I'm not the only one angry about this!

[SadieMae]

Fran and Cyber... I do see your points. There are two sides to every story. But for chist sake, she was a part time receptionist. If it was so important for her to be there, they'd have someone answering the phone today instead of going to a FULL voicemail box. This story just struck a nerve with me because I live in a military town. Honestly I don't believe in the war in Iraq but I do believe in the young men and women there fighting.

She is willing to have her personnel file released, they don't want to.

 

[Details]

That's where I was coming from too - but they say that there was agreement that she MIGHT take the 17th off, and she feels that it was not made clear to her that she needed to show up then. True?

Doesn't sound to me like there was such an agreement - just my experience that when people want to push something, they'll often use that phrasing - might, it was not made clear, etc. - when in fact she asked and it was denied, for example. I've heard that kind of thing before - in retail, every time someone wanted to claim they didn't understand one of our policies or get something they had known and agreed they would not get.

Companies need to know when you will be back. Who is 'they'?

 

[Floh]

There are now 2000 soldiers dead since the Iraq conflict started. the family members affected by this war are numerous and i feel this company has behaved in an intolerable manner.

how many families have been dispossessed of a loved one?

2000 * 2 (mothers and fathers)
2000 * 2.4 (children)
2000 * 1.4 (brothers/sisters)
2000 (wives)

that's 13,600 people deprived of a loved one using some very basic statistics.

support the troops?

not when there's money to be made, IMO.

 

[CaliMom]

That's where I was coming from too - but they say that there was agreement that she MIGHT take the 17th off, and she feels that it was not made clear to her that she needed to show up then. True?

That's what I got out of it. She stated that she informed them that if she was not up to coming in on the 17th, then she would be in on the 18th AT THE LATEST. He was deployed on the 16th, I am sure she did not sleep well and was terribly drained on the 17th and had made them aware of that BEFORE she took the time off. In my opinion, they could have given her the extra freaking day to get her emotions under control. I think they deserve the bad publicity...again this is only my opinion. Companies need to start caring a bit more about their employee's and not the almighty dollar and they'll have better and happier employees.

 

[Details]

Fran and Cyber... I do see your points. There are two sides to every story. But for chist sake, she was a part time receptionist. If it was so important for her to be there, they'd have someone answering the phone today instead of going to a FULL voicemail box. This story just struck a nerve with me because I live in a military town. Honestly I don't believe in the war in Iraq but I do believe in the young men and women there fighting.

She is willing to have her personnel file released, they don't want to.

I'm sure they don't - probably open themselves up to lawsuits about slander or something. After all, you don't always know what all is in your file. If they put out anything negative, I bet she can find a way to sue, and they look even worse in the PR battle.

I bet they have a receptionist - but there's no reason for them to answer the phones so long as the false story is out that she was fired for saying goodbye to her husband. Would you answer that phone? I think if I were their new receptionist, and told to answer that phone, I'd quit. No reasonable boss would ask you to do that.

The story was designed to strike a nerve - but it was false. She was not fired for saying goodbye to her husband. She was fired for not coming back to work the day after he left.

 

[13th Juror]

From a different perspective:

She had permission from her company to have a week off. She had a week off. Her husband left on October 16, 2005. She was required to return to work after she saw him off and after a week. That would be October 17, 2005.

She decided she wanted an additional day. She did not have permission for this extra day. She seems to be under the impression that she decides when she is going to return to work, not the employer.

The employer and her agreeed for her to return to work October 17, 2005, the employer was not agreeable to her coming in on October 18.

Therefore they did fire her with cause. An employee just can't decide when they will come to work, that is up to the employer by mutual agreement.

She was unpaid because she was a part-time employee.

Therefore she was fired for cause..........I have a funny feeling that this may have been the "last" straw" and other "factors" were involved with her job that may have lead up to her firing.


The reason that she was fired: She did not return to work as required on October 17.

No lawsuit here.........not at all...........

I have to agree with your post, Cyberlaw. I was just about to write the exact same thing - then I saw you had already posted many of my own thoughts.

The company she worked for agreed to give this "part-time" employee a full week off to spend with her husband before his deployment. She spent that precious time with him and returned home. It was "her choice" not to return on Monday as expected. She just didn't show up - probably didn't call early & ask if she could take an extra day.

Her words in the article were - if she'd known she would be fired for being a "no-show" - she would have been there. IMO - she should have been. The company was accommodating in giving her a full week off - and it's not up to the employee to dictate the terms of her return "after the fact".

I feel sorry for this woman and for the unilateral decision that she made. In light of the consequences - hopefully, she will make better choices in the future.

Also - I am proud & deeply appreciative of the service her husband & so many others like him volunteer to do in the service of our military. And I'm very glad Suzette had that special week with her long-time hubby.

13th Juror

*********

A woman who took an unpaid leave of absence from work to see her husband off to war has been fired after failing to show up for her part-time receptionist job the day following his departure.


"It was a shock," said Suzette Boler, a 40-year-old mother of three and grandmother of three. "I was hurt. I felt abandoned by people I thought cared for me. I sat down on the floor and cried for probably two hours."

Officials at her former workplace, Benefit Management Administrators Inc., confirmed that Boler was dismissed when she didn't report to work the day after she said goodbye to her husband of 22 years.

"We gave her sufficient time to get back to work," Clark Galloway, vice president of operations for Benefit Management, told The Grand Rapids Press for a story published Wednesday.

He added that other factors were involved in the decision but he declined to elaborate.

On October 16, Boler went with her husband, Army Spc. Jerry Boler, 45, to an Indianapolis-area airfield, where he and others in his National Guard unit gathered to be transported to Fort Dix, New Jersey. The unit soon will be deployed to Iraq, where he will help guard convoys from insurgent attacks.

Suzette Boler had received permission to take off work the week leading up to her husband's departure. As a part-time employee at Benefit Management, she did not receive vacation pay and was not compensated for her time off.

When Boler returned home from Indiana on the night of October 16, a few hours after leaving her husband at the airfield, she said she felt drained by the emotional ordeal.

She said she had told her bosses that she would try to return on October 17 but if she could not, she would definitely be back October 18, she said.

But on the afternoon of October 17, she received a call from work telling her to come in the following day and get her things because she was being fired. Her pink slip said the reason was she failed to show up for work October 17, a Monday, she said.

"If I had even an inkling that I would be fired for not coming in Monday, I would have been there," she said.

 

[CaliMom]

Here is the article where I read that she states she informed them of this...

She said she had told her bosses that she would try to return on Oct. 17 but if she could not, she would definitely be back Oct. 18, she said.

But on the afternoon of Oct. 17, she received a call from work telling her to come in the following day and get her things because she was being fired. Her pink slip said the reason was she failed to show up for work Oct. 17, a Monday, she said.

"If I had even an inkling that I would be fired for not coming in Monday, I would have been there," she said.

http://www.nbc4.tv/family/5187419/detail.html

 

[Details]

support the troops?

not when there's money to be made, IMO.

A week off to say goodbye, when she is part time IS supporting the troops. That's a lot of time for a small company. Her husband had already left! There was no more time to spend with him, nothing else to do - and she still just figured she could take time off - figured she was unfirable because her husband was away. That's just not right.

 

[SadieMae]

snipped
I bet they have a receptionist - but there's no reason for them to answer the phones so long as the false story is out that she was fired for saying goodbye to her husband. Would you answer that phone? I think if I were their new receptionist, and told to answer that phone, I'd quit. No reasonable boss would ask you to do that.

The story was designed to strike a nerve - but it was false. She was not fired for saying goodbye to her husband. She was fired for not coming back to work the day after he left.

I wonder if that receptionist is getting paid NOT answer the phone.

 

[Details]

I wonder if that receptionist is getting paid NOT answer the phone.

Maybe some free time off, or they're having her help out around the office - sounds like a very small company, the receptionist often helps out a little with filing or printing or such.

 

[SadieMae]

A week off to say goodbye, when she is part time IS supporting the troops. That's a lot of time for a small company. Her husband had already left! There was no more time to spend with him, nothing else to do - and she still just figured she could take time off - figured she was unfirable because her husband was away. That's just not right.

I don't know how "small" that company is. I'm searching it now. What I found so far is that they are part of a network owned by a parent company of third party administration companies. Nope doesn't look like a mom & pop operation to me so far. BTW, after my hubby left was probably worse than saying goodbye.

 

[Mabel]

I wonder if that receptionist is getting paid NOT answer the phone.

If I were the employer, I wouldn't have her answering the phones. Imagine how many people are calling in ready to give her heck, as if it's somehow her fault. Is she supposed to spend her day defending the company? Not her job.

 

[Details]

I don't know how "small" that company is. I'm searching it now. What I found so far is that they are part of a network owned by a parent company of third party administration companies. Nope doesn't look like a mom & pop operation to me so far. BTW, after my hubby left was probably worse than saying goodbye.

I'm figuring the place she worked was small, because she was only a part time receptionist, and I believe the only receptionist. A larger office would have a full time receptionist.

The company itself may be large or small, but her impact in her job is all about how many other employees worked in the same office.

 

[Details]

If I were the employer, I wouldn't have her answering the phones. Imagine how many people are calling in ready to give her heck, as if it's somehow her fault. Is she supposed to spend her day defending the company? Not her job.

I always hated that - there are so many people who can't distinguish between an ordinary peon who works for a place, and the manager higher up in the company who made the policies that the person finds offensive. I got plenty of idiots yelling at me for something that I had no choice about.

I'd never have someone else answering that phone.

 

[Hbgchick]

Doesn't sound to me like there was such an agreement - just my experience that when people want to push something, they'll often use that phrasing - might, it was not made clear, etc. - when in fact she asked and it was denied, for example. I've heard that kind of thing before - in retail, every time someone wanted to claim they didn't understand one of our policies or get something they had known and agreed they would not get.

Companies need to know when you will be back. Who is 'they'?

Sorry - "they" are people earlier on the board, didn't have time to go back and look up names.

To Sadies' point, I am sure that it is very difficult to see a loved one off to war. But, if it renders you incapable of doing your job, quit. What about the people who have lost loved ones to death, divorce, people whose spouses are critically injured and they need to care for them...everyone has tough stuff to deal with, and if your personal life interferes with your job it's time to quit work. And before someone says "but what if they can't afford to quit", then they need to do what I had to do after my fiancee died and I had my 2 weeks beravement leave (which was VERY generous, most companies only give three days for a spouse, child, or parent) I had to suck it up and go back to work. It was also the best think I could have done for myself - pick up, move on, and pray.

 

[SadieMae]

If I were the employer, I wouldn't have her answering the phones. Imagine how many people are calling in ready to give her heck, as if it's somehow her fault. Is she supposed to spend her day defending the company? Not her job.

If I were the receptionist there today, I'd QUIT! They couldn't pay me enough to take calls today.

 

[SadieMae]

Sorry - "they" are people earlier on the board, didn't have time to go back and look up names.

To Sadies' point, I am sure that it is very difficult to see a loved one off to war. But, if it renders you incapable of doing your job, quit. What about the people who have lost loved ones to death, divorce, people whose spouses are critically injured and they need to care for them...everyone has tough stuff to deal with, and if your personal life interferes with your job it's time to quit work. And before someone says "but what if they can't afford to quit", then they need to do what I had to do after my fiancee died and I had my 2 weeks beravement leave (which was VERY generous, most companies only give three days for a spouse, child, or parent) I had to suck it up and go back to work. It was also the best think I could have done for myself - pick up, move on, and pray.

I'm sorry for your loss. Yes, I see families here move on after "the car" visits them. They manage to get it together and get on with life. I've lived in a military town so long and so close to what goes on with families left behind that maybe I'm a bit irrational when I read stories that one. I seem to feel, give the family whatever they want to make it better for them.

 

[Hbgchick]

I'm sorry for your loss. Yes, I see families here move on after "the car" visits them. They manage to get it together and get on with life. I've lived in a military town so long and so close to what goes on with families left behind that maybe I'm a bit irrational when I read stories that one. I seem to feel, give the family whatever they want to make it better for them.

Thanks SadieMae :blowkiss:

My point is just that if they gave her time off, great. What confuses me is: Was she or was she not to report to work on the 17th? If I had given my boss an ambiguous "I'll TRY to come in on the 17th but if not definitely the 18th", I still would have called on the 17th, told them whatever I felt was my justification for another day, and given them the opportunity to tell me "yea" or "nay".

I'm just afraid this woman is using the system to set up a lawsuit - if this is the case it's worse than what she is accusing them of. If it is not the case and she was unjustly fired, I feel terribly for her. I guess I reserve the right to decide when all the facts are known.

 

[13th Juror]

Excerpt from MLive article


Galloway said Boler's firing was based on "multiple factors" but declined to elaborate.

Although Boler said she had nothing to hide and furnished a statement authorizing the company to release her personnel file, Galloway declined to do so.

"We don't want to get into a litigative scenario."

Boler's termination notice said she was fired for "no show" or, more specifically, for failing to show up for work that Monday.

The notice, dated Oct. 17 and signed by human resources manager Edie Hogan, also said:

"Met with Suzette regarding spouse leaving for service. Gave her extra time off for over 1 month, had full week off prior to. Told her she must be back on 10-17-05 for work."

Hogan could not be reached for comment.

Boler disputed she took "extra time off" for a month. She said she asked several weeks before her husband's departure if she could leave one hour early each day to spend more time with him. She made up the time each day by coming in a half-hour early and skipping lunch, she said. "They approved that," she said of that arrangement.

Boler also had a different understanding of when she had to be back at work after her five-hour drive to Indianapolis. Although she and her husband moved to West Michigan 14 years ago, Jerry Boler, a diesel mechanic, decided to remain with his Indiana-based Guard unit, the 150th Field Artillery Regiment.

Boler said she originally was granted two weeks of unpaid time off to say goodbye to her husband. As a part-time employee, she was not given vacation time.

On Oct. 4, she said, she was summoned to Hogan's office and told she was asking for too much.

Boler recalled Hogan asking her, "Would you please do your best to be there Monday morning?"

Boler said she agreed to try but did not know then when her husband would leave. She said she promised to be there Tuesday for certain.

Boler worked for the company for 14 months, making $9 an hour and working three days a week answering phones, entering claims information and greeting visitors and clients.


Boler conceded her husband's impending departure was tough on her emotionally and might have distracted her at work in the weeks before she was fired.

"I was more and more worried about what was going on at home, but I did my job," she said.

Her last day at work, Boler said, she sent an e-mail to Edie Hogan and vowed to try to do better.

"I said I would try much harder to keep my private life separate. I told her I would see her on Tuesday," she said.

 

[Mabel]

Galloway said Boler's firing was based on "multiple factors" but declined to elaborate.

All the people who are jumping to send nasty emails and make irate phone calls need to consider that there could very well be more to this story.