It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wife's Cancer Costs Husband His Job

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

With Kathy's health fragile, Carl knew he'd need time to be at her treatments and tests. When he shared the news with his boss, his employment of nearly 14 years was terminated.

"She said, 'It's business. I'm running a company here, and I need to make sure the department runs.' And I argued that I would make sure the company runs," Carl Sorabella said.

He said he offered to work nights and weekends, but his boss said no.

"And I'm like, 'You just can't do that. I mean, she's on disability. We have no income now. And unemployment -- they cap you at $625 a week," Carl Sorabella said.

Read more: www.thebostonchannel.com...


I would have posted this in Breaking News... but I don't feel it is breaking news since incidents like this occur often enough that it should be considered a social issue now.

This man, Carl, was terminated from his job because he would have to miss work on account of his wife's health. He offered to work nights and weekends and yet his boss still fired him. It blows my mind. This couple is in a hard enough situation, and now they lost a main source of income, just making their situation exponentially worse.

But then again, when I think about this story dispassionately, I can understand where the company was looking out for it's best interest. After all, Carl would now be worried about his wife, never mind the fact that he wouldn't be able to keep normal working hours, so his mind would be distracted from his work. Even as I type that, I understand the company's position, but I'm still horrified by it.

The most interesting aspect to this story is all of the comments on the bottom. It appears that people are now boycotting the company that terminated Carl's employment, specifically the woman who acted in behalf of the company and actually did the firing.
Do you think this is right?
Even more important of a question: Is it possible that this boycott is an expected result of the article, and perhaps... is the whole reason the article was published in the first place?

The comments jumped out at me the most because there are over 132 of them. Usually there are barely 30 comments on stories, but for some reason this particular story inspired people to fight on Carl's behalf. And the way the story is written makes me consider that maybe this piece was written solely to drum up support for the family by encouraging people to boycott the offending company.
Or maybe it is just a human interest story highlighting a wrong that has occurred.

I'm just curious what ATS thinks... about the story itself, and the public's reaction to it.




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Sadly Corporate America is all about setting aside everything including families. No cares whether you have a problem what matters is if you could be productive at all cost



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by starwarsisreal
 


Capitalism at it's finest.


I'm more curious as to what people think about the public's reaction to the article.

The article itself goes into detail about who the company is, who did the firing, and even the company's address... and the comments include people saying they are going to protest by e-mailing/calling the company and/or boycott it's business.

It's almost as though the article was written to punish the company. As if the journalist writing it expected people to react exactly as they have and boycott the company... why else include the company's contact information?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
My mother worked for a real estate agency for two years, and they pretty much set their own hours. A lot of people wanted to look at houses either in the evenings or on the weekends, anyhow, so I don't know what's going on there.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
People are getting fed up with heartless capitalism, that is why they are responding to this article. They see a gross injustice and they are fighting back.

When an employer tells someone "Its not personal, its just business", they are actually saying that money is more important to them than their fellow human beings.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Really a stinking company! The part I don't get is being capped at
$625 a week. Where do I sign up for this kind of compensation?
They could lay me off immediately!



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Sucks really. That is corporate America for you. Capitalism and what not.... Impersonal and cold. Who cares of you have been a great employee for 14 years? If you ask for some time off, you get fired.


That is just so wrong.... THIS is what is wrong with so many companies any more... No morals.No ethics... It's all about money.....

It's just... Wrong.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
The guy even offered to work nights and weekends and was still canned. That is heartless! It is such a shame that money means more than human lives.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
www.google.com...:mode=pp&cid=11813718650054695007&q=Haynes+real+estate+wellesly


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by xFloggingMaryx
 


It is a terrible situation, you do, however only have one side of it. Perhaps he was a lousy employee or perhaps he asked in a manner that was entitlement related. Either way, even if he was a poor employee, the company should have worked with him until his situation stabilized or he got another job.

