"The better work men do is always done under stress and at great personal cost."
-William Carlos Williams
Issues has received various questions, complaints and concerns about businesses and business practices. Most of the concerns relate with unethical business practices. While our policy is not to liable businesses, many of these concerns need to be addressed, which we will do without divulging the company's name, as a means of protection against allegation. That is not to insinuate that we do not believe our reader's stories, but rather to protect ourselves from liability suits.
Since Issues is already involved in the at-will employment issue, we have decided to bring you more information involving real life true at will horror documentation, as well as state-by-state disclosure of laws and bills regarding at-will employment and/or employee protection.
The first at-will issue we are following concerns Rick from South Carolina. Rick was unaware of the at-will doctrine. He had never heard of employment at-will. First of all Rick lives in South Carolina, a right to work state. Unfortunately for Rick, a right to work state does nothing to protect his rights against at-will employment, it simply secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. Another unfortunate attribute for residents of Right to Work States: the three groups protected against the at-will doctrine are State Employees, Federal Employees and Union Members.
The prior statement was not meant as a vote for unions, it was merely a statement of fact.
A TWO YEAR BATTLE AGAINST HARASSMENT AND TORTURE AT THE HANDS OF HIS SUPERIORS ENDED WITH AN AT-WILL DISMISSAL
What happens when a superior within a small business holds a personal grudge against an employee? If the superior holds no professional ethics, he or she will deliberately impose working conditions that are so discriminatory and/or intolerable that a reasonable person would quit, in other words, the superior would impose a constructive discharge.
Intolerable working conditions were just a small portion of the harassment Charlie suffered at the hands of his New York Employer for nearly two years. (More...bottom of page)
When an employer imposes intolerable working conditions that foreseeably would compel a reasonable employee to quit, (i.e. prohibited harassment or discriminatory/retaliatory working assignments or conditions)
Charlie's employer worked continuously to make his life miserable. This was accomplished by continuously changing the job description Charlie was presently placed into and by always placing Charlie under the direct supervision of a supervisor that had a personal conflict with Charlie's spouse. This factor continued even when Charlie was placed in positions that would normally dictate a different direct supervisor. It continued even through a promotion to Divisional Manager, a position that traditionally held no direct supervisor. The supervisor would force Charlie to work late evening hours, because his superior "knew he hated that shift," or would insist that Charlie be responsible for office work, even though he held a field position.
The situation worsened when the company found itself in the midst of a Federal Labor Department investigation. The company owner made several references to Charlie, indicating that: 'he knew Charlie's wife was responsible for their present dilemma,' always adding: ‘don’t worry that has no bearing on your position with the company, you’ll always have a job here.’ Charlie's work schedule increased, although being a salaried employee meant no wage increase in compromise. The abuse grew at a steady pace. Charlie began making references to his spouse and coworkers that he wanted to look for a new job. This never developed for his employer kept him overloaded with work, not allowing Charlie adequate time to seek another job.
In November of 2001, Charlie's employer called him into the office to inform Charlie that ‘there was no longer a position for him with the company.’ Charlie requested one of the many positions that the company was presently hiring to fill, but the company owner stood firm on ‘the company no longer having a position for Charlie.’
Since that day, the rumor mill had offered various explanations for Charlie's dismissal. Two employees revealed that ‘Charlie’s direct supervisor had smugly told them that Charlie had been fired.’ The supervisor later recanted the story and suggested that the company was downsizing, even though new employees were hired within 24 hours of Charlie's dismissal.
Employment
Section: