121
mousiepie Say more :
well, it was a contracting job. I've had weak wrists all my life but I normally just wear wrist braces and I do just fine. I hadn't wanted to say anything but also having still been new, I figured the bulk of the pain was from the repetitive motions from a 12 hour shift and that once I had been there a while, most of the pain would disappear. When my coworkers noticed the pain from my hands not working properly they suggested the nurse and I asked if she can provide a wrist wrap. They then said I needed to talk to my supervisor before the nurse and being a medical facility, they stated that they can't say they care about saving lives and the safety of the employees if they allow me to get hurt. They then directed me to my contracting supervisor who stated they will find a clerical type job for me. I just felt lame for the fact that for once I was told I couldn't perform a job because I might injure myself. :/ I appreciate the support and kindness though. Thank you.
By mousiepie / Friday 2 May 2014 09:36 / United States - San Francisco
Add a comment
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Create my account Sign in
Top comments
Comments
Reply
  ThatOneGuy719  |  16

Carpal tunnel only effects the fingers and the palm of a persons hand, it can be caused by damage to the wrist. So I guess they could be "scared"of the development of carpal tunnel.

Reply
  Ravenz_fml  |  10

I suffer from carpal tunnel. Most of the pain radiates from the wrist into the hand. Carpal tunnel is caused by swelling to the "carpal tunnel" in your wrist that results in pressure to the nerves

Reply
  foxwasalamb  |  24

carpal tunnel syndrome is when the carpal nerve gets pinched, sending the waves of pain. it can either be semi-permanent and get better over time or be a long-term injury.

Reply
  kuzzy00  |  22

In my country, this would be unjust dismissal. It's in the employment health and safety regulations that when identifying hazards to an employer, they should take all precautions to remove the hazard - not the employee. In New Zealand; the company would face $160,000+ fines for this kinda behaviour.

Reply
  AnOriginalName  |  19

I see your point, 48. But at the same time, working on a production line is inherently physical work. If OP is unable to do the job then there aren't any real alternatives apart from terminating employment.

Reply
  kuzzy00  |  22

There is always a substitute job in a workplace. The employer must be conscious of his employees safety. In OP's example, the boss would either look at putting him into less heavy lifting, or assess the need for lifting aiding equipment. There's always a plan B... There must be one under law.

Reply
  MissStephanie  |  10

All of you are speaking as though your employers really care as to what happens to you. Can't work? Won't work. They're all about their money and it would be wise not to forget it.

Reply
  mousiepie  |  9

In most cases #114, I definitely agree. In my situation however, being a medical facility, like they said "how can we say that we care about saving people's lives and that safety is our #1 priority if we allow our employees to get hurt". I wasn't angry, but they have a point. Some employers care about the employees well being. Thank you though(:

Reply

Which is why at will employment is one of the most abused concepts in the world of employment. 99.999999% of the time the employers abuses it to fire someone for some miniscule, unimportant reason when in reality they just didn't like the person in general and in reality it would be a wrongful termination lawsuit if at will employment wasn't in place. It needs to be revised to limit the reasons for firing, i.e. you can't fire for things that are not related to your job or your ability to do it.

Reply
  Qwermy  |  16

At-will employment is badly abused, but the concept exists to prevent unions from blocking all layoffs entirely, which they often do even if not cutting costs will put a company out of business. There should be a reason for firing, but you can't take layoffs off the table to protect from baseless firings; it would kill small businesses by putting them at the mercy of far larger unions

Reply
  NiceGuysDoWin  |  21

At will employment means that they do not need to give a reason to fire you. "Your services are no longer required." Period. But If they give a reason, they are still liable for wrongful termination, and in cases of workplace injury, they are still responsible for the workers comp claim. I'm not sure which State OP is from, but in most States, (even with At will employment laws) it is illegal to fire someone because of an on-the-job injury. I'd contact a lawyer.

Reply
  ravenschild  |  5

yes there is, "At will" doesn't include possible work related injury, especially a repetative motion injury like carpel tunnel syndrome. A laywer could have a field day with all the possible claims.

Reply
  Octwo  |  16

They want to avoid having to pay through the nose due to yet another person exploiting worker's comp, something abused just as much as at-will employment.

Reply
  outoftown  |  26

"At-Will" doesn't trump federal protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or a state's workers' compensation regulations. You disclosed an injury and rather than accommodate you, they fired you. You should be getting workers' comp, at least. Contact your state labor office, or a lawyer. Best of luck finding a better job.

By  Yourusernamefail  |  8

Well you didn't need that job anyways op. You will do better! Keep your head up

Reply
  mousiepie  |  9

I know you didn't mean anything negative by this comment, and thank you #3. I had been doing contracting jobs for a while and I did need the job just for the fact that I have a house payment and others counting on me. I've been having some issues finding a new job but I do appreciate the support and kindness. Thank you.

By  colton_colton  |  49

I'd complain and try and get them fired!

Reply
  Zazoo1995  |  22

This is literally a prime example of the Industrial Revolution. Either you didn't complain and suffered injuries or they would replace you as quick as possible.

By  urnnotvase  |  10

That's messed up. They could've accommodated you for the day and let you have time to see a doctor or be recommended to a specialist if it continued. You should file a complaint of some sort. That's no reason to terminate your employment.

Reply
  mousiepie  |  9

Originally the company supervisor had suggested that very thing. Since I was contracted through a different branch though, it was ultimately the contracting supervisor who ended my assignment at that company and said they will find me a clerical job as to not aggravate the injury further. Since I had mistakenly mentioned that my weak wrists were a pre-existing condition, they stated there is no reason for a nurse to look at the injury since they know what the issue is and that the issue will continue if I stay on the production line. Thank you for your support #7.

By  Yeshua_fml  |  18

What jerks. They're incentivising workers to sustain injury.

Reply
  Yeshua_fml  |  18

People don't want to lose their jobs. If they see that you get fired for possibly being injured (instead of being given time off to recuperate or see a doctor) what do you think people are going to do #73?

Reply
  melons  |  44

I see what you're saying; I misunderstood you. Incentivising was an odd word to use as it suggests there would be some kind of reward for sustaining injury.

By  alfalfalaffa  |  17

Well, there are far worse positions to get fires from. And in the long run, I'm sure being on the job market a little while is better than arthritis in your wrists the rest of your life.

Loading data…