I worked for a private firm for over ten years and we had a no leave policy. You had an issue, regardless of what it was and you dealt with it, no questions asked other than what assistance we could provide. If that meant you were not at work for a week or 6 months, that was the deal. No reduction in pay, no disability, no loss of vacation, no reduction in benefits. The only downside was a prorated bonus since you were not there the entire year. As a manager, I was able to offer that to folks when a life crisis happened probably 25 times over 10 years. 100% of the time, people exceeded my expectations. Call the team and explain the situation and everyone's hand would go up, looking to take on some of that person's work. Everyone knew that it could well be them, life happens. People would run through a wall for that company. When folks came back after they dealt with their personal situation, they performed at 125%. In the 10 years I was there, the firm grew 500%.

Treating people with that level of compassion and decency is absolutely smart business and saves significant money over the long term due to increased productivity, lower recruiting costs and less turnover. If folks would get their heads out of their green eyeshade, MBA asses and actually do a thoughtful financial analysis, it would show that the better you treat your employees the more profitable you will be. 99% of the jackasses in the corporate world have not a clue of the linkage between employee treatment/satisfaction and the bottom-line.
edit on 15-6-2011 by dolphinfan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
This looks like a lose lose scenario. The manager was so short sighted that she did not realize how dedicated the employee was to put in any time missed plus likely some extra time no charge. He had about 14 years experience which unless you can hire a replacement that is trained in all the company systems and policies will cost the company a lot of money to train someone new. Then it also lowers morale and possibly productivity among all remaining employees or may increase turnover in future months as they see the writing on the wall and look for work with more flex time. In the meantime he has to look for work. I am only seeing one side. Maybe he wanted a part time position and that was not an option. Maybe the office is closed in the evenings and weekends. There is a reason for laws that get passed and they get passed because of inflexible managers and companies like this one setting a bad example.

A better example instead of over reacting to the news would be to see how much time he actually took off for a few weeks. If he in effect did not lose any time but put more time in per week, that would have been a win for the company. He might have even continued putting in extra hours at no expense to the company for weeks or months in anticipation of needing to take a little bit of flex time off.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
I once worked for a company that fired someone unjustly, I walked in and quit! I really did this and it hurt me really badly but I know in my heart of hearts I had to stand up to it.

I think at the time I regretted it, but looking back I am so much better of a person for believing that there is such a thing as right and wrong! This is clearly wrong and anyone who deals with this company and knows of this story is wrong too and they know it. People are spineless and they have no morals!

America has no Moral Values because this is not America anymore! Not my America thanks to our Leaders, and bankers, and swindlers, and thieves!



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by xFloggingMaryx

With Kathy's health fragile, Carl knew he'd need time to be at her treatments and tests. When he shared the news with his boss, his employment of nearly 14 years was terminated.

"She said, 'It's business. I'm running a company here, and I need to make sure the department runs.' And I argued that I would make sure the company runs," Carl Sorabella said.

He said he offered to work nights and weekends, but his boss said no.

"And I'm like, 'You just can't do that. I mean, she's on disability. We have no income now. And unemployment -- they cap you at $625 a week," Carl Sorabella said.

Read more: www.thebostonchannel.com...


I would have posted this in Breaking News... but I don't feel it is breaking news since incidents like this occur often enough that it should be considered a social issue now.

This man, Carl, was terminated from his job because he would have to miss work on account of his wife's health. He offered to work nights and weekends and yet his boss still fired him. It blows my mind. This couple is in a hard enough situation, and now they lost a main source of income, just making their situation exponentially worse.

But then again, when I think about this story dispassionately, I can understand where the company was looking out for it's best interest. After all, Carl would now be worried about his wife, never mind the fact that he wouldn't be able to keep normal working hours, so his mind would be distracted from his work. Even as I type that, I understand the company's position, but I'm still horrified by it.

The most interesting aspect to this story is all of the comments on the bottom. It appears that people are now boycotting the company that terminated Carl's employment, specifically the woman who acted in behalf of the company and actually did the firing.
Do you think this is right?
Even more important of a question: Is it possible that this boycott is an expected result of the article, and perhaps... is the whole reason the article was published in the first place?

