> I really wanted to be upset with the company here, but it sounds like she shot herself in the foot.
Both of these things can be valid at the same time. She was certainly technically in the wrong and made some questionable choices (with the huge caveat that it’s possible context we don’t have may change the story entirely), but I still think the company is overbearing to the point of absurdity.
If she slacked off for 50 hours over 6 weeks, that’s like an hour and a half a day (which may not have been contiguous). I can’t think of a job I’ve ever had where I didn’t have an hour of down time a day on average. Even working crappy manual labor jobs I’m sure I dicked around with my coworkers for like an hour a day.
She may be a bit on the high end there, but not so much that I wouldn’t have worked with her to correct it before firing her.
Slacking off, as you call it, is part of working. What she did was claim to have worked on clients' files without having opened them. She didn't claim that a job had taken her six hours when it took her 5.5 plus some downtime. She claimed to have worked on accounts that she had barely perused the data for.
Both of these things can be valid at the same time. She was certainly technically in the wrong and made some questionable choices (with the huge caveat that it’s possible context we don’t have may change the story entirely), but I still think the company is overbearing to the point of absurdity.
If she slacked off for 50 hours over 6 weeks, that’s like an hour and a half a day (which may not have been contiguous). I can’t think of a job I’ve ever had where I didn’t have an hour of down time a day on average. Even working crappy manual labor jobs I’m sure I dicked around with my coworkers for like an hour a day.
She may be a bit on the high end there, but not so much that I wouldn’t have worked with her to correct it before firing her.
reply