Posted on 04/14/2006 8:23:34 AM PDT by Fawn
Sounds bad but only one side of the story is told here.
Oh no, the horrors! If this woman wins, Paris won't be able to afford that HOT doggie collar.
Hilton will not be getting any of my business any time soon. There's this tactless act and then there's Paris Hilton as my sound reasons for boycotting that firm.
It also sounds like somebody at Hilton is brain dead. The bad P/r alone is going to cost a ton. Dumb
Hmmm....may be a pattern here involving Hilton...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614944/posts
You're correct about only one side. If the story is basically correct, however, it is negative in more ways than one: it just furnishes (legitimate) ammunition to those economically ignorant who want more regulation like the Family Leave Act.
Yes. Bad people get cancer too.
For all we know, she is a boozer that was barely being kept on the books as it was. She may have gotten drunk and failed to show up for work for a week, ended up in an emergency room where the discovered cancer, and then decided that she could get a free vacation from the deal.
There is no way to know with the information provided.
Is she an illegal Alien?
What is Cardinal Mahony's position of this issue?
If I'm correct,what they did to this woman may well be legal.But it still smells to high Heaven.
Yeah, what's up with the Hiltons these days?
I smell a telephone-number verdict against Hilton. I'd love to be on the jury that gives them the bad news. They are asking for a big puntive damages award, and they will get it.
Where I work a woman has been struggling with cancer for over five years now. The management wisely just threw away the rulebook on sick leave. She works whenever she is able, and takes off when she needs to. We are all happy she is still with us.
Re your post 15, but don't you understand that whenever a story like this is posted, the YES-BUT-THE-OTHER-SIDE-OF-THE-STORY-IS-MISSING crowd is inevitably going to weigh in. You can bank on it. I suppose that they think that this constitutes critical thinking. Tiresome, really damn tiresome.
"it is negative in more ways than one: it just furnishes (legitimate) ammunition to those economically ignorant who want more regulation"
It is not "economically ignorant" to look at situations like this, and the firing of pregnant women (commonplace, in the past), age discrimination, purposeful firing of employees a year before retirement, etc., and realize that the law has to provide recourse against bad acts of employers.
The economic impact of abusive firings is catastrophic on the individuals affected and their families, most people are workers, look at these things, realize that they are just as exposed to it, and RATIONALLY turn to government to protect THEIR OWN economic interests.
Oh, and there's plenty of regulation in the United States, but the unemployment rate is only 4.8% and growth is over 3%, so the complaints that business "can't handle the regulation" are baseless. Business can. And does. And is doing very well. It just doesn't WANT to.
Which is too damned bad, because people have to protect their own interests against abuse by employers.
"YES-BUT-THE-OTHER-SIDE-OF-THE-STORY-IS-MISSING crowd is inevitably going to weigh in. You can bank on it. I suppose that they think that this constitutes critical thinking. Tiresome, really damn tiresome."
Thanks, lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.