FML : Today, my wrists were hurting really bad while working the production line. I was told to let my supervisor know so he can help accommodate it. Both supervisors...

121

Today, my wrists were hurting really bad while working the production line. I was told to let my supervisor know so he can help accommodate it. Both supervisors responded by ending my employment there to make sure I don't suffer long term damage. FML

I agree, your life sucks

You deserved it

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

Work

Add a comment

You must be logged in to be able to post comments!

Create my account Sign in

Top comments

By Ravenz_fml | 10

#5932963 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:18

File a lawsuit. Carpal Tunnel?

By Bloodknight | 22

#5932964 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:19

Aww, sucks to hear, but if it was "at will" employment there isn't much you can do about it.

Comments

By Ravenz_fml | 10

#5932963 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:18

File a lawsuit. Carpal Tunnel?

ThatOneGuy719 | 16

#5932988 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:27

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.

Ravenz_fml | 10

#5933002 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:33

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

ThatOneGuy719 | 16

#5933026 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:50

#19 Ahh my bad, I was kinda thinking that I was wrong when I posted that. At least I know what it is now.

foxwasalamb | 24

#5933041 - Friday 2 May 2014 20:10

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.

graceinsheepwear | 33

#5933059 - Friday 2 May 2014 20:32

ThatOneGuy: I'm curious why you would rush to post under #1, challenging 1's comment, when you weren't sure what you were talking about.

kuzzy00 | 22

#5933106 - Friday 2 May 2014 21:34

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.

AnOriginalName | 19

#5933203 - Friday 2 May 2014 23:52

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.

HJKM_fml | 19

#5933265 - Saturday 3 May 2014 0:39

@65 OP could have just been put on disability leave.

JKROB | 16

#5933498 - Saturday 3 May 2014 7:34

its a wrongful termination case. easily won as well.

Jakob2255 | 12

#5933560 - Saturday 3 May 2014 8:54

#65 in the US you can't be fired in most states if you are injured from working conditions.

PresidentNorth | 16

#5933638 - Saturday 3 May 2014 13:05

Well if OP was in Tennessee. It would be just cause. Here no boss needs reason to fire you. They just do it. Right to work I believe is what it's called.

JokersHQ | 21

#5933657 - Saturday 3 May 2014 14:08

Of they are injured in the job they can't be fired for it. Pretty sure it's illegal

kuzzy00 | 22

#5934233 - Sunday 4 May 2014 2:56

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.

MissStephanie | 10

#5936400 - Tuesday 6 May 2014 11:49

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.

mousiepie | 9

#5938459 - Thursday 8 May 2014 15:09

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(:

By Bloodknight | 22

#5932964 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:19

Aww, sucks to hear, but if it was "at will" employment there isn't much you can do about it.

destructor2014 | 3

#5933013 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:40

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.

Qwermy | 16

#5933074 - Friday 2 May 2014 20:40

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

NiceGuysDoWin | 21

#5933183 - Friday 2 May 2014 23:21

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.

ravenschild | 5

#5933211 - Saturday 3 May 2014 0:02

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.

Octwo | 16

#5933339 - Saturday 3 May 2014 2:33

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.

outoftown | 26

#5933888 - Saturday 3 May 2014 19:05

"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

#5932966 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:20

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

lexiieeex3 | 32

#5933035 - Friday 2 May 2014 20:05

Maybe they did need the job jackass.

leary96 | 15

#5933159 - Friday 2 May 2014 22:53

Seriously who in their right mind would work a factory job if they "didn't need it" because I love doing menial labor for unjust pay.

SPARTAN11810 | 9

#5933828 - Saturday 3 May 2014 17:22

Yes because no one needs jobs... *sarcasm*

mousiepie | 9

#5936349 - Tuesday 6 May 2014 8:53

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 FuckYourLife30 | 13

#5932967 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:20

Stop being a whimp

ChenEighty | 20

#5932991 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:27

Yes, just ignore every one of your body's reactions telling you that something's wrong. Someone needs to explains to me what's manly about that.

sunnyray812 | 38

#5933047 - Friday 2 May 2014 20:13

It's not "being a whimp" when you can't work due to an injury or intense pain. It's called taking care of your health. Is that not important?

graceinsheepwear | 33

#5933062 - Friday 2 May 2014 20:35

Stop misspelling your abusive comments. It's wimp.

By colton_colton | 49

#5932968 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:20

I'd complain and try and get them fired!

Zazoo1995 | 23

#5933711 - Saturday 3 May 2014 15:20

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 Amanyyyyyy | 29

#5932971 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:21

Well if it really was from working, you're better off with a new job than permanent wrist damage anyway.

By urnnotvase | 10

#5932972 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:21

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.

mousiepie | 9

#5936351 - Tuesday 6 May 2014 8:56

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

#5932974 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:22

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

graceinsheepwear | 33

#5933066 - Friday 2 May 2014 20:36

or at least to not report it.

melons | 44

#5933273 - Saturday 3 May 2014 0:44

It's hardly an incentive if it results in a job loss.

Yeshua_fml | 18

#5933287 - Saturday 3 May 2014 0:52

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?

melons | 44

#5933300 - Saturday 3 May 2014 1:10

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 toxic_walrus | 15

#5932975 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:22

They were probably looking for a reason ::

By alfalfalaffa | 17

#5932976 - Friday 2 May 2014 19:22

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.