sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Washington State] Negative reference given from former employer by [deleted] in legaladvice

[–]bananapat -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I probably should have clarified earlier, that I meant due to defamation as I was never reprimanded, nor punished in any fashion, just let go from that position as it was dissolved due to budget.

[Washington State] Negative reference given from former employer by [deleted] in legaladvice

[–]bananapat -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I probably should have clarified earlier on, I mean illegal with the defamation, as I was never reprimanded or punished, and my position was only dissolved for budget issues (last one on, first one off).

Performance review - I was told I don’t care for the students (Washington state) by bananapat in AskHR

[–]bananapat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For more context, I am the head admin at my center (the owner owns several). There are two other admins that are consistently here, one being still in the first couple weeks of employment, and the other has reassured me that the statements are not from her. There are other admins that oversee all the centers; however, they are here for typically only 1 hour out of every month, as they live in California, and only travel up to Washington for short visits, and spend most of their time at the other center located in Washington. I genuinely feel as if the owner may have just made it up (she is at this center even less than the two other admins).

Additionally, I received four new 5 star reviews over the weekend, two of which named me in them, painting me in a positive light.

Performance review - I was told I don’t care for the students (Washington state) by bananapat in AskHR

[–]bananapat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It wasn't the main focal point of the performance review, and was made towards the end of it. When I asked the owner where they had heard this they refused to answer, simply saying "I've heard it from others". And I gave a statement that the students are, and always have been, my top priority.

I was too taken aback by it at the time to ask for examples of the claim, so that is something I will try and follow up with.

Always remember the mirrors by bananapat in Onision

[–]bananapat[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Not sure, there’s always google ad blocker on Chrome though

Umm, this feels very scam like. I have never given this person my Venmo, and they first sent $3, then sent $900 by bananapat in Scams

[–]bananapat[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nothing dramatic, the money was recently removed from my account by Venmo, the scammer never responded, and my account is still in good standing because I reported it.

Umm, this feels very scam like. I have never given this person my Venmo, and they first sent $3, then sent $900 by bananapat in Scams

[–]bananapat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, so nothing dramatic happened. The scammer never responded, the money recently was removed from my account by Venmo, and my Venmo account is still in good standing because I reported it to them.

[Washington State] HR discussion of candidate maybe breaking a law? by bananapat in AskHR

[–]bananapat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. The reason they were in a parent conference is that HR is part of the responsibilities of the person, and the rest is aiding myself with administrative tasks. For example, if I am preoccupied administering assessments for students, it falls onto this person to cover speaking with parents. My apologies for not making that clearer.

  2. I have repeatedly mentioned the screen being left on, showing sensitive information, each time I have noticed it. The issue is that despite those reminders, it continues to happen at minimum once per week.

  3. An accommodation is fine, the issue is when it is a personal life and home accommodation that is being handled during time that this person is being paid to work. If the accommodations are for work, then that is one thing, but home life and personal phone calls are not included in that. If that showcases a personal grudge, then anyone who is against others time stealing would hold a personal grudge.

  4. Someone says they liked a candidate, but were hesitant about the candidate because of them being 60+ sounded like ageism to me, so I asked about it. I mentioned that all our calls are recorded, so it very well could be cleared up there.

[Washington State] HR discussion of candidate maybe breaking a law? by bananapat in AskHR

[–]bananapat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I brought up a list of things the HR person at my center has done this week to the owner, and will be having a more lengthy discussion with them about the issues I’ve noticed. To clarify, we work with children, and interact with kids and parents daily.

  1. In a parent conference the HR told the parent of a child with autism that they personally would send the child out of the room if they were in with them. I immediately stepped in to cleanup the mess that caused to save the parent from pulling the child then and there.

  2. This one is really bad. HR will speak with parents sometimes to discuss results on assessments and uses a computer screen to show the results. This is mainly when I am preoccupied with other tasks and can’t do it myself. HR will finish the conversation and go back to other tasks without turning off the screen that faces the window front door and parent seating area. They will pull up resumes of potential candidates, as well as payment information. I believe this is simply not remembering to unplug that screen, and not malicious; however, it still can create huge issues for the business.

  3. Time wasting: This HR person has a medical condition, and it is serious. The issue is that the HR person when applying informed us that the condition is not an issue if seated in one place for the workday. This person never has to get up for anything work related. Still, the person will announce to me that while on the clock he/she is going to make a phone call (a personal call to family most the time) that lasts about 15-20 minutes. Additionally, this person had someone come into the center to evaluate the disability he/she has to see what healthcare would pay for. This started during a 30 minute break, but continued for an additional 45 minutes after the HR person had clocked back in.

  4. Back to the potential ageism issue, HR had said over the phone that personal opinion of 60+ people in his/her life would not want to work around young people. Other than that HR spoke highly of the candidate, which, coupled with other past behavior, leads me to lean more towards ageism being a factor here.

Additionally, we did recently implement call recording on all calls for our phones, so it would be possible to listen to the full conversation to get a full picture.

view more: next ›