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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

its a wrongful termination case. easily won as well.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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(:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Maybe they did need the job jackass.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

Stop misspelling your abusive comments. It's wimp.

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.

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.

or at least to not report it.

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

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?

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.