Support NeoGAF

[abrack08]

I'm still not sure I follow exactly what happened.

1) She didn't know whether or not she needed a signature on a check, the manager didn't know either so she asked corporate, which you're apparently not supposed to do. Got written up.

2) 1 year later, in a similar situation a manager tells her she DOES need a signature but she remembers in the past that she didn't, so she calls corporate for clarification again

3) Your mom told a friend who happened to be a manager that she got in trouble for asking this question to corporate twice, and this friend told her regional manager who gave her ANOTHER warning because she's not supposed to tell anyone about the first two warnings?

4) The assistant manager at a different bank repeatedly asked her what she got in trouble for, she told him, then got fired for telling another person


If that's a pretty accurate summary, this is some grade-A B.S. I can't even comprehend getting in trouble for this stuff. The first manager didn't know the answer, who else should she call? The second manager thought he knew but was wrong, calling corporate seems reasonable again here. Then why after those two incidents is it some big secret/controversy that she's never allowed to tell anyone about? That just doesn't make sense. It really does look like they were looking for an excuse to get rid of her, that's pretty weak.

 

[elrechazado]

She has no wrongful term case. Apply for unemployment.

 

[CloudyTuba]

Not wrongful. Not nice (these guys seem like major assholes), but completely legal. Take her out to a nice dinner to lift her spirits and move on.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

I can see why calling corporate would be bad news, that makes local management look bad. not a good idea to violate the chain of command.

 

[darkazcura]

I'm still not sure I follow exactly what happened.

1) She didn't know whether or not she needed a signature on a check, the manager didn't know either so she asked corporate, which you're apparently not supposed to do. Got written up.

2) 1 year later, in a similar situation a manager tells her she DOES need a signature but she remembers in the past that she didn't, so she calls corporate for clarification again

3) Your mom told a friend who happened to be a manager that she got in trouble for asking this question to corporate twice, and this friend told her regional manager who gave her ANOTHER warning because she's not supposed to tell anyone about the first two warnings?

4) The assistant manager at a different bank repeatedly asked her what she got in trouble for, she told him, then got fired for telling another person


If that's a pretty accurate summary, this is some grade-A B.S. I can't even comprehend getting in trouble for this stuff. The first manager didn't know the answer, who else should she call? The second manager thought he knew but was wrong, calling corporate seems reasonable again here. Then why after those two incidents is it some big secret/controversy that she's never allowed to tell anyone about? That just doesn't make sense. It really does look like they were looking for an excuse to get rid of her, that's pretty weak.

More or less correct. In number 1, my mom didn't call corporate. She got a warning for asking her manager a question about that.

Number 2 is correct, and my mom was correct about that. The manager was wrong about the policy.

Number 3 is correct. She got her final warning for talking to a manager about the situation (her two warnings). It was deemed insubordination, which is ridiculous when the regional manager didn't even know about it until 1 1/2 months after the conversation between my mom and said manager occurred.

Number 4..I just found out more info since I just got home. Apparently the assistant manager kept asking my mom about her situation, and my mom said she didn't want to talk about it. Eventually my mom gave in a bit after some pressure and talked a bit. Afterwards my mom ended up talking to her friend who was getting married during her break outside of the bank. They were talking about life and everything that happened at the bank. Apparently the assistant manager overheard their conversation about the bank outdoors, which occurred outside, called my mom's regional manager and the termination process began apparently. Apparently the assistant manager told the regional manager the conversation occurred in the bank when it actually occurred outside of the bank during the my mom's friend's break (I believe).

This regional manager keeps finding ways to warn my mom and cause problems even though she's never worked a day with my mom. She's just a regional overhead. Since my mom is a float teller, she has had experience at several banks over the last year, and every single one writes cards to her when she leaves. Most recently one of the banks gave her a card, lunch, and cake as she left the branch to work somewhere else. She was generally liked everywhere, but when the regional manager inquires information, she kind of finds a way to single out my mom.

 

[mcfrank]

Sounds like they wanted to get rid of a 20 yr+ employee to replace them with someone cheaper. Morally wrong, but not legally.

 

[Pedrito]

In Québec, she'd have a 99% chance of winning. It sucks for her that labour laws aren't as generous down there.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

Op, how old is your mom? Here is a website on mass age discrimination. http://www.mass.gov/mcad/agefactsht.html

I'd guess that the bank did a good job documenting her personnel file but you never know

 

[riotous]

There's probably a very basic "do not discuss workplace conduct issues openly" policy. Most larger companies bar you from discussing anything HR related with other employees.

Your Mom was given an official warning not to discuss the matter with other employees, then went and did it anyways afterwards. Policies don't become void just because you step outside and as you've indicated she discussed the matter inside the building as well.

However that assistant manager, if they really pressed her to talk about it probably violated policy as well.

