Woman fired for talking back to her boss

[Provost Harrison]

Oh I hate arseholes like that. I remember Novartis. I made them a lovely CAPA spreadsheet that even did a mailmerge for them with all the outstanding tasks...saved them several days a month of manual work. Without me there maintaining the hidden column, sure as hell they'll never figure out how it works

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't think you really want to contradict your boss more than 3 times anyway. You would probably be fired anywhere.

Here we usually have contracts that tell you what you have to do at your job, and what the big no-nos are. Just disagreeing with your boss is usually not in there. Though some employers may try to get people fired in another way if they consider them a problem. But officially you can't fire people here just because they disagree with the boss.

But maybe it's evil communism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro


Here we usually have contracts that tell you what you have to do at your job, and what the big no-nos are. Just disagreeing with your boss is usually not in there. Though some employers may try to get people fired in another way if they consider them a problem. But officially you can't fire people here just because they disagree with the boss.

But maybe it's evil communism.

I'm sure they can harass you (legally) all day until you quit if you keep disagreeing with them.

[Lorizael]

But they won't fine you!

[Japher]

saved them several days a month of manual work. Without me there maintaining the hidden column, sure as hell they'll never figure out how it works

My old manager never operated a single peice of equipment that he told other people to. And, when they weren't making deadlines would get mad at them, even if it was the equipment's fault, but then he didn't understand any of that.

In my line of work, contradicting your boss isn't a good idea, but sometimes it is necessary. They should never ask you to do something that shouldn't be done per the FDA. My last job was doing just that, and when I told them they became angry and tried to get other people to do it. After I left, 3 other people left within a month. I hear they are still trying to get someone to do that thing.

Contradicting because you are defiant is one thing, contracicting because you believe it in your heart to be the best thing for the company and the bottom line is another thing. If, as a boss, you can awnser the "whys" of your employee, then you aren't a boss... you're a dictator.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm sure they can harass you (legally) all day until you quit if you keep disagreeing with them.

There are indeed such cases sometimes here, but you aren't totally defenseless when working for someone. There are laws what an employer can do and what not, and they can't fire people without good reasons. These reasons have either to do with the worker not doing his job (=breaking the contract) or they occur in cases when the company runs into general trouble.

The public debate about this praxis is old, and often the companies are for changes to be able to fire people more easily, but so far we do not have a general simple "hire and fire" policy here. During recent years, when our economy was rather doing bad, it was argued from the business side that less tight rules for firing people would overall save jobs, but now since the economy is recovering the public debate seems to have died down a bit.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
If, as a boss, you can awnser the "whys" of your employee, then you aren't a boss... you're a dictator.

A boss is always a dictator. But a smart dictator knows how to get the most out of people and that means listening to them.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
There are indeed such cases sometimes here, but you aren't totally defenseless when working for someone. There are laws what an employer can do and what not, and they can't fire people without good reasons. These reasons have either to do with the worker not doing his job (=breaking the contract) or they occur in cases when the company runs into general trouble.

Yea, I would say that the person who gets along with the boss the worst would be first on the chopping block generally. But your system is good, don't get me wrong.

[Patroklos]

Well, your taking her word that she simply contradicted the boss. Its all in how she did it. If she did so by saying "**** you you idiot, I'll do what I damn well want," which I find is probably more likely, then she deserves to be fired. If she said "Excuse me, but the actual process is supposed to be done this way, and here is the pub showing the process" then this guy is just a power hungry tool and he shoul dbe fired.

In any case, if I can get away with respectfully disagreeing with my boss, she sure as hell should.

[Kidlicious]

But if you contradict your boss 3 times there's something wrong. Either your boss is an idiot or you are. In the military both is true

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Kuci, I'd have thought with your views on labour laws you'd be all for this kind of action, after all, it is the right of the boss.

That's because you have a very simplistic understanding of labor rights.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That's because you have a very simplistic understanding of labor rights.

That's funny, because stating that there should be no labour rights because of some misguided ideology looks extraordinarily simplistic to me. A realistic balance of requirements is what is needed.

[Kuciwalker]

That's funny, because stating that there should be no labour rights because of some misguided ideology looks extraordinarily simplistic to me.

Exactly my point: I never claimed that, and yet you somehow assume it's my position.

[lord of the mark]

IIUC under employment at will she could certainly be fired in these circumstances. Based on whats in the OP.

Im not sure about the "fines" though. I think they might be questionable under US labor law.

[lord of the mark]

also, in the US, while the company would technically have the right to fire her, she could try to prove it was gender discrimination or sexual harrassment, or whatever. In all likelihood a company with any depth of pockets, or a reputation to protect, would try to offer her SOMETHING, in return for a pledge to not sue them, rather than go through the hassle.

That provides some real, albeit inconsistent and unreliable, softening to "employment at will".