- Joined
- Nov 6, 2016
- Messages
- 28
I thought orientation was only 3 hours?
Was I misinformed and it is really 4 hours?
Was I misinformed and it is really 4 hours?
I thought orientation was only 3 hours?
Was I misinformed and it is really 4 hours?
It's very difficult to get rid of someone once they're past their 90 days. If someone shows up late to orientation, there is a decent chance that this is a sign of bad things to come. The STL has a choice - keep the person and risk spending a bunch of payroll on someone who we're likely to get rid of within the next 90 days, or just cut ties now. Again, I'll say that the misunderstanding sucks and probably warrants a second chance, although I'd have to have actually listened to the conversation myself to really decide. From the STL's perspective, it's best to just get rid of them now.
Its just that , they were told the orientation is between 12 and 4.
Orientation!
Not like a music festival. With several acts.
They misunderstood that, both of them.
They should’ve asked for clarification.
How old are these kids anyway?
They show up late during their 90 days...chuck 'em
I thought orientation was only 3 hours?
Was I misinformed and it is really 4 hours?
Yup we had someone not bring his id to orientation. Called and emailed him with a reminder, I sent him home and he lost his job opportunity.
We had a team member no call no show 3 times for a job abandon. She tried to bring in an ADA form after she had already been terminated. I would have loved to have helper her if she let us know ahead of time.
I wish it was that simple. It's a lot of work hiring a seasonal, doing an orientation, using previous training hours just for them to flame out. At my old store less than half the seasonals made it to January.
Sometimes you have to cut your losses quick, as brutal as that sounds
Common sense would dictate that obviously orientations weren't running at all times in those hours. They should of showed up at 12
Is that what you really took from that comment?Should of? What does should of means?
Did you mean “should have”?
Yeah, to be honest it's hard to hold someone's hand in this business...
Yup we had someone not bring his id to orientation. Called and emailed him with a reminder, I sent him home and he lost his job opportunity. I'm all for compassion but people also have to take responsibility.
ADA is legit but even that is abused. We had a team member no call no show 3 times for a job abandon. She tried to bring in an ADA form after she had already been terminated. I would have loved to have helper her if she let us know ahead of time.
At the end of the day we have a business to run
HRZone, I am honestly curious about this because I have never turned someone away from orientation for this reason. I probably wouldn't, considering it relates to ADA
I can't tell you how many times people show up without their required documents or expired documents! I tell them during the job offer, I write a comment in the orientation email and I remind them one more time when I call them the day before the Orientation! That is 3 reminders and they still forget or they say I know I was supposed to bring it but I actually lost it during a move a few months ago etc! I even tell them during the job offer that they can not attend orientation if they forget their documents or bring expired documents so I don't get it.
When I went in for my orientation, I was given paperwork to sign and given a quick, simple tour. It was less than 30 minutes altogether, and would have been even shorter had the other person not shown up 15 minutes late.
Just want to know what it means and why it was used. Thank You.Is that what you really took from that comment?
It's another way of saying "should have".Just want to know what it means and why it was used. Thank You.
So, here’s the thing. Its not another way of saying “should have”.”should of”actually means nothing.” Shoulda” I am ok with. Like it can be slang. A short way of saying/typing “ should’ve”. But, to actually type “should of”. Like you are typing “should” hitting the space bar and then typing “of” . “Should of”.It's another way of saying "should have".
Irl a lot of people say "shoulda" which sounds like "should of" so people tend to type it that way when speaking casually
I've got one like this. Pretty sure she's just sitting on the paperwork until they corrective action her entitled lazy behind... I hope they get around it.My thing is was the disability made known to HR ahead of time? I can help that.
Unfortunately I have heard too many people not let us know about "disability" until it gets them in trouble.
My thing is was the disability made known to HR ahead of time? I can help that.
Unfortunately I have heard too many people not let us know about "disability" until it gets them in trouble.
At the risk of sounding like a huge asshole here, I'm going to come out and say a few things.
Assuming there's no huge disability here (they mentally capable, just a processing thing), and full disclosure, I only read the first two pages, the store made the right call.
At 17 and 25 they are not children, they're adults. As adults they should understand the need to ask for clarification when exact details are not specified. As adults they should be able to call the store, speak to someone, and clear this up on their own. Doing all of them for them isn't helping them at all. They're going to encounter things like this their entire lives, they need to learn how to deal with situations on their own.
Again, if there is a severe disability or something I missed, then it's irrelevant. But at 17, and certainly at 25, your parents should not be trying to resolve this situation for you.
Also, you seem very well spoken and level headed, so it may be that I'm misunderstanding the situation.
So instead of taking my answer, like you asked for, you instead try to turn it into a grammar lesson for something that has no meaning? You know what else is commonly used in modern English? "Ain't" You try to correct everyone on the use of they too? Should of has been used since around 1820 so your lesson falls on deaf ears. Everyone knows the difference. Not everyone caresSo, here’s the thing. Its not another way of saying “should have”.”should of”actually means nothing.” Shoulda” I am ok with. Like it can be slang. A short way of saying/typing “ should’ve”. But, to actually type “should of”. Like you are typing “should” hitting the space bar and then typing “of” . “Should of”.
Thats not a different way if saying “should have”. Thats just wrong.... in so,so many ways.
Note:- none of this was intended to offend you. If i did offend you, i am sorry.
🙂 Ok buddy, just cause its been used since 1820, does not make it right or correct. My point went over your head. So I’ll put it in simple terms. To say that should of and should have are the same is stupid. It’s incorrect. You are trying to justify something that is false. Instead of just saying “ oh haha, I meant “should have”, you went and did a google search to justify your use of a meaningless phrase. Just admit to the mistake you made , we all make mistakes.I hope this was not only just a lesson in the correct use of “should have” but also a lesson in accepting your short comings and owning up to them.So instead of taking my answer, like you asked for, you instead try to turn it into a grammar lesson for something that has no meaning? You know what else is commonly used in modern English? "Ain't" You try to correct everyone on the use of they too? Should of has been used since around 1820 so your lesson falls on deaf ears. Everyone knows the difference. Not everyone cares
So, here’s the thing. Its not another way of saying “should have”.”should of”actually means nothing.” Shoulda” I am ok with. Like it can be slang. A short way of saying/typing “ should’ve”. But, to actually type “should of”. Like you are typing “should” hitting the space bar and then typing “of” . “Should of”.
Thats not a different way if saying “should have”. Thats just wrong.... in so,so many ways.
Note:- none of this was intended to offend you. If i did offend you, i am sorry.
I don't quite understand. Why would they think they need to ask for clarification if they thought that the hours given were a window and not a duration? It seems like they weren't confused by what was said, they just interpreted it "wrong" -- and I put that in quotes because I believe the burden should be on the HRTM/TL to make sure they're giving statements that can't be misinterpreted in such a way.
Many times I've had appointments for things and been told to come in "between X and Y", and each and every time that's meant I can literally come in between X and Y -- not that I should come in at X and leave at Y. So it's entirely reasonable for the two to have believed that to be the case here.