On 2/1/2014 6:56 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:08:08 PM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/1/14, 5:59 PM, Tim wrote:

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:05:54 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:





What, that we have a country that allows corporations to fire someone



because they get sick? What a wonderful country.





What does the wrong doing of company have to do with this country? Does she not have a legal team working on the situation? The article says she does...





In most more rational western countries, the woman wouldn't have been

fired because she took ill, because her health insurance would not have

been something supplied via her employer. But that's the way we allow it

to be in this country...fired because you got sick and might impact the

company's health insurance premiums. *That* is sick.

If the company is guilty of wrong doing, I'll pretty well imagine that when all is said and done, she'll come out way better ahead than if she was still hired on . Even if she was granted a LOA.


And if the company is found guilty of wrong doing it means it broke a
law and the law was enforced. That means the "country" did not fail
her, as presented by out resident liberal in chief and general
anti-establishment advocate. :-)