Getting screwed - Are lawyers a necessary evil?

[Duxnutz]

***More of a comment, I'd never seek legal advice off the net

My wife is getting screwed over by a work colleague/manager. This lady has had it in for my partner for probably the last 18 months and finally went in for the death kill after she spent a week off work (last week) with a fever.

Wife comes back to work (still fighting the cold) and said manager organizes an impromptu performance review outlining a 'performance plan' seeking 10-20% growth in sales over the next 3 months (quiet time in Oz for sales) or basically she can be terminated. I saw the paper, its pretty black and white.

What struck me as odd:

- she got a bonus last month for exceeding the budget in the previous quarter

- none of her other colleagues (with poorer numbers) have had this happen to them

- she's never had any previous warnings (even verbal)

- said lady tried to get her to sign the document on the spot

My wife has been freaking out since this occurred and to be honest I don't really know what to do. Sounds like work place harassment to me - cut and dry but I'm not familiar with how the laws work here.

If this happened to me I'd probably just look for a new job and not deal with the drama but she really enjoys what she does minus this.

I apologize for dragging this drama here but I'm currently smoking a cigar trying to 'man up' and help.

[StingMeadery]

Talk to an employment lawyer.

Just make sure the first meeting is at no charge

[Perla]

Sounds for me that your wife is too god in her job/ company.

This can cause a lot jealousy & hate, if somebody like your wife is over / above the average.

The best thing is to strike back with all force/power. A drawback will be laid off as weakness and your wife will receive more trouble in future.

(That's from my own experience)

[Fuzz]

Can't fire her over one missed sales target, unless there is a history of poor performance. Though considering she received a bonus for the previous quarter and had no prior performance warnings, this is very unlikely. And even if she didn't get the bonus, the employer must still give the employee a chance to improve their performance, before taking disciplinary actions.

It's a load of bollocks and this should be taken up with the HR dept. And make sure your wife clearly states that she believes this is a form of workplace harassment (explain how long it has been going on and give examples) and that she will be seeking advice from the Fair Work Ombudsman if HR do not investigate.

[Foz]

Two words: Workers Compensation.

It is sometimes the only way to stop that kind of narcissistic behaviour from people like her boss! Especially as this is clearly having an affect on her health. Unless certain circumstances exist, the insurer will usually automatically accept provisional liability for 12 weeks and maintain her pay and for reasonable medical expenses/treatment.

Secondly, in the land of Oz you can apply to Fair Work Australia to have the boss labelled a workplace bully (publicly) and issue her a stop bullying order. No employer would continue to employ or want to employ someone that has been declared a bully.

If the boss has an issue with her sick leave, get the boss to explain their internal sick leave policy. I'm assuming that your missus had a certificate for it? If this performance management has only come about because your chick took a week off sick, the Anti Discrimination Act would treat this as discrimination on the grounds of disability which warrants a complaint to the anti discrimination board.

All of this can be done without consulting a lawyer and are simple applications that can be lodged. Whilst I beleive there are circumstances where lawyers could be appopriate, I would give these a go before I paid for legal advice which isn't cheap and may not get the desired result.

Fuzz is very right though, sacking someone lawfully in Australia needs a damn good brief of evidence with a bucket load of substantiated performance and misconduct issues that were fairly and appropriately investigated. One alleged issue isn't even close to enough, so I wouldn't worry about losing her job.

And remember, she can never ever be forced to sign anything. I knew 2 people at my work that refused to sign consultation documents or new contracts and as a result, the organisation was forced to maintain these 2 employees (out of 100 or so others) on their existing contracts.

Best advice though - find a new employer or department to work for. In the meantime do whatever she can to make her time with the employer as comfortable for herself as possible: lodging a workers comp claim will force the employer to put measures in place to prevent a reoccurrence. Additionally her dr can place restrictions on her workers comp medical certificate to stop the bully from talking to her etc.

[Coolio]

First port of call I reckon Dux is for your wife to bring up the issue with her manager once or twice removed.

This is what HR tell us to do where we work. Never had to do it myself in my 15 years here, but did have one of my rostering staff do it to me once when I tried to get him performing at a higher level. I got a tap on the shoulder from my manager with a quiet word and basically I had to back off.

The main advantage to doing it this way I believe would be the ability to keep it quiet from her peers, and it will put the spotlight back on her manager. If your wife is getting bonuses, it's probably a good bet that she's valued by the managers above her own.

[Hash]

This is a classic example of an insecure boss at work , your wife's performance has been good in the past , either she meets face to face with the manager to find out what is going on , better still try to find a job in a healthier environment.

[El Presidente]

Good advice.

Seek a meeting with HR manager. Put forward the argument of workplace harassment based on the arguments you have stated. make clear your intention to move the issue forward to the Fair Work Commission.

if there is something unseen it will be flushed out.

it is best if she doesn't dilly dally. Once the trigger is pulled there is no going back. She needs to keep in mind that pulling the trigger on her boss in the majority of cases pulls the trigger on her career. No matter the right or wrong of it, no boss wants to hire a person who has had issues in another company particularly FWC action. It is unfair I know.

[bradbrennan]

Sounds for me that your wife is too god in her job/ company.

This can cause a lot jealousy & hate, if somebody like your wife is over / above the average.

The best thing is to strike back with all force/power. A drawback will be laid off as weakness and your wife will receive more trouble in future.

(That's from my own experience)

Good advice.

Seek a meeting with HR manager. Put forward the argument of workplace harassment based on the arguments you have stated. make clear your intention to move the issue forward to the Fair Work Commission.

if there is something unseen it will be flushed out.

it is best if she doesn't dilly dally. Once the trigger is pulled there is no going back. She needs to keep in mind that pulling the trigger on her boss in the majority of cases pulls the trigger on her career. No matter the right or wrong of it, no boss wants to hire a person who has had issues in another company particularly FWC action. It is unfair I know.

I think she better put these two posts together and weigh the options!

[JHands]

Actively look for a new job. Pay cut = less CC for you, but a necessary expense

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amart]

Why in the world would you consider a lawyer an evil in your case? He can only help you. I truthfully don't understand the hatred the general public has for attorneys.

[Maplepie]

Sorry for your tie-ups, Ducky... We've all been there in life. Hopes you don't need to lawyer to resolve it soon.

As for your question:

They are only a necessary evil in this weird Judicial System where we choose lady justice as a pagan Godess. They are not exactly evil by what you mean. They are only what you call 'a necessary evil' in this unnecessary judicial system. Let me explain:

-We recite somewhat meaningless oaths to Lady Justice.

-We continue to make idols to lady justice representing her in a [comically] belligerent fashion.

-We sacrifice people to her by means of 'capital punishment'.

-We stand by her terrible, inefficient means of governance.

-We pay the deacons and pastors who represent her millions of dollars through the services they give.

The European system of impartiality is no way good. But it's at least applicable to life, now. the way the sixth amendment is written is obsolete for today's society. Much like how the second amendment is written.

Supporting Information:

If we followed the sixth amendment to the tee, it would suggest that we be given all state attorneys and no attorney should achieve the grandeur that they receive today. Bear in mind that one must'n't take the words of old documents into account. But one should know why they are written, by whom, and for whom.

Similarly, if we followed the second amendment to a tee on the way it was written, the government must supply the public with an equal amount of tanks, drones, and nuclear submarines to fight against the government if that day were to come.

I for one welcome the idea of me owning orbital satellite defense drones. But that's a discussion for another day.

[HarveyBoulevard]

The short answer is yes...yes we are!

No one wants to call me and people cast dispersions...until...you find yourself in need. Then, you are so very glad you have my name and number.

Side Note: There is a reason lawyer jokes are funny and usually end up with a bunch of us at the bottom of an ocean!

[HarveyBoulevard]

Sorry for your tie-ups, Ducky... We've all been there in life. Hopes you don't need to lawyer to resolve it soon.

As for your question:

They are only a necessary evil in this weird Judicial System where we choose lady justice as a pagan Godess. They are not exactly evil by what you mean. They are only what you call 'a necessary evil' in this unnecessary judicial system. Let me explain:

-We recite somewhat meaningless oaths to Lady Justice.

-We continue to make idols to lady justice representing her in a [comically] belligerent fashion.

-We sacrifice people to her by means of 'capital punishment'.

-We stand by her terrible, inefficient means of governance.

-We pay the deacons and pastors who represent her millions of dollars through the services they give.

The European system of impartiality is no way good. But it's at least applicable to life, now. the way the sixth amendment is written is obsolete for today's society. Much like how the second amendment is written.

Supporting Information:

If we followed the sixth amendment to the tee, it would suggest that we be given all state attorneys and no attorney should achieve the grandeur that they receive today. Bear in mind that one must'n't take the words of old documents into account. But one should know why they are written, by whom, and for whom.

Similarly, if we followed the second amendment to a tee on the way it was written, the government must supply the public with an equal amount of tanks, drones, and nuclear submarines to fight against the government if that day were to come.

I for one welcome the idea of me owning orbital satellite defense drones. But that's a discussion for another day.

At the risk of starting WW Tres, how exactly is this judicial system unnecessary? Is it THIS judicial system you take issue with or ANY judicial system you take issue with?

Edit: No sarcasm intended. Just a discourse.

[Maplepie]

Is it THIS judicial system you take issue with or ANY judicial system you take issue with?

Edit: No sarcasm intended. Just a discourse.

Never, Harvey. Always discourse.

I'm stating the judicial system proposed by the sixth amendment is unnecessarily inept. The judicial system that has seemed to create a modern pagan God.

Sent by the Enigma on BlackBerry.

[HarveyBoulevard]

Fair enough

I am a lawyer but god help me if I ever need one myself...for ANY reason.

(sorry for the almost thread hijack)

@ Duxnutz,

I give a lot of free advice. Sometimes, people need to hear their options and talk them out. If situations can be resolved without an attorney, I say that is great. If things just can't seem to get resolved any other way, a good attorney can be a godsend.

My advice, go get some free advice and prepare for the event an attorney is needed. Better to be prepared just in case.

[CanuckSARTech]

Never, Harvey. Always discourse.

I'm stating the judicial system proposed by the sixth amendment is unnecessarily inept. The judicial system that has seemed to create a modern pagan God.

Sent by the Enigma on BlackBerry.

As a young, fairly in-experienced Canadian (student, yes?), you're then a legal pseudo-expert now too, and one at U.S. constitutional law as well? (I don't quite gather why you're bringing up the 6th Ammendment, as you're Canadian, that ammendment is American, but the O.P. resides in Australia?)

Sorry to yet again sound harsh, but the Google-slash-Wikipedia-instant-expert-opinion-a-la-Dr-Phil-and-I-slept-at-a-Holiday-Inn-Express-last-night seems to be getting pretty thick lately...

(and that's a thread hijack, my apologies for that, but it needed to be said)

[Maplepie]

As a young, fairly in-experienced Canadian (student, yes?), you're then a legal pseudo-expert now too, and one at U.S. constitutional law as well? (I don't quite gather why you're bringing up the 6th Ammendment, as you're Canadian, that ammendment is American, but the O.P. resides in Australia?))

Oh Keith... that's just harsh.

I never said I was an expert on any sort of legal system. I call it as I see it. That was an uncalled for ad hominem that I believe it didn't warrant.

Regardless of where a point comes from, you should've proved me wrong by attacking the point I made: not me. If my point is invalid, I will be shown as the in-experienced nitwit who doesn't know what they're talking about.

And I will gladly rescind everything stated.

All I wanted to do was start discourse on Ducky's original question (as I thought he wanted). NOT portray myself as any person learned in law or religious philosophy. I thought it'd be fun to bring up ideas and maybe rescind or amend my idea depending on what is posted.

I really hope everything here is just due to plaintext misunderstanding. I really, really don't want this to spiral.

Sent by the Enigma on BlackBerry.

[ptrthgr8]

Similarly, if we followed the second amendment to a tee on the way it was written, the government must supply the public with an equal amount of tanks, drones, and nuclear submarines to fight against the government if that day were to come.

I for one welcome the idea of me owning orbital satellite defense drones. But that's a discussion for another day.

Oh, please. LOL

There is so much fail in what you've written above. I'll completely avoid the bulk of it by only countering with this: where in the 2nd Amendment is it written that the federal gov't (and surely you must be talking about the feds since you're talking about the original intent of the 2nd Amendment - which was part of the Constitution, which set the framework for the then-new federal gov't) must supply anything at all? It says only that the right to keep/bear arms must not be infringed upon by the feds. It says nothing about who must supply anything at all.

