Heartbreak and Justice
February 27th, 2008 by Cali & Jody
This story about a woman who was forced to resign from her job because of her disabled son broke our hearts. When we talk about these workplace issues, we take a light-hearted approach, but as this story shows, the toxic atmosphere in many workplaces is a serious problem. The fact that this woman had to hear comments that her “f****** child” was “always f****** sick” and that she was “using her son to manipulate her working conditions” just turns our stomachs.Even worse is the lack of sympathy people can show for people like Ms. Coleman. One of the comments to the story notes that “Getting rid of discrimination for carers causes discrimination against everyone else. Somebody inevitably ends up carrying these people.”
These people. Just think about how loaded those two little words are.
Here’s a newsflash. We are all, at some point in our life or another, “these people”. No one skates through this life. At some point you will suffer a personal setback, or someone in your life will go through something that will have a negative impact on your performance at work. This isn’t some touchy-feely, woo-woo, Kumbaya sentiment. This is just reality.
So we can either go to work and deny our basic humanity (and suffer the consequences of stress, burnout, and, in the case of this London firm, a lawsuit) or we can embrace our frailties and deal with them as adults. We’d rather not see the culture of work litigated into being better, but we’re happy to see that justice was done.
Does it not stand to reason that ina ROWE she would have been let go anyway? If you are looking at Results Only, she isn’t present enough to get any results.
That would mean she couldn’t stay…
Being present is soooo not the concept of a ROWE - its results. I think you are greatly misunderstanding the essence of a ROWE and how it differs from the current, restrictive work environment.
From the article: John Wadham, the legal director of the Equality and Human Rights Commission which is backing the case, said: “People want to work and need to work and should not be forced to choose between their jobs and their loved ones.”
My consistent argument and answer to your question is that physical presence does not equate performance/productivity. Effort, work ethic, industry knowledge, and motivation do - just to name a couple.
Without knowing the specifics of her job responsibilities, my question would be how could her job have been structured to not only meet the goals and objectives of her career, but also (and probably more importantly) to care for her sick son?
The issue with a ROWE and the world is that few people want to invest the time into analyzing the above mentioned scenario. If she would have been given a legitimate alternate plan (a ROWE) and then failed to produce, of course termination should be considered.
A ROWE is not about being present it’s about being productive.
Right, physical presence equates productivity on an assembly line, but not in corporate America, and certainly not with knowledge workers.
If she had a ROWE, she would have had total control of her time, and could have managed both. Certainly it would have increased her odds of success.
I full heartedly agree, Michael. AND if the company would allow for a ROWE, not only would this womans homelife be less stressful, but she would be a more productive and a more dedicated employee to a company that respects her as a person.