 

[oneils]

What kind of fucked up work place doesn't let you clarify procedures or policies. Kind of defeats the purpose of even having policies if you're not even allowed to discuss or question them and make sure you are still doing it right and nothing has been updated.

I don't think the problem was for asking for clarification of a policy. It sounds more like she was shopping around for an answer she wanted. Her manager gave her one response, she didn't like it so she called corporate HQ.

That is my impression, anyways.

 

[Tamanon]

I don't think the problem was for asking for clarification of a policy. It sounds more like she was shopping around for an answer she wanted. Her manager gave her one response, she didn't like it so she called corporate HQ.

That is my impression, anyways.

Sounds like that to me also, which is never a good idea.

 

[darkazcura]

I don't think the problem was for asking for clarification of a policy. It sounds more like she was shopping around for an answer she wanted. Her manager gave her one response, she didn't like it so she called corporate HQ.

That is my impression, anyways.

No, her manager was just wrong. My mom knew the policy like the back of her hand since she got warned for it the year before. She was confused as to why the manager was telling her to do something that was wrong so she called someone to make sure. That was the start of this domino effect the last 4 months, though. It wasn't that the she didn't like the manager's answer.

I apologize for any confusion in the OP. I think my latest post outlines the situation a bit better.

Op, how old is your mom? Here is a website on mass age discrimination. http://www.mass.gov/mcad/agefactsht.html

I'd guess that the bank did a good job documenting her personnel file but you never know

She's turning 55 this year. I can look into that. Thanks!

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

No, her manager was just wrong. My mom knew the policy like the back of her hand since she got warned for it the year before. She was confused as to why the manager was telling her to do something that was wrong so she called someone to make sure. That was the start of this domino effect the last 4 months, though. It wasn't that the she didn't like the manager's answer.

I apologize for any confusion in the OP. I think my latest post outlines the situation a bit better.

It is a very adult lesson to learn that at times it is better to do what your supervisor says than to be "right".

 

[foxdvd]

Sounds like they wanted to get rid of a 20 yr+ employee to replace them with someone cheaper. Morally wrong, but not legally.

my understanding is that firing someone for their age can be legally wrong..

How old is your mom?

Does her job offer a pension/retirement?

Did she have any health problems the last few years?

An older person who is close to a pension who is let go after 25 years, who also might have had health issues is a companies worst nightmare if they are not real careful for how they got rid of her. It is also a person that is massively sympathetic.

 

[riotous]

I don't think the problem was for asking for clarification of a policy. It sounds more like she was shopping around for an answer she wanted. Her manager gave her one response, she didn't like it so she called corporate HQ.

That is my impression, anyways.

She's also a bank teller dealing with customers and lines. Might work at a bank that actually charges you to talk to a teller. In that situation I could see there being an expectation of being largely self sufficient outside of situations that require someone with higher authorization. Having to call corporate with a customer standing there over whether or not to sign a check maybe doesn't look good from their perspective.

The entire situation sounds odd to me. Why was there so much confusion over this rule?

But it's almost beside the point. Not discussing when you get written up at work with your coworkers is a common and basic rule. She was reprimanded for it once, then caught again. Harsh as hell but not really uncommon.

 

[Phoenix]

Its really shitty and their policies are REALLY stupid, but nothing they did appears to constitute wrongful termination (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/wrongful-termination-was-firing-illegal-32282.html). You have to do some pretty heinous shit for termination to be wrongful in the legal sense of the word, and they don't come close to that in any way.

It SUCKS, but there isn't much she can do on this one.

 

[darkazcura]

It is a very adult lesson to learn that at times it is better to do what your supervisor says than to be "right".

I agree generally, but when they look into the checks later, all they will see is that my mom didn't get it signed off, which would make her look worse.

my understanding is that firing someone for their age can be legally wrong..

How old is your mom?

Does her job offer a pension/retirement?

Did she have any health problems the last few years?

An older person who is close to a pension who is let go after 25 years, who also might have had health issues is a companies worst nightmare if they are not real careful for how they got rid of her. It is also a person that is massively sympathetic.

She is 55, but I don't think she was fired for her age. I can't think of a way she can prove something like that.

 

[Zoe]

my understanding is that firing someone for their age can be legally wrong..

How old is your mom?

Does her job offer a pension/retirement?

Did she have any health problems the last few years?

An older person who is close to a pension who is let go after 25 years, who also might have had health issues is a companies worst nightmare if they are not real careful for how they got rid of her. It is also a person that is massively sympathetic.

99% of jobs in the US don't have pensions.

And firing a 20+ year employee isn't about age. It's about wiping the slate clean after 20+ years of wage increases.

 

[Mysterious]

Why is she fired for asking questions? What the fuck?

 

[Luigiv]

More or less correct. In number 1, my mom didn't call corporate. She got a warning for asking her manager a question about that.

Number 2 is correct, and my mom was correct about that. The manager was wrong about the policy.

