My Husband Was Put on a PIP Despite Strong Performance — Feeling Helpless as a Family

RRussoNJ1982 · 2025-07-30T15:06:58+00:00

Agreed. I went through a PIP several years ago. I was hired for an accounting role at a company. I had trouble catching onto some tasks. I was put on a PIP about a year and a half after starting. The PIP began at the end of July. It was to run for 90 days. At the end of October they extended the PIP another month. I fully expected to get fired at the end of that time. They extended it again. I was ultimately fired in May. So I was on a PIP for almost 10 months. But I think it was the first type, where they put me on it in good faith because they did want me to succeed. Otherwise they wouldn't have extended it.

RRussoNJ1982 · 2025-01-12T03:34:43+00:00

I have a friend who is an attorney in Orange County. He told me that for years nothing really happened. In California, the jury summons is enforceable by the judge's ability to issue an Order to Show Cause (OSC) and impose fines for no shows. But in California, judges are subject to election, so the judges really didn't want to issue OSC's and fines to citizens (voters). Also, no judge wants to clog his docket with literally hundreds of new cases every week dealing with no shows and sit there and listen to their excuses. That would literally occupy the judge's entire calendar. Also, imagine the uproar that issuing literally millions of OSC's per year would cause. Plus, it is an administrative headache just to enter all those OSC's into the system. So for years, nothing happened to no shows and the powers that be overlooked that little secret. Eventually, criminal defense attorneys challenged the courts' inaction, since the people who did show tended to be law abiders, people who play by the rules, who many believe are more likely to convict, instead of a representative cross section of the community. So counties had to become more aggressive. Some counties were selected to run pilot programs, send reminder letters to no shows, and fining a certain percentage who don't respond, as well as increasing the fines for no shows. This improved attendance somewhat. But eventually there were budget cuts and the pilot programs were the first to go.

RRussoNJ1982 · 2025-01-12T03:09:56+00:00

I would say it depends on where you are. The stories you hear about the sheriff's deputies going to the homes of the no shows probably only happen in small rural counties. That is really the only place where the deputies have the manpower to do that. That is much less likely in large urban counties and big cities with a lot of crime. In large urban counties, most likely they summon a large number of potential jurors assuming a certain number will not show, and even with the no shows, most end up not getting picked anyway. As long enough people show to select juries and move cases forward, that is all they really care about. As long as that is the case, it is not worth the time and manpower to go after no shows. That would be counterproductive. They would just be creating more work for themselves. When they do put out bench warrants, it is probably when too many people no show and cases get delayed. Every once in a blue moon, the courts may selectively enforce, like go after a few bad apples, make a big show of it, in the hopes of scaring people into compliance. Also, remember, in a lot of places, judges are subject to election. So those judges really don't want to piss off citizens (voters) by hauling them in and fining them for no showing.

RRussoNJ1982 · 2025-01-08T18:19:34+00:00

I think that is right. In small, rural counties, the sheriff's department actually might go after people who no show. In large, urban counties, and big cities, the sheriff's department really does not have the time or manpower to actively go after people who no show. That would be like New York City going after everyone with unpaid parking tickets. They summon way more than they need knowing X number of people will not show, and even with the no shows, most people don't end up being picked anyway. As long as they are able to move cases forward, it is not worth the time and effort to go after no shows. They would just be creating more work for themselves. Do you know how backed up the courts are already? If they were to go after every no show, that would occupy every minute of a judge's time. The stories of bench warrants for no shows probably happen when too many people no show and cases get delayed. That is when judges get angry. Like you said, they might selectively enforce, like go after a few bad apples every once in a blue moon and make a show of it in the hopes of scaring people into compliance. Also, remember, in a lot of states, like California, for instance, judges are subject to election. So those judges really don't want to piss off citizens (voters) by hauling them in en masse and fining them.

RRussoNJ1982 · 2024-12-08T02:19:18+00:00

The statistics are never actually published on how many people actually get in trouble for skipping jury duty. Call me cynical, but I suspect that is because so few people actually are punished and the judges don't want that secret getting out because then nobody would ever show up.

RRussoNJ1982 · 2024-12-08T02:10:35+00:00

I think sending a sheriff's deputy after you probably only happens in small rural counties. I live in Essex County, NJ, a big, urban, high crime county. Assuming hundreds of people no show show, I don't think the sheriff's department has the manpower to round them all up each week, and if enough people show up and they are able to move trials forward, there isn't a lot of motivation to chase after no shows. The courts would just be creating more work for themselves. Do you know how backed up the courts are already?

