Joelcool7 said:
maximus22 said:
Okay so what if he were the one who had cancer and he wouldn't be able to come into work for 10 months because of treatment. Should they keep him on then out of pity?
I'm not saying it isn't sad; but if he can't meet the hours that he was hired for then why is it the company's burden to pick up his slack just because it's a sad situation? It's a small company so they probably don't have the extra manpower or profit margin to be able to afford to handle that much loss of time.
On the other hand, it isn't his fault either so maybe he should sue them? That seems to be the default answer today. |
If he had cancer then they should temporarily fill his position. Then when he is good enough to return to work they should return his position to him. Companies hire temps all the time, infact at my job I was sick for three weeks, during that time they had hired someone else to temporarily fill my spot. But then because I was still sick after three weeks they gave the guy the job full time.
So the employer if he was sick should have hired someone to temporarily do his job until he was better. Nobody should loose their job because they are sick, unless its a permanent sick like paralysis or something. But if the guy will be back in shortly or even ten months they should hold onto a position for him.
Maybe not even give him his old job back, but find a way to give him some kind of position!
|
Yeah they could definitely do that. But I'm sure that if this guy was good at his job they will be dying to take him back when he can meet his time obligations. But they shouldn't have to pay him if he isn't going to be there was my main point.
