Workers Let Go Over Jaywalking

[Dappleganger]

Source: ClickOn Detroit

DETROIT -- More than 45 workers at the Marathon Oil Refinery in Detroit have been told they no longer have a job.

The workers told Local 4 it's because they were jaywalking.

Workers who did not want to be identified said they were given termination papers because they crossed the public street in front of the refinery without using the crosswalk.

"I was floored. I was in awe. I couldn't believe I got terminated over it," said the worker.

Read more: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/22713775/detail.html

---

Huh? Why couldn't they just recieve a reprimand instead of being fired for walking in the road??

[MineralMan]

1. From the link:

"The company said it just had a safety meeting with the workers and talked specifically about crossing at the crosswalk."

There's always more at the link.

[fasttense]

4. I can just see these petty little men, jumping up and down screaming...

We just had a meeting about crossing at the cross walks. How dare you disobey us. Who do you think gives you jobs? We are your lord and masters. We will make you bow down to our every whim.

Even when you are not working you must do as we say or else, suffer the consequences.

[WriteDown]

5. It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt at the crosswalk...

and sues the company.

[fasttense]

10. Why would the corporation get sued when it is a public road?

That makes no sense.

[Better Today]

18. Well one of our long ago friends/coworkers, got hit by

a car on an emergency IT return to work. He was riding a bicycle and got sideswiped in the dark, he had no helmet, no bike lights,and had been drinking at home in the evening, hit and run, car may have never even known it hit anything. Anyway, he sued the company for workmens' comp and further damages, he was seriously hurt, no question about it, couldn't walk or sit up straight for over 6 months, but it surely wasn't the fault of the company. Thing was, because of the hit and run aspect, and because he was returning to work off hours as required... he got boocoos. This incident actually ended our friendship because I thought going after the company for his own foolish choices, of which there were many in this case.

I'm not a company gal never have been, but if you think they couldn't be sued over their employee's jaywalking in a civil court, guess again, particularly in this environment where nearly everyone wants to see nearly every corp screwed.

[fasttense]

22. Well, there are stupid judges and juries everywhere.

You can't account for stupid decisions but I don't think stupid decisions are the rule.

[Better Today]

25. Civil cases are not decided by judges, but by juries, and with

people in general wanting to see the little guy win at nearly any cost. . . There are so many cases that went for the little guy who behaved stupidly, I really don't have the faith you have that this was an isolated incident.

[WriteDown]

24. Yikes...

The fact that he was drinking BEFORE he went to work is amazing in the first place.

[Better Today]

26. It was a return at 11pm for an emergency IT issue, he had no idea

he would be asked to return. His wife didn't feel like driving him, and he couldn't drive himself because of the drinking, hence the bicycle.

[WriteDown]

29. Ah, that makes a tad more sense...

Nice wife.

[bitchkitty]

68. Don't judge her too harshly.

I don't know their situation, but the finest woman in the world could be turned into a harridan by the presence of a smelly drunk in her life.

[heliarc]

69. As could the finest man in the world...

be turned by a drunken woman. I've seen it go both ways.

[bitchkitty]

72. True. Alcohol kills love. n/t

[KansDem]

46. Could it be he sued because the company requested him to come in?

Might be the difference between trying to sue because you were hurt crossing the street (with no crosswalk), or because you were requested to come in off hours...

[Better Today]

51. It was part of his normal job description, though. And there were

6 others who could've been called when he found his wife wouldn't drive him. Or he could have worn a helmet, and had lights, or he could've called my ex or any of the other five. Just like the jaywalkers, there is an option of doing the safer, smarter thing, instead he chose the dumbest, and I failed to mention he also chose the most unlit, and narrow path to his destination. He could've simply stayed on main roads (better lit with sidewalks), it would've only added 1/4 mile to his trip.

[joeglow3]

60. I think he lacked common sense

Of all the people I know who work call, none of them get drunk while they are on call. Frankly, that is akin to someone sitting on the job and slipping some vodka in their drink and getting drunk at work.

