Amazon worker who was ran over and shot during NO attack denied medical leave.
Amazon worker who was ran over and shot during NO attack denied medical leave.
"He was coming so fast, there wasn't any time to move all the way out the way"
Scott-Windham returned to Mobile Wednesday night with the bullet still in her foot, along with multiple fractures.
She'll need to return to an orthopedist in two weeks to check on her foot. But the Amazon warehouse where she works denied her request for a leave of absence, and she worries she'll have to find a new job once she's recovered.
The denial of leave - after being shot in the foot by a mass shooter - was so inconsequential to the reporter that it barely warranted a mention in the second-to-last paragraph.
That was the main reason I wanted to post this with the title I used. I felt like the corporate mistreatment part of the story wasn't being heard.
Oh, agreed and understood. I just was putting an exclamation point on it.
It isn't corporate mistreatment of the story.
It's manufacturing consent for the corporate ruled plutocracy.
But the story isn't one of medical leave, as important as that is: it was about the incident and her experience, but not her recovery.
News articles follow a common format, and the detail about her shit boss isn't one that fits the straight-line narrative of "survives horrible ordeal against madman killing with gun and truck but traumatized, child also safe". With editing how it is, a ruthless editor even without an agenda may just as easily pruned that detail.
I'm sorry it wasn't the thesis in this piece, but I'm glad it was kept in where it can be quoted later -- like it is here, where we can add it to the buzz. This is really a best outcome for a piece based around a different narrative. I hope she gets a better job soon.
Maybe the author felt that it was what any reader would have expected in the US, so it wasn't worth it to linger on the fact.
Which is so bizarre because when I worked for them, they would let me come in late as often as I wanted to, and take as much leave as I needed.
I went on so many mental health breaks when I worked for them. It was nice to have.
'murica! Everyone thinks if anything happens to you you'll be able to work things out. Here in 'murica you're on your own entirely. I'm going to guess that Amazon is denying her FMLA because she hasn't been there 12 months and therefore are not legally required to. Another great way to scare people into staying at the same shitty job.
Many people in America think this is how it is everywhere else in the world. That in itself is a form of American exceptionalism
Here in Romania, the state pays for your salary during medical leave so it's not a burden to the company (between 75% and 100% of the salary depending on the medical reason, for up to 180 days. There are other social nets beyond the 180 days). Of course, there is a tax for that that everyone pays, so it's like a state-run insurance fund, but unlike private insurance they can't deny it.
The employer isn't required to let sick people be sick?? Or are they only required to grant unpaid sick leave?
This is hard for me to wrap my head around. Here, if a new employee gets sick within the first 8 weeks, the employer can get the pay partially refunded. But the employer must always pay in full during sick leave.
FMLA is a law that protects employees’ jobs while they’re on unpaid medical leave, but you need to be at the job for at least 12 months before it kicks in.
Basically, Amazon denied her unpaid medical leave, (basically just a leave of absence, since it’s unpaid), because she hasn’t been there long enough to be covered by FMLA. So if she takes the leave anyways, she’ll be fired. Basically, they’re threatening to fire her for being a victim, because they’re not legally obligated to keep her job held while she recovers.
Stop buying amazon as much as possible. Just use them to find the product you want then order it from the manufacturer webpage. Thx 4 da reviews amazon, but I'm going with director to conshumer.
That country is a joke
Could not have said it better.
I could list all issues with it, but I've done that so manyntimes already, it's like arguing with a crazy person, doesn't get you anywhere.
At this point, all you can do is say that the US is a sad joke, and move on
Fuck Amazon and fuck every worm that commits daily atrocities behind that name.
Losing your job because of an illness or injury is normal for hourly waged employees in the US. It's possible a union could have prevented this.
It's very normal (in the US) but not in any way right.
They do here.
If you fire someone just for getting sick, you can expect the union to sue you. They have really good lawyers. Your best option is to settle out of court. And now you are not popular with the union, giving you less leeway in the next case.
It just easier and cheaper to do the right thing, which includes documentation of how you did your best to make it work.
I started a new job as a restaurant host once. The day after my first shift I got violently ill, puked everywhere. I called them up and told them I had the flu and could not work. They never scheduled me again and didn’t pay me for my first shift.
False flags aren’t covered as an excuse.
How hard would she have to kick someone to lodge it into thier ass from her foot? Sorry, I'm kinda buzzed..
What's an NO attack?
Probably New Orleans attack on new years
New Orleans
Insurance claim process?
was ran
\facepalm
shred amazon all you want--they nearly always deserve it... but the article from the local paper is incomplete.
we don't know if the worker is even eligible for leave under fmla or from amazon employee benefits, nor do we know why the workplace denied the request.
The end result was someone feeling they had to work with a bullet in their foot. Regardless of whatever rules are in place, everything failed that person.
Ah yes, the classic excuse. "The company isn't legally required to give a shit. so it's not a problem".
It's not about what they're legally required to do. They may not be required to, they are not prevented from doing so. It's about the fact the company is a shitty place to work and will fuck employees over in every way possible whenever given the chance. Without exception.
we don’t know if the worker is even eligible for leave under fmla or from amazon employee benefits
There's a god damn bullet in her fucking foot! She should be eligible for fucking leave.
"They might not have filed the correct paperwork prior to being run over and shot" is such a wild take.
we don't know if the worker is even eligible for leave under fmla or from amazon employee benefits, nor do we know why the workplace denied the request.
Counterpoint: every worker ought to be eligible for FMLA and employer benefits, from day 1.
we don't know if the worker is even eligible for leave under fmla or from amazon employee benefits
Should it matter? Amazon threatened to fire her because she was run over and shot by a terrorist. Her FMLA eligibility shouldn’t be a factor. Sure, Amazon may be legally allowed to fire her, but they’re still dirty cunts for doing it and deserve every ounce of scorn aimed their way.
Maybe instead of slobbing the boss’ knob because “they’re legally allowed to do this shitty thing”, consider demanding better worker protections.
Die in a fire, shitbag.
Ruling class chud.