We're buds and all.... but, c'mon, man. The fallacy is strong with this one.

[amart]

Maple, I'm trying to understand your assertion. Which part of the sixth amendment do you take issue with?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial

by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed

to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation

to be confronted with the witnesses against him

to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor or

to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense?

[Maplepie]

Oh, please. LOL

where in the 2nd Amendment is it written that the federal gov't (and surely you must be talking about the feds since you're talking about the original intent of the 2nd Amendment - which was part of the Constitution, which set the framework for the then-new federal gov't) must supply anything at all? It says only that the right to keep/bear arms must not be infringed upon by the feds. It says nothing about who must supply anything at all.

Nowhere. But when one takes historical documents into account, you must take other things into account: who it's for, who it's by, and what was meant for it.

That isn't me being an expert. That's just common sense.

For whom was the ammendment written for and what was it intended to do? Keep society from being able to fend off self invading governments. Enter the quote: "tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

You're right that it contains huge fallacies. This applies to the 6th as well.

Jefferson never imagined tanks, drones, and nukes would be possible. The scribbler of the 6th amendment never imagined lobbying and plutocrats. Nor did he imagine justice for sale or justice for purchase.

A legal system that revolves around one of peers and two sides - one from a cap of funds and one from unlimited funds is something (one promised by the 6th amendment) breeds the unnecessary evil that DuckyNutty discusses.

Sent by the Enigma on BlackBerry.

[topdiesel]

Sounds like her superior sales skills would be appreciated more somewhere else. Find another job and attempt to clear the air at current job.

I wouldn't waste my time with lawyers. They can actually make you unemployable or at least you wouldn't want to use current job as reference if a lawyer was involved.

A person with a strong sales track record is really desireable in this day and age.

[amart]

Corruption has been in existence since the beginning of time and creation of positions of power. You bet the writers of the sixth amendment considered corruption. They just held the rights outlined in the sixth as more important than nullifying corruption. Further, where do lobbyists come in for the sixth amendment? As for the 'one from limited funds and one from unlimited funds', Dux situation involves two private entities - a civil action. Unless you're talking about the government being party to a suit, both sides are of limited funds. Additionally, the sixth amendment is applicable to criminal proceedings, not to civil ones as we've talked about in this thread.

[ptrthgr8]

Nowhere. But when one takes historical documents into account, you must take other things into account: who it's for, who it's by, and what was meant for it.

That isn't me being an expert. That's just common sense.

For whom was the ammendment written for and what was it intended to do? Keep society from being able to fend off self invading governments. Enter the quote: "tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

Agreed about understanding the context. But I really doubt you'll find anything in the relevant historical documents that suggests the federal gov't was expected to provide weapons to every Tom, ****, and Harry in order to comply with the the 2nd Amendment. None of the delegated powers in Article 1 Section 8 come close to stating that, nor does the 2nd Amendment support that. I don't recall reading about Patrick Henry railing about that issue during the Virginia ratification convention - and he complained about a lot of the power that was being handed over to the feds. (He was against Virginia ratifying the Constitution, FWIW.) I'm sure he would have had something to say about the feds being expected to provide weapons to everyone, if such a notion was actually part of the argument for/against at the time. But he didn't... so...

And I don't understand the "[k]eep society from being able to fend off self invading governments" line. Are you trying to suggest that the 2nd Amendment was intended to make it so the People couldn't actually push back against an out of control gov't? If so, that's the first time I've ever heard that argument and I would have to say it's way far out there, man. I'm very familiar with the Jefferson quote... but it doesn't back up that part of your argument; it counters it.

[Lasabar]

Sounds like her superior sales skills would be appreciated more somewhere else. Find another job and attempt to clear the air at current job.

I wouldn't waste my time with lawyers. They can actually make you unemployable or at least you wouldn't want to use current job as reference if a lawyer was involved.

A person with a strong sales track record is really desireable in this day and age.

Holy ****!

That is my exact Avatar on another forum and when I saw it and read your post I was like: "Holy crap I must have been drunk last night, I don't even REMEMBER posting this! But holy hell were my thoughts well thought out for being so drunk"

Then I realized I changed avatars for this forum....

God I'm dumb