Number 3 is correct. She got her final warning for talking to a manager about the situation (her two warnings). It was deemed insubordination, which is ridiculous when the regional manager didn't even know about it until 1 1/2 months after the conversation between my mom and said manager occurred.

Number 4..I just found out more info since I just got home. Apparently the assistant manager kept asking my mom about her situation, and my mom said she didn't want to talk about it. Eventually my mom gave in a bit after some pressure and talked a bit. Afterwards my mom ended up talking to her friend who was getting married during her break outside of the bank. They were talking about life and everything that happened at the bank. Apparently the assistant manager overheard their conversation about the bank outdoors, which occurred outside, called my mom's regional manager and the termination process began apparently. Apparently the assistant manager told the regional manager the conversation occurred in the bank when it actually occurred outside of the bank during the my mom's friend's break (I believe).

This regional manager keeps finding ways to warn my mom and cause problems even though she's never worked a day with my mom. She's just a regional overhead. Since my mom is a float teller, she has had experience at several banks over the last year, and every single one writes cards to her when she leaves. Most recently one of the banks gave her a card, lunch, and cake as she left the branch to work somewhere else. She was generally liked everywhere, but when the regional manager inquires information, she kind of finds a way to single out my mom.

This hurts my head. The fuck is wrong with this bank?

 

[Nephtis]

I still think it's worth a shot to try and reach out to the company president and see what's up. even if it was to raise some flags -- it's entirely possible anyone higher up isn't aware of what's going on.

who knows, she may have her job back. or at least get a letter of recommendation.

 

[Kuraudo]

Wow what a load of shit. I worked for a bank for 4 years and it was the worst place in the world for treating its employees like cattle, but they at least had dedicated people to ask if you ever needed to clarify policy.

Are there any extenuating circumstances that would affect your mum's memory? Beyond the fact that human's aren't capable of remembering every little detail every single day. If she has stress issues or something that might affect her memory, even slightly, then you could make a case for discrimination (depending on what the laws are like for that in the state). If you have an even slightly plausible case and you put it in a grievance to HR then they may offer reinstatement or a redundancy package rather than risk her taking legal action.

 

[Coins]

I'd like to know what bank this is because if its a chain, I'd like to be sure not to use them.

Who the fuck cares if an employee asks a question? What a huge load of shit.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Reading this makes it seem like she was fired for not behaving like a robot. Scary actually.

 

[SmokeCapone]

What I got out of that was your Mom was fired for asking a question about a banks policy in order to do her job properly, which is really not at all unreasonable. And the regional manager 'friend' doesn't sound much like one if they pull that kind of crap.

Sue the bloody bejesus out of them.

This!!!

 

[darkazcura]

I still think it's worth a shot to try and reach out to the company president and see what's up. even if it was to raise some flags -- it's entirely possible anyone higher up isn't aware of what's going on.

who knows, she may have her job back. or at least get a letter of recommendation.

After talking to my mom the last day, it seems like she wouldn't want the job back anyway. Seems like she is okay with moving on no matter how angry/sad she is. I'll ask her what she thinks about the president idea, though. You're right, maybe she can get a good letter of recommendation out of it.

I'd like to know what bank this is because if its a chain, I'd like to be sure not to use them.

Who the fuck cares if an employee asks a question? What a huge load of shit.

It's in New England. My mom probably wouldn't want me posting the name of the bank around here, haha, but I'll just say it is in New England and primarily in MA.

EDIT: Hearing my mom speak about this, it is pretty clear this regional manager is hell bent on "discipline". Apparently everyone is scared they are going to get fired for every little thing they do. It's pretty amazing. I just heard the full story about what happened on that last day that promptly led to my mom being fired. Apparently the conversation my mom had with her friend occurred outside after closing hours. What kind of bank fires someone for having a conversation after hours about her personal life (relating to work). The assistant manager said the conversation occurred during work indoors, which is a lie. It does sound like the regional manager pushed her out, but they are making up a lot of stuff, which has to be against some kind of law. Eh, I doubt my mom will pursue anything at this point since she doesn't want to work there anymore, but the company culture and atmosphere sounds absolutely toxic because of this regional manager.

I can't believe the assistant manager was literally saying "you can talk to me, don't worry, it's just me, tell me what's going on with you?"..even though he went straight to regional manager after my mom talked to her friend about the situation which led to her immediate firing. Complete BS.

 

[Tamanon]

Reading this makes it seem like she was fired for not behaving like a robot. Scary actually.

To be fair, bank tellers are one of the professions that need to be the most robotic.

 

[riotous]

What kind of bank fires someone for having a conversation after hours about her personal life (relating to work).

If the conversation violated their policies it doesn't matter when or where it took place.

If you aren't supposed to talk about something with co-workers that rule doesn't have anything to do with where the conversation occurs.