions will not pass the test.
Another puerile post having nothing at all to do with the topic...par for the course. Any thoughts on the topic?
You claim to understand many things. Your demonstration of those claims is generally lacking. We'll just put this in your "Florida Economy" stack.
