Woman Fired for using upper case in email

I was thinking it was going to be she wrote the whole thing in upper case like somebody who doesn't know what the caps lock button is, in which case, she should have been fired.
 
OK, I'm a little confused here. Your post indicates you think this story shows the government being out of control by your reference to "a nanny state worse than ours."

Procare Health Ltd. is a privately owned company.
The Link

The only government intervention appears to be an employee relations board compensating the employee for wrongful termination.

Are you saying that using all caps in an email justifies termination or that employees should have no recourse upon wrongful termination?
 
I am saying that the culture that cultivated a boss to 'percieve' anything based on lexical representation of text for inferred emotional weight means:
That the culture is a bigger bunch of ******* than the culture in the US

The correction to the title would be "Nanny culture"
 
Sorry, but I don't see that, either. The reporting of the incident, the reparations being awarded to the employee, and the tenor of the posts here (and presumably in NZ) suggest the administrator's actions in firing the woman ran counter to cultural expectations. The cultural response to this incident seems to be a finding that the boss was just being a dick and the woman was justified for seeking and obtaining redress through government action.

I just don't see this as a case of societal rules running wild and trampling individual rights. There may be a lot more to the story than we're told, but if it's just about using ALL CAPS and getting fired for it, then it just looks like a jerk boss move, and blaming his action as being caused by some kind of social pressure seems kind of silly.
 
Boss made an ******* decision.

Bosses are ENTITLED to make ******* decisions, so long as they are not discriminatory ******* decisions.

A boss can fire an employee for failing to use the proper font, for using too many highlighters, or for no reason at all -- just because I want one fewer employee, and I picked your name out of a hat. So long as the REAL reason isn't because the employee is a minority, female, etc., then we're clear.

Yes, that's a generality, doesn't take into account whistleblower laws etc., and is based on the law of Texas and other right to work states. NZ may be different -- indeed, there are states in the U.S. where the law requires that you have "good cause" to terminate an employee. Those laws are the exception, and those laws ARE a sign of a nanny state.

A boss fired an employee for a non-discriminatory reason. It doesn't matter if you agree with the reason or not. From a legal standpoint in Texas, all you need to know is that the reason was non-discriminatory (and not in retaliationfor whisteblowing, a comp claim, etc.), and we're done.
 
That rationale I can understand. I don't think that was what the OP was getting at with his nanny state reference though, hence, the inquiry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top