[crikkett]

38. It was an emergency call.

He's not a doctor.

[Better Today]

48. So medical emergencies are the only kind you can imagine? Or the only kind that matter?

I'm a bit confused about your comment here.

[crikkett]

66. Doctors for example, make a deal w/ their employers not to drink while on call.

Since you said, 'emergency' and 'after hours', but not 'while on call', the inference I drew was that your once-friend was actually not on duty when called in on an IT emergency.

[heliarc]

70. I guess you've never had your telephones go dead because of IT

I don't know anything about this case, but consider that some companies deal with life or death issues or with emergencies themselves, and when there's an IT emergency, it definitely represents an emergency of grave proportions. Air Traffic Control, Hospitals, Police... Any business needs their 911 support, so when the Internet distribution goes down it often means that there are no phones working either. That can be a disaster if something goes wrong in the workplace. IT departments need to be on call all the time, and their role is crucial to the modern emergency response systems.

[crikkett]

39. judge not, says the good book...

I'm withholding my own judgment. I can empathize with being called in on an emergency at 11pm. I can sympathize with a man who was hit by a car and injured so badly that he couldn't walk for six months. How's he supposed to make a living?

You don't describe yourself as a great friend, so I'm guessing (not judging!) that he's better off without you.

[Better Today]

47. So even though he was 1.5 miles away from the corporate parking lot

much less the building itself, and even though the corporation didn't hit this guy, some driver did, you think the corporation should've paid for his injuries? It was a hit and run, so the person who actually hit him, and was never found, couldn't be charged directly. You think it is alright for him to then decide that because he needed money, he should sue the corporation he worked for?

Well, thanks for proving my point about why the company mentioned in the article might decide that firing people who are jaywalking to work is the best legal choice.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

62. He probably won because he was on company time when the accident took place.

Most people I know who take call are paid for "travel time" when they leave the house. If you are on the clock you are covered by workman's comp.

You ended your friendship because of this?.

Like another poster said up-thread. He's better off without you as a "friend".

[Better Today]

64. Workman's comp decided against him, so he sued the company directly and won.

Anyway, all I'm addressing here is the post that commented that if they were not on company property, the company had nothing to fear regarding law suits. .. that is untrue based on an experience I had direct knowledge of.

[crikkett]

67. I think that you're trying to get me to pass judgment on you.

I'm not biting.

[snooper2]

65. Also if you have buildings seperated by a public street...

We have our lab across the street from the building I work in.

No crosswalk or signs for cars at all, it's in a light industrial area. I imagine would be the same liability if somebody was stupid enough to not look for the cars coming. I've crossed that street thousands of times in the past ten years...

[Bill McBlueState]

71. my god,

this is the worst threadjack ever.

[No Elephants]

55. Another of your virulently pro-labor posts you cited to me when I asked about your positions?

[WriteDown]

61. Pro-labor doesn't involve looking past safety violations. Are you posting from China? nt

[MARALE]

63. We all know his position

right-down is pretty transparent

[Better Today]

13. Well we have a similar problem here at a few places where

crosswalks, lights, the whole nine yards (except school crossing guards) have been applied, and still the jaywalking continues. Unfortunately jaywalkers are not usually waiting for traffic to clear, they just step out there. It is really dangerous, and even if it's the jaywalker's fault, juries still award big money in civil suits where any car hits any human. Here it is to get to the courthouse, and the city and courthouse went to zero tolerance. It has truly helped.

If it was a business as in the case above, I could see their employees jaywalking as being a PR nightmare for it in the community.

I for one support them being fired if they got full and fair warning at said meeting.

[fasttense]

19. I don't buy it.

Since when are employees controlled by their supervisors while on their own time? So what if it is a PR problem. Who died and made the refinery king? They want to cut back on Jay Walking? Then they should have notified the police, had the police there to issue tickets and the employees could have explained it to the judge or paid their fines.

