Timeline for Fired for a policy I didn't know about, as well as another false reason
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 3, 2019 at 15:40 | comment | added | Aida Paul | @Helen Quoting what OP literally said that he did is hardly accusing, it's stating what OP has admitted to. Also comments are not for extensive arguments, which is what you seem to be seeking, and do so under multiple answers here. Feel free to provide your own answer, thanks. | |
| Dec 3, 2019 at 15:38 | comment | added | Helen | Strawman argument. I replied to you calling Aron's comment "wild theory-crafting", but you are replying now that the secret shoppers are not a wild idea, i.e. you are replying to something else. As about accusing the OP, I quote from your answer:"You admit yourself that your till was short", "you did indeed open the till", "you likely were a goner", "there must have been some reasons why the company wanted you gone", "take a lesson from it that this is what happens". I think that your answer assumes that the original question was full of lies. (And no, this is not the same as a reality check.) | |
| Dec 3, 2019 at 15:26 | comment | added | Aida Paul | @Helen pretty sure so far you are the one doing any accusing, maybe re-read the CoC at some point. And it's not wild idea of secret shoppers, what's wild is that it matters. A secret shopper is not police entrapping someone into buying illegal drugs, it's quality control in retail sector. | |
| Dec 3, 2019 at 15:23 | comment | added | Helen | Also, the secret shopper theory is not wild at all: he was supposedly interviewed for a job, and right after the interview what does he do? he just goes and spends 200 on the company that just interviewed him? | |
| Dec 3, 2019 at 15:22 | comment | added | Helen | Why are you so bent on accusing the OP? Also, you totally (seem to) miss the context of his actions and isolate them so that they sound criminal. | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 18:47 | comment | added | eps | @Aron Why in the world would someone go through that trouble, the employer could almost certainly fire the OP for any reason whatsoever. Yes, there are exceptions to at-will employment but there's extremely little chance they apply to the OP. | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 14:23 | comment | added | Aida Paul | @Aron why does it matter if it's a secret shopper or not? It's just wild theory-crafting, and I am very sure that the main reason for unhappiness was the short till, or something that OP doesn't share with us. Either way, we won't know, and it doesn't really matter, as OP admits himself to doing it before. | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 14:21 | comment | added | Aron | Could the first man be a plant, specifically to give a reason to fire the OP? | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 12:40 | comment | added | Aida Paul | @Zefiryn OP didn't say that it was never mentioned, just that he didn't know. Good luck proving that somewhere between being told that you cannot open the till without a sale, and him ringing up 0.01$ sale to get the change he didn't know that, well, it shouldn't be opened without a sale present. | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 10:03 | comment | added | Zefiryn | In this case not knowing about the policy is a defense. If the OP did not get the training at start or didn’t receive an employee handbook where such a policy is clearly stated how should they be liable for breaking it. | |
| Dec 2, 2019 at 9:01 | history | answered | Aida Paul | CC BY-SA 4.0 |