Family medical Leave Act- might need to expand a bit more.

[Chibibar]

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/09/13/mother-fired-after-taking-time-off-to-give-her-son-a-kidney/

Basically the mother donate her kidney to her son, her boss made her sign a paper that her job may not be there when she gets back, and of course she was let go and a new person was hired.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/
The Family medical leave act said that the company have to have at least 50 employee within 75 mile radius

It looks like this is the site: http://www.aviationmaintenance.edu/
You would need education facility would be more compassionate when it comes to family. Heck, my community college (well it is WELL over 50 employee) do have their own built in system for medical leaves. Even if you don't have the time, you can take time off without pay for such an emergency (she saved her son's life in case you don't want to read)

I know that times are tough, but man, that is kinda cold hearted way to do business (I know she did sign the form so legally she can't do a thing) but still cold hearted.

 

[strawman]

While it would be nice if the company left a position open for her, is it really a human right to be able to take 25% of the year off and be able to get your old job back? The company is expected to either wait for you and increase the load of the existing workers, or hire a temp, or leave the work unfinished? Why is the company expected to share in the personal misfortunes of its employees?

 

[GasBandit]

While it would be nice if the company left a position open for her, is it really a human right to be able to take 25% of the year off and be able to get your old job back? The company is expected to either wait for you and increase the load of the existing workers, or hire a temp, or leave the work unfinished? Why is the company expected to share in the personal misfortunes of its employees?

Careful, that kinda talk will get you blackballed from the hipper sections of the internet these days.

 

[Chibibar]

While it would be nice if the company left a position open for her, is it really a human right to be able to take 25% of the year off and be able to get your old job back? The company is expected to either wait for you and increase the load of the existing workers, or hire a temp, or leave the work unfinished? Why is the company expected to share in the personal misfortunes of its employees?

hiring a temp should work. Or even contract work (which is popular now-a-days) I mean she could have leave without pay while legal-wise, she got nothing, but still kinda bit harsh imo. (coming from education side)

 

[Krisken]

I'm with Chibi. That's what Temp work is for.

 

[GasBandit]

I can name a couple positions in my organization alone for which a 3 month temp would be all but useless - hell, Traffic Directors alone you can't even leave to their own devices for at least 6 months after hire... sometimes takes them a year to learn enough to stop screwing up. I know I did. And even though that's not my position any more, the one I have now would also not be temp-able if I were taken out of commission for 12 weeks.

 

[Krisken]

Yeah, better to fire her. Silly me.

 

[GasBandit]

Yeah, better to fire her. Silly me.

I don't mean to say one solution is best for every situation. I mean, if she was bagging groceries I don't see why they couldn't keep her.

 

[Chibibar]

I can name a couple positions in my organization alone for which a 3 month temp would be all but useless - hell, Traffic Directors alone you can't even leave to their own devices for at least 6 months after hire... sometimes takes them a year to learn enough to stop screwing up. I know I did. And even though that's not my position any more, the one I have now would also not be temp-able if I were taken out of commission for 12 weeks.

Even at specialize position there are contract work that you can do (short term and such) where you get professionals.

Now granted there some position where temp/contract may not work, but those are few. I doubt her job at the aviation in education couldn't find a temp.

 

[strawman]

So, because the company has other options, then they should take them, and that should be legislated. People should never be fired.

So much for owning and controlling your company. Guess the best option is to never hire anyone.

 

[GasBandit]

So, because the company has other options, then they should take them, and that should be legislated. People should never be fired.

So much for owning and controlling your company...

Dude, you know I'm pretty much solidly in your corner, but there is such a thing as wrongful termination, and a lot of those circumstances have to do with medical leave. It's a moot point here since she signed a waiver, but I think we're discussing the "what if she hadn't" situation.

 

[strawman]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Several statutory and judge-made exceptions to the doctrine exist, especially if unlawful discrimination is involved regarding the termination of an employee. These restrictions (explained below) have been controversial; an empirical study in 1992 by the RAND Corporation showed that imposing exceptions to at-will employment resulted in a long-term drop in aggregate employment of two to five percent.

There are reasonable exceptions to at-will. For instance when discrimination can be shown.

Further, it makes some sense to force larger companies to keep a position open for certain family events, but we must all agree that this is a social, public good. We are not enforcing a person's right to be employeed, we ae instead legislating that companies provide a stable job for people in an uncertain position as a social good, and that the company must accept the cost of that. Temps, contract workers, professionals, etc usually end up costing more than the employee does in many, many ways. It's not "free" for the company.

But forcing _all_ companies to accept that burden, even small ones that might fold under the pressure of one employee leaving, seems a bit overboard.