This corporation has no right to control their employees off time. They were walking to the refinery. Obviously they weren't at work.

With this sort of mentality, the corporations are going to start firing people for anything.

And this blanket statement has no supporting evidence: "even if it's the jaywalker's fault, juries still award big money in civil suits where any car hits any human."

Please provide a link. I find that difficult to believe.

[Occulus]

56. As far as I know, foot traffic always has the right-of-way.

Always. I'm not certain how that applies to bicycles, which are themselves defined as vehicular traffic, but foot traffic always gets the right-of-way.

That's what I was taught when I took driver's training, and I don't believe things have changed all that much....

[MineralMan]

31. No doubt. But, why test them? If they're looking for an excuse, don't

give it to them.

[PatrynXX]

50. safety meeting or no...

I'd assume it was a joke and jaywalk anyway.

Reminds me of my first sexual harassment meeting at this one job. The owner of the vending company proceeded to show what magazines you could not bring into the building. O_O well now that we all including the females got to look at NUDE women in a sexual harassment information meeting (the main three at the time circa 1996) Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler. what else shall we talk about. Ended up getting fired there months later because I refused an invitation to go with a supervisor to a strip bar. I was rehired by the owner because that didn't look good. I quite 2-3 weeks later though.

Basically the sexual harassment thing was a joke and nobody took it seriously. Well I did, but nobody else did. After such a meeting above I probably would use the crosswalk, but some probably figured it was a joke. Kinda like not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. One can get a ticket for that. Probably more so than jaywalking.

[Enrique]

2. the guy at the end nailed it

cutting down workforce and not wanting them to be eligible for unemployment.

[pasto76]

8. also part of it is legit

when you are on a job, and the Safety Supervisor/Engineer/Big Title dude says "do not do X". Dont do it.
How much harder would it have been for these guys to walk an extra few feet, and everyone is happy.

Had one of them been hit by a truck, they would have expected comp even though they were outside the walkway. Use the crosswalk, and you're covered.

and to be honest, disregard for known safety rules like this will translate to stuff liek fall protection, eye protection, confined space safety, hazmat...all kinds of stuff.

SGT PASTO - Ironworkers Local 24 - Im no company man, but you gotta realize and acknowledge the world we work in.

[fasttense]

12. Where does the article say they were on company time?

If they were crossing the road to get to the refinery, then they obviously were not on the clock. They were on their personal time either returning from lunch, break or just going to work.

[pasto76]

34. have you ever seen a refinery?

I feel confident saying that it is certain that they were on company property. Your counterpoint is also the one used to discredit drug use policies - "hey man, if I want to smoke meth on my own time, that's my business".

You are also not acknowledging the due diligence that Saftey individuals are compelled to flesh out. A safety supervisor is not going to put out a rule that he or she cannot enforce. I work in the trades, I deal with scenarios like these every day. I know what Im talking about.

and the point remains, use the goddamn crosswalk, and you would still have a job. How hard is that??

[closeupready]

9. The employer would have to prove insubordination in every single case.

Doubt they are (or were) prepared for the legal fees entailed in doing so, if that was the plan here.

[unblock]

14. how would they not be eligible for unemployment benefits?

[unblock]

16. i know of an insurance company ceo who calls ANY employee in for a lecture

if he sees them violating any traffic law or safety procedure (in his opinion) on the morning commute and sees them park in the employee parking lot, he checks their plates to identify the employee and calls them on the carpet for a chewing out.

seeing as they sell auto insurance, it's at least somewhat commercially relevant, and he doesn't fire them without giving them a warning first, but it still would seem surreal to me to get lectured from my ceo at work for, say, following too closly outside of work on my own time.

[Enrique]

17. the employer can say they fired you for misconduct

or insubordination, in light the safety meeting they just had.

[closeupready]

21. They can say whatever they want obviously, but the burden of proof is on them

to prove that they have more than simply their word that the employee was insubordinate - that's (practically) how unemployment works most of the time.