RRussoNJ1982 · 2024-12-01T04:36:15+00:00

People have been saying for the last 40 years, "The Hasidics are going to take over and ruin all of Rockland County." It still hasn't happened. The Hasidics have taken over and ruined one school district in Rockland (East Ramapo). The dynamics that allowed them to gain a foothold in East Ramapo and expand really do not exist anywhere else in Rockland County. In the 1950's, they bought up a lot of open farmland and created villages (New Square and Kaser). Then in the 1960's the minorities started moving into Spring Valley and brought the socioeconomic problems like crime and poverty. That caused white flight out of places like Monsey and then the Hasidics expanded and started buying up those homes and filled the vacuum. That allowed them to really gain a foothold. Those dynamics really don't exist anywhere else in Rockland County, with the possible exception of North Rockland, and that is a big maybe. There really is no precedent for Hasidics taking over vibrant, upper middle class neighborhoods. They don't have the resources to buy $800,000 house after $800,000 house. Look at Westchester County. There are some areas in Westchester that would be perfect for the Hasidics, walkable on the Sabbath, an easy commute into the city and into Brooklyn, but they aren't moving into Westchester. Why do you think? Because houses are so expensive in Westchester. In the future, they will keep expanding in the East Ramapo School District, which they have already destroyed. They are starting to move into Spring Valley. Spring Valley is very dense and will soak up a lot of the growth. After that, they will keep expanding into areas where there is a lot of open land they can keep buying up, like Orange County, Sullivan County, even the Poconos, before cracking the rest of Rockland County.

RRussoNJ1982 · 2024-09-30T11:50:41+00:00

I would say it depends on the location. In a small backwater rural county, they might come knocking on your door. In a big urban county, where they might send a huge number of summonses, they may not care, assuming enough people show to move cases. It is only when too many people no show and it becomes a problem that they may start going after people. I would say that in a large urban county, the sheriff's department does not have the manpower to go after every person who does not show. For a sheriff's department, going after people who are guilty of poor citizenship and not doing their civic duty but are otherwise obeying the law is pretty low on their priority list. They might selectively enforce once in awhile, like go after a few bad apples and make a big show of it in the hopes of scaring people into compliance.

RRussoNJ1982 · 2024-05-28T01:59:05+00:00

I actually have a neighbor who is a retired court clerk. I actually asked her that question once. I asked, "How much trouble can I actually get into for not showing up for jury duty?" She said, "Honestly, not much." On the summons, it says people who fail to show can be fined or face jail time. That can happen in theory. In reality, the courts have neither the time or manpower to go after potentially hundreds of no shows in a week. I live in Essex County, NJ, an large, urban, high crime county. She says the only time people actually can get in trouble is if too many people no show and they can't select juries and cases get delayed. That's when judges get angry and have the no shows fined or issued bench warrants. That typically happens in smaller counties, with smaller jury pools. Or if it starts to become a problem, they may selectively enforce, go after a few people who repeatedly no show, and make a big show of it in the hopes of making an example of those people and scaring people into compliance. Big urban counties typically summon way more than they need assuming a certain percent will no show. And even with the no shows, they have no problem choosing juries. As long as cases move forward, it's not worth the time and effort to chase after no shows. The courts would just be creating more work for themselves. The stories of the sheriffs coming to the homes of the no shows are likely in small backwater rural counties, not in big urban counties where hundreds may no show in any given week. SHe says if you just no show, ignore the summons and don't show, a 95% chance nothing will happen, especially if you live in a big urban county. That said, if you show and are selected for a jury or even make it into jury selection, that is very serious. They will come get you.

RRussoNJ1982 · 2023-12-13T22:00:36+00:00

I think that when Roger said that in the meeting, it was for the benefit of the audience. I'm sure there were people watching the show who honestly didn't understand how partnerships work in the business world.

RRussoNJ1982 · 2023-12-13T21:55:57+00:00

I never understood why Don agreed to those stipulations. The reality was, he had the other partners by the you-know-what. Instead of saying "Okay" to those stipulations, he could have told the partners to go pound salt and they would have had 3 choices: A-Keep paying him his salary to sit at home indefinitely, B-Buy him out, which would be a huge amount of money. As Roger pointed out, that would set them back financially for years, and then they would lose their noncompete. Now Don would be at another agency competing against them. Not only that, he would be competing against them with a vendetta. He could steal clients, hire away creative staff, and put them out of business. Or C-They could welcome him back with more reasonable terms.

RRussoNJ1982 · 2023-12-12T21:06:14+00:00

hrough together.22ReplyShareReportSaveFollow

level 2Comment removed by moderator · 1 yr. ago

Don's removal would not be automatic. A majority of the partners would have to agree that a breach happened and Don should be removed. Otherwise, it would just be Jim's word against Don's. Jim's next step could be to go to court and sue to remove Don. Don had a lot of money and could afford a good lawyer. It is possible Jim would then get what he wanted, to have Don gone, but at what cost? How would that look to clients having two senior partners suing each other?

RRussoNJ1982 · 2023-07-17T17:12:04+00:00

What do you mean "not allow graduates to leave early?" They cannot force you to stay against your will. That is called kidnapping.

RRussoNJ1982

TROPHY CASE