Man fired after notifying employer of wife's cancer.

[theprof00]

sapphi_snake said:

theprof00 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.

Well, I think the real problem isn't that a company should be forced to do this, but that back in the day, an incentive of working with a specific company meant certain loyalty perks from the company. Nowadays, companies have so much more rights than the workers, and it's almost as if the worker should be happy to work at the company, ie, the company is doing the worker a favor by hiring him. It wasn't like this previously, and it just shows our evolving business climate, which sadly seems to be going more and more in favor of the corp.

Problem is that things seem to be regressing back to the days when companies "owned" their imployees.

yeah