[Enrique]

27. they no doubt have lots of proof

the safety meeting was probably amply documented, maybe even videotaped. They probably had everyone sign something saying they were at the meeting and understood and agreed to the safety rules.

[closeupready]

28. Not proof of the safety meeting; proof of the insubordination.

n/t

[Enrique]

30. who saw those people jaywalking?

whoever it was, just bring them in. There's the proof.

[closeupready]

32. lol - no offense, but it's simply not that easy.

I am not a lawyer, admittedly, but I know there are lawyers who will take cases to sue for unemployment benefits. In many cases, their fees are paid only if they win, and regardless, defendant is liable for paying those. I guarantee you the standard of proof they will demand will not be as simple as just bringing someone in. These people will be put under oath, penalty of perjury, to state unequivocally that they saw each and every single person jaywalk - the time spent on defending the company ALONE will cost money and productivity. Their credibility will be questioned, prior arrests or criminal records of witnesses will be aired out in court, yadda yadda.

At any rate, I doubt these workers will be denied unemployment.

[Enrique]

35. they might not be denied, but the employer might be hoping for a lucky break

they might know their case is bogus, but figure it's worth it if they have a chance at not being charged for the layoffs.

I know that I was once fired and the company contested my claim on utterly bogus grounds, and it didn't stop them. I won, but I don't know how close it was. I had tons of documentation and a good memory and the referee found me more credible than the employer. Suppose I couldn't make as good a case as I did, for whatever reason? It might have gone the other way. The company is playing the odds.

[closeupready]

45. The other thing I'm thinking is that employers don't just fire 45 employees for insubordination

That doesn't happen. Insubordination sounds like a stealthy pretext for what is actually a layoff - and as such, it likely qualifies them for unemployment benefits. At least, that would be my thinking if I were deciding their cases.

[pasto76]

36. UI will deny this part of their UI benefits because the were terminated.

standard fare in the unemployment world.

[closeupready]

44. Wait, what? That doesn't make sense - that's the very point Enrique and I are discussing.

From what I understand, an employer can challenge UB in limited circumstances - insubordination being the main one, meaning (essentially) that you refused to do your job. Terminating employees because of financial difficulties or even 'just because' is generally not grounds to deny unemployment benefits.

[Threedifferentones]

73. What state do you live in?

Here in TN, if you are fired for doing something wrong, you cannot collect unemployment. Further, most UE benefits are paid for by employers.

Or, as TN DoL site says:

"Unemployment insurance benefits provide income to individuals who have lost work through no fault of their own. The benefits are intended to partially offset the loss of wages while an unemployed worker searches for suitable work, or until his employer can recall him to work.

This coverage is authorized in the Tennessee Employment Security Law, which requires most types of employers with one or more employees to pay the cost of the insurance. Nothing is deducted from the employee's wages to pay for this coverage."

This is spelled out again under Requirements for Eligibility:

1. You must be totally or partially unemployed through no fault of your own and be approved for benefits.

http://www.state.tn.us/labor-wfd/Claimants/appintro.html

No fault of their own is the key there. If you get laid off, the employer is legally obligated to cover your unemployment. If you get fired, you get zilch.

I didn't really read the article, so I dunno if the employer in this case is in a state where firing gets them off the hook or not. But, if someone did that here in TN, I would assume they were just trying clumsily to mask a layoff.

[unblock]

33. in which state does that disqualify you for unemployment compensation?

as far as i know, most states don't get into why or how you lost your job provided you didn't just plain quit.

[Enrique]

41. in all states, I'm pretty sure

how misconduct is defined probably varies by state, and Michigan I expect would be more favorable to the worker than most states.

[unblock]

52. interesting. a quick google search shows this is at least true in tx and ct

although the company doesn't have much of a dog in that particular hunt. the company pays unemployment insurance, but not unemployment compensation. so it's not in their interest to deny the ex-employee unemployment compensation.

in fact, doing something to deny unemployment compensation gives the ex-employee an incentive to sue the company. when most companies get rid of employees, they just want to be done with it as soon as possible.

