« ICYMI: Our Social Media Posts This Week -- Mar. 29 – Apr. 4, 2015 | Main | ICYMI: Our Social Media Posts This Week -- Mar. 15 - 21, 2015 »
Monday
Mar232015

ICYMI: Our Social Media Posts This Week -- Mar. 22 - 28, 2015

Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week.  You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.

On Sunday 3/22/15 the post reminded us that a mere belief of age discrimination is not enough to carry a burden under the law. Just because someone thinks an action (or failure to act) might have been caused by age discrimination, if there is no evidence to support the allegation, then the case will go nowhere (except to the dismissal bin). Go to the post for the facts here.

TAKEAWAY: It is usually employers who are told to document, document, document. But it is the complaining employee who has the initial burden and if that is not met, then the employer benefits (by dismissal).

The post on Monday 3/23/15 was about snow day pay Q&A (and the hope that you will not need it for many months to come). Yes, I know, you don’t even want the word “snow” in your head now. But if you get this straight now, you won’t have to worry about it next season when the flakes are falling. Check out some hints in the post and start working on your company’s policy or employment contracts.

TAKEAWAY: Know what to ask (classification, contract, policy, etc.) and the answers in determining if employees are entitled to pay for snow (or other inclement weather) days.

In the post on Tuesday 3/24/15, we talked about tweeting yourself into the unemployment line. Ok, not necessarily you, but it could be if you don’t watch out. So what happened? A TX teenager issued this tweet the night before she was to start a new job at a pizza place: “Ew, I start this (profanity deleted) job tomorrow” and 7 thumbs-down emojis. Well, that apparently made her employer-to-be none too happy as the response was “And … no you don’t start that “profanity deleted” job today! I just fired you! Good luck with your no money, no job life!”

TAKEAWAY: While there was probably nothing illegal in this scenario, employers must always be careful of anything involving social media and any legal implications.

The post on Wednesday 3/25/15 was clear that businesses must adapt to employees’ changing needs. Not just technology, but how things get done and by whom. The types of things to consider include CRM systems, secure data and document access, and an appropriate accounting system. Others are in the post.

TAKEAWAY: What you have may work for you, but there might be other bells and whistles out there that do it better or faster or both; be on the constant lookout.

In the post on Thursday 3/26/15 we asked if you know your rights relative to condo & homeowner association documents & information in PA. Why? Because the post highlights a situation where information should have been provided to the homeowner and wasn’t (and what the person’s rights might be now).

TAKEAWAY: Owning a home in a planned community (one with a condo or homeowner’s association) is a commitment to live under certain legal documents; know the rights and responsibilities of both yourself and the association.

The post on Friday 3/27/15 was a bit off topic. It asked repair or replace: the broken asset dilemma. If this hasn’t happened to you yet, it will. You buy something and at some point need to decide whether to repair it or just buy a new one. This post helps you decide.

TAKEAWAY: Newer isn’t always better; take control of your finances and decide whether replacement of an asset is necessary or if repair will do.

Finally, in the post yesterday 3/28/15, we talked about whether federal or state law overrides the “mark of the beast”. Already intrigued, aren’t you?! Here, a fundamentalist Christian applied for a job; when he was asked to provide his Social Security number, he refused because he had renounced it as the “mark of the beast.” He was not hired, which led to him filing suit for religious discrimination. The federal court dismissed the suit on the grounds that federal law requires an employer to collect the SSN, such that no religious accommodation is possible.

TAKEAWAY: While employers should look to accommodate when possible, any accommodation should not be in violation of applicable law.

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>