The comments jumped out at me the most because there are over 132 of them. Usually there are barely 30 comments on stories, but for some reason this particular story inspired people to fight on Carl's behalf. And the way the story is written makes me consider that maybe this piece was written solely to drum up support for the family by encouraging people to boycott the offending company.
Or maybe it is just a human interest story highlighting a wrong that has occurred.

I'm just curious what ATS thinks... about the story itself, and the public's reaction to it.


If you think this is interesting, look who one of their larger clients are "Women by Women". Basically a sexist medical company that only employs women.

I wouldn't be surprised if it came out that the manager in question(notice how the news papers hide her name, if she was a he it would be all over the news) is a member of NOW or participated in feminist hate rallies while going to college.

Either way people like that, soulless monsters shouldn't be running a company or holding any position of power.
Men and women like her are the reason why all our job's where shipped over sea's.
------
P.S

He is an accountant. Not a doctor, mechanic or lawyer. His job isn't time sensitive enough to justify it(being fired for needing time away from the office). Heck he could of worked from home at night and still got everything done with minimal help from co-workers.

What he needs to do is look up Massachusetts sex discrimination law's. And then look up if any of his female coworkers took medical leave. If so then he "could"(Massachusetts courts are stacked with feminist man haters, so it is iffy) sue for gender discrimination.
edit on 16-6-2011 by korathin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by xFloggingMaryx
reply to post by starwarsisreal
 


Capitalism at it's finest.


Capitalism is business for profit. Nothing more or less. What you're calling capitalism in this case is actually thoughtlessness. Or shortsighted. No, wait: moronic This idiot let a person willing to work nights and weekends, and obviously dedicated to his job, go because she was a moron. By allowing him to continue working while assisting his wife, this boss would have gained his loyalty for the rest of his life.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by xFloggingMaryx
 


This stinks. The employer was dead wrong. The employee should contact the EEOC or his state's department of labor and employment and file a disability discrimination charge. The American's With Disabilities Act forbids an employer to discriminate against an employee based on association with a disabled person or their status of caregiver for a disabled person:


In addition to protecting qualified applicants and employees with disabilities from employment discrimination, one ADA provision – the "association" provision -- protects applicants and employees from discrimination based on their relationship or association with an individual with a disability, whether or not the applicant or employee has a disability.


Source

There are many well known cases almost identical to this one where the employee filed a complaint or suit, some of them much more complex than this one, and won a cash settlement or other financial restitution. It's pretty clear cut here. The fact that the employee requested a reasonable accommodation of flexible hours and was denied the request is even more damning. I won't go into detail about my own experience with disability discrimination, but trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

In addition, the article is wrong when it says that state and federal laws don't apply because the company employs less than 50 people. If we were talking about FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act), then yes, the less than 50 clause does apply. But for disability discrimination, the number drops from 50 to 15. If there are more than 15 people employed there, the ADA law applies.

edit on 16-6-2011 by dalloway because: Add bit about the FMLA v. ADA



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Thanks for all the replies. Especially from those of you who are more versed in law and business than I am.

I'm just surprised not as many people commented on the public's reaction to the article. I thought that was the most interesting part, haha.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
As others have already stated, this guy has a very clear cut lawsuit that he would certainly win if he took this to trial.

I think this situation really outlines where America and capitalism have gone way off the course. I agree with the OP that it's totally understandable where the boss was coming from, but at the same time you have to be really disgusted.

I think capitalism is a terrible system, solely for the fact that it promotes the attaining of assets at any cost. I'm 100% in favor of people working hard to attain profit, but to just step over the corpse of your fellow man so that you would make a few extra bucks?

I mean, let's think about this rationally. If the boss here had said "Oh okay Carl, I don't really know about it, but let's see if you can make it work." Worst case scenario, Carl totally screws up and he is fired for incompetence because he was too distraught to do his job. The company loses maybe .1% of it's yearly profits as a result. MAYBE she gets yelled at for keeping that incompetent bafoon Carl around for so long. Best case Scenario, Carl does his job just fine and is able to support his family during this time. The boss gets to keep what little humanity she has left.

Business without ethics, the path to the dark side this is.




top topics



 
7

log in

join