[Enrique]

57. their unemployment insurance rates are based on the claims against them

they talk of the employer being "charged" for claims.

Employers DO contest claims, sometimes aggressively. They pay law firms to help them fight claims. They're not doing this to save the government money, they're doing it to save themselves money.

Regarding lawsuits, some employers take that chance. I once worked for a company that fired my coworker after he made a workers comp claim. He sued them for retaliation. He won that suit and then a short time later they did the exact same thing to another guy. It's a cost of doing business to some employers.

[Double T]

3. These are times for feeble excuse firings.

What rights? We have none.

[prolesunited]

6. Proof that if an employer wants to fire people

they can find a reason to do so.

[Joanne98]

7. Employers are becoming TYRANTS!

[madrchsod]

11. the survey is interesting....

yes, there`s more to the story....since when can a company dictate to the workers about their actions on a public street if they were not punched in?

[madmom]

15. Shit, cops jaywalk around here. Our police station is in the middle of the

block, they park their cruisers on the other side of the street. Many times I've slowed or stopped to let them cross when coming out of the station to go to their cars.

[midnight]

20. Oil companies set the energy policies and got away with this war that has

created over a million orphans, and now they claim a safety issue, were no one got hurt, I'm not buying this crap.....

[hedgehog]

23. I will say this much - the kind of person who either blows off a safety

warning and/or deliberately breaks the rule because he/she is looking for a fight is generally not a productive worker.

As for the cross walk being on a public road - well safety is not an attitude you pick up and drop off at he door. I also suspect that they are traveling from a company parking lot to the refinery, which would certainly cloud the issue.

[sandyj999]

37. That is now the way it is.

A person can be fired "at will". An employer can come up with just about anything and terminate an employee with no recourse for the employee. And due to the fact it "was against company policy" good luck drawing unemployment. Oh well 45 more unemployed workers in our area. My concern is that the crime rate will soon pick up due to people becoming desperate to feed their family. It's going to get nasty.

[Journeyman]

40. Michigan is an "at-will" state. The workers were "contractors." . . .

Don't like what happened? Change the laws or alter the circumstances. It's the only way to stop it.

Organize. Unionize (if you can). Survive.

[Jkid]

43. Yes, but who has time to change laws?

Politicians may not listen, and in some cases may not care.

[Journeyman]

54. Then accept that such abuses will continue the rest of your days. . .

and make the necessary adjustments to your life to try to protect yourself.

[superconnected]

42. I've personally witnessed how bad workers are treated now that jobs are so scarce, not surprised.

[KansDem]

49. These workers are fired for jaywalking...

...in a time where Banksters and Con Streeters who brought the world to near financial collapse not only retain their jobs but are paid handsome bonuses!

It boggles the mind...:crazy:

[Dappleganger]

58. Doesn't it, though? nt

[superconnected]

53. I think this guy nailed it

"It could possibly be a a way to cut down the workforce and not want to pay unemployment. That would be the best way," said one employee."

My sister-in-law has worked at Walmart as a cashier for over a decade, she just had her hours reduced to 7 a week. It's Walmart's way of making sure people can't collect unemployment and can't continue working for them as they can't afford to.

[Dappleganger]

59. I know that Target pulls that same crap

especially when they just downgraded all of their area managers to regular associates, then the reduction in hours is next. That way nobody except for management receive full-time hours and benefits. No one.

[tammywammy]

74. The company and workers reached an agreement to a 3 day suspension and are allowed

to go back to work. Your link has been updated:

"But Tuesday, Fox said the workers’ union and the company reached a resolution and the workers would be returning to work after a three-day suspension -- starting back to work Wednesday.

"The matter was resolved amicably and in the best interest of the project while making a strong statement about our commitment to safety," Fox said in a statement about the agreement.

Fox said workers who rack up a second offense will be terminated."