Job Not as Advertised

[TheGeekess]

Thanks. I don;t want to quit as I would not receive unemployment. If I'm fired, am I eligible for unemployment?

Depends. You're not performing NOW up to their standards.

 

[1_big_dude]

With this response I have a hypothetical question (thread hijack warning!); Girl is hired for an advertised "Door Girl" position at a local strip club (a fully clothed position). Manager decides he doesn't need a door girl and instead needs another dancer (fully unclothed position). Employee says no way to dancing because that wasn't what she was hired for and is then fired for insubordination. You're saying this is completely legal?

Or...in staying with the hypothetical and the medical...if a hospital hired a secretary and then put her in charge of thoracic surgery, that'd be fine as well?

 

[Proserpina]

Or...in staying with the hypothetical and the medical...if a hospital hired a secretary and then put her in charge of thoracic surgery, that'd be fine as well?

Quit being obtuse. You KNOW that isn't the same thing at all.

 

[justalayman]

Not at all. The work with media (press releases and supporting collateral) is hardly fluff work. It takes time to interview people, being up-to-date on news trends, finding the right journalist, lots of research to answer questions. No fluff work at all.

to me, that is fluff work, at least when compared to the actual work of creating a publication. Interviews? A lot of talking and a lot of non-defined "research" as opposed to actually producing a tangible product such as creating a publication.

 

[RRevak]

Or...in staying with the hypothetical and the medical...if a hospital hired a secretary and then put her in charge of thoracic surgery, that'd be fine as well?

This is a poor analogy since surgeon requires a medical license and secretarial work does not.

 

[1_big_dude]

to me, that is fluff work, at least when compared to the actual work of creating a publication. Interviews? A lot of talking and a lot of non-defined "research" as opposed to actually producing a tangible product such as creating a publication.

I take it that you have never done this type of work; it's hardly fluff. My efforts with media are measured by the dollar amount of publicity I generate; it's in the tens of thousands each month.

 

[1_big_dude]

This is a poor analogy since surgeon requires a medical license and secretarial work does not.

LOL! OK; let's say a secretary was hired to do secretarial work but instead is forced to do mechanical work on the employer's automobile fleet. Can she be fired then?

 

[anearthw]

Job duties do not remain set in stone. Imagine all those typists who had to learn a computer?

Your recourse is to adapt or find new employment. Your employer was under no legal obligation ensure to the advertisement and job description matched forever.

The only thing you have recorded is that your employer is making a decision based on common business sense.

 

[anearthw]

LOL! OK; let's say a secretary was hired to do secretarial work but instead is forced to do mechanical work on the employer's automobile fleet. Can she be fired then?

If it's not illegal - it's legal. An employer can fire an employee for nearly all reasons, with very few exceptions.

 

[1_big_dude]

If it's not illegal - it's legal. An employer can fire an employee for nearly all reasons, with very few exceptions.

Thank you all very much. You've all been most helpful. Merry Christmas!!

 

[cbg]

Yes. A secretary who is forced to do mechanical work can be fired. And so can the hypothetical dancer. And yes, it would be legal in both cases.

That is not to say that they would not both qualify for UI - they would. But it would be legal.

If either of you disagrees with me, then please feel free to find me a law that says an employer is barred from making changes to the job descriptions. In any US state. I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Are we done with the hypotheticals now?

As for the question about UI for the OP, poor performance is rarely a disqualifier for benefits. The employer would need to show evidence that you were deliberately underperforming and could have performed to standard if you'd chosen to. How hard they would try to show this and whether or not they would be successful is not for me to say.

 

[justalayman]

I take it that you have never done this type of work; it's hardly fluff. My efforts with media are measured by the dollar amount of publicity I generate; it's in the tens of thousands each month.

apparently not at this employer

I said it is fluff, comparatively, but beyond that, the $$$ generated does not have anything to do with it.

LOL! OK; let's say a secretary was hired to do secretarial work but instead is forced to do mechanical work on the employer's automobile fleet. Can she be fired then?

are you suggesting you are not capable of performing part of your job duties? That is what your analogy suggests:


secretary= media

mechanic= publications

If you are not qualified to do part of your duties, you can be fired and it would be righteous.


and yes, she could be fired. She would likely receive UI if qualified otherwise just as you would likely be eligible for UI if otherwise qualified.

 

[1_big_dude]

Yes. A secretary who is forced to do mechanical work can be fired. And so can the hypothetical dancer. And yes, it would be legal in both cases.

That is not to say that they would not both qualify for UI - they would. But it would be legal.

If either of you disagrees with me, then please feel free to find me a law that says an employer is barred from making changes to the job descriptions. In any US state. I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

Are we done with the hypotheticals now?

As for the question about UI for the OP, poor performance is rarely a disqualifier for benefits. The employer would need to show evidence that you were deliberately underperforming and could have performed to standard if you'd chosen to. How hard they would try to show this and whether or not they would be successful is not for me to say.

Thank you, CBG for a reasoned response with no snarkiness included. You are what this board should be like! Thanks again!

 

[Ohiogal]

Thank you, CBG for a reasoned response with no snarkiness included. You are what this board should be like! Thanks again!

There was no snarkiness in my response either. The fact that you saw some is YOUR issue.

 

[justalayman]

There was no snarkiness in my response either. The fact that you saw some is YOUR issue.

I'm starting to see why OP's employer doesn't want him to be the "voice of the hospital". With his communications skills he is more likely to lose them 10's of thousands of $$ than to bring it in.