Termination Opinion
JM in ATL
305 Posts
I'm looking for your opinion on this situation
Employee: Bob
DOH: June 2006
Benefit Eligible: August 1, 2006
Benefit Elected: Medical and STD
Bob was temping for Company when a position opened up that he was overqualified for. Bob asked the owner of the company if he could have the job regardless b/c he really needed the steady employment.
Owner says OK, but you will not be paid what you are used to making. Bob says that he understands and accepts position.
After a month, Bob gets mad at the owner and says that he is doing the work of a higher level employee and should be paid as such. Owner says to Bob, you knew when you took this job what it paid and I told you that we could only pay you what we were offering.
A couple of weeks later Bob's insurance benefits kick in and FOUR DAYS after his STD policy becomes effective, Bob files an STD claim and states that he won't be able to come back until after Christmas.
Company is not FMLA protected, which doesn't even matter b/c Bob wouldn't have qualified. Bob has no vacation time, no sick time accrued, etc. Bob will be out on Doctor's orders for a reoccuring back problem for an unspecified length of time.
Owner needs to fill the job permanently ASAP.
Would you recommend that Owner terminate Bob's employment since his STD is for an indefinite amount of time? Why?
Employee: Bob
DOH: June 2006
Benefit Eligible: August 1, 2006
Benefit Elected: Medical and STD
Bob was temping for Company when a position opened up that he was overqualified for. Bob asked the owner of the company if he could have the job regardless b/c he really needed the steady employment.
Owner says OK, but you will not be paid what you are used to making. Bob says that he understands and accepts position.
After a month, Bob gets mad at the owner and says that he is doing the work of a higher level employee and should be paid as such. Owner says to Bob, you knew when you took this job what it paid and I told you that we could only pay you what we were offering.
A couple of weeks later Bob's insurance benefits kick in and FOUR DAYS after his STD policy becomes effective, Bob files an STD claim and states that he won't be able to come back until after Christmas.
Company is not FMLA protected, which doesn't even matter b/c Bob wouldn't have qualified. Bob has no vacation time, no sick time accrued, etc. Bob will be out on Doctor's orders for a reoccuring back problem for an unspecified length of time.
Owner needs to fill the job permanently ASAP.
Would you recommend that Owner terminate Bob's employment since his STD is for an indefinite amount of time? Why?
Comments
You didn't state what your STD benefits are or how long they run, so I'm not sure if my example helps or not.
If you didn't do a background check - see what this hire will cost you, including having to refill the position, then use that info to show the cost effectiveness of good reference / background checks on future hires.
You may also want to do a more extensive check on this hire to see if he is scamming you or the possibility he may create other problems when he comes back at Christmas.
Let us know how this plays out.
As always in HR, work defensively. Bob's need to be out may be completely legitimate. But the fact that you have asked in this forum leads me to believe that your and/or your company may be suspicious. If there is truly reason to suspect Bob's intent, you should be prepared for a next step--challenge of some sort from Bob--and the nature of the challenge could be related to any number of details that you or may or may not have shared in your original post. Make sure you have your bases covered.
My experience has been that 95+% of the time, employees don't challenge an employer's decision, but the 5% of so that do come out of left field, totally by surprise.
Best wishes,
How would a reference check have helped you avoid hiring someone with a back problem that apparently either didn't exist or wasn't noticeable during the hiring/interviewing process? I agree that reference/background checks are good, but I don't think they would have helped in this case. A post-offer physical may have highlighted the problem, but then we all have an aching back at some time.
I agree; if not eligible for FMLA let him go.
JM: Stilldazed cautions are very good and I also agree with other posts that term is probably the way to go.
We have a 1 year wait on STD and a 2 year wait on LTD and life insurance (all employer paid). I had never thought about it, but this way once they're FML eligible, they have the STD. Before that, there's no question and we can term.
I have always appreciated that we still provide disability when many companies have done away with it to cut costs. We looked at adding a couple of sick days and cutting disability, but came to the conclusion that many people feel entitled to use their sick time (and do!), and the ones we've had go out on disability have really appreciated the benefit.
So, I recommend you consider a long term solution of bumping out your disability waiting period. Short term, I don't know what I would do. It seems a little quick to term, but we are rather generous with our leave approval.
Good luck, and please do let us know what you do.
We've only had this happen once before and we opted to pay until the STD wore out and then term'd. uggh. Now I've set precedence.
If you don't want them to use, or don't think they should use, or aren't prepared for them to use the STD at 60 days, they why have them eligible at 60 days? If they're eligible, they should be able to use it.
I didn't say that in my first post because I couldn't really clarify my thoughts (I have the sniffles today and am a little muddled) but I think that sums it up.
As to the employee, I would term. I checked out the Georgia Department of Labor website and it doesn't look like your company will be on the hook for ADA or unemployment. It appears as though Georgia follows the federal guidelines for ADA qualifications and unemployment is based on the working the last 4 of 5 quarters - with employment in two quarters attributed to the current employer. I wouldn't pay so much attention to his other issues (pay, personality, etc.) and instead focus on the fact that he doesn't qualify for protection from FML and will be out for a long period of time necessitating a need to fill the position. Good luck!
The ee works for my husband's company and as some of you have speculated - this person is a Chronic offender of abusing WC, STD and any other benefit that lets him sit at home on his rear and not work. He is also known for being sue happy.
I know this b/c the owner and Bob have been life long friends for about 20+ years, which is the ONLY reason why he gave Bob the position. That is entirely another post altogether, but let it be known.
Bob works for hubby. The company is start up, it's small and there is no HR on site nor anyone who knows the first thing about HR, so guess who gets it all?
I asked DH for a copy of the STD policy so that I could make a better decision on this. He calls broker. Broker says, well, each STD policy is sold based off of what the ee wants and I can't give you a write up of all the different options.
HOLY COW do I see a sea of red flags flying right now!!! I went back to DH and said: Tell your broker to have that information to you by tomorrow including who has a policy and at what coverage or I will be contacting the State Insurance Commissioners office.
So, I'm waiting for it today. I would just love a clear cut and dry case for once.
I've always been advised though not to term people on STD, let it pay out... blah blah blah.
Would STD continue to pay benefits on a termed employee? Would he have to convert his policy and pay premiums out of pocket?
My $0.02 worth,
Balloonman
Knowing how sue happy he is - I'm really hesitant to term. I need some more back-up.
Has anyone here termed someone on STD and if so, on what grounds and how did you phrase the termination?