Lab West Upper Management?

Quote






























These next 2 copied posts are a must read:: FLORIDA EMPLOYEE'S TESTIFYING IN A FEDERAL CASE-THIS IS FOR YOU!
I read the legals this whole thing is a bunch of BS.

For those of you interested here is the scoop:

MB claims she was sexually harrassed by two of the Managers. However it's just her word aganist theirs. She thinks by dragging this out and having her "friends" post propaganda like we have seen on this thread that she will wear down Labcorp and get a big settlement.
She's pointing fingers at everyone but at the end of the day she has nothing.
Reply With Quote
 






Anonymous said:
These next 2 copied posts are a must read:: FLORIDA EMPLOYEE'S TESTIFYING IN A FEDERAL CASE-THIS IS FOR YOU!
I read the legals this whole thing is a bunch of BS.

For those of you interested here is the scoop:

MB claims she was sexually harrassed by two of the Managers. However it's just her word aganist theirs. She thinks by dragging this out and having her "friends" post propaganda like we have seen on this thread that she will wear down Labcorp and get a big settlement.
She's pointing fingers at everyone but at the end of the day she has nothing.
Reply With Quote
Click to expand...

Actually, that's false. People with experience and knowledge of employment law should comment on factual claims, not those with established prejudice or bias for one side or the other. If you indeed read the case file, LCA has asked for extensions three times, two of which were granted entirely and one in part. MB has not. Who's dragging the case? Evidence speaks for itself. An average EEO case takes 3-5 years for full litigation including appellate rulings.

As far as sexual harassment, there is no mention of such a claim in the complaint. There are three different claims for relief in the complaint, all with different implications: Gender Discrimination under EEO, Whistleblower Protection under Florida Civil Rights Act, and Failure to Pay Required Benefits; which is a civil matter stemming from LCA's acquisition of Dynacare under the Predecessor/Successor rule. There are other minor claims, but the above highlights the major issues.

In answer to the question, suits like these go forward because uneducated and incompetent individuals are unable or unwilling to address employment-related issues as they arise. Instead, they allow feelings to fester, whether they are justified or not, and then explode on-stage in the form of lawsuits. Human Resources, in most organizations I have consulted for, plays a prominent role in keeping companies out of litigation. They are experts in the field of Labor Management and are usually empowered with the ability to place the calm hand on the shoulders of management and employees. LCA's Human Resources Policy follows a unitary theory of management, with virtually no oversight by HR, Corporate, or internal departments (Operations, Sales, etc).

Favorable rulings for employees who have been slighted by their employers are going to be the norm, not the exception. ADR, Mediation, and Arbitration are less costly and more private. They are becoming the de-facto preference for employment-related disputes.

This case hasn't even proceeded to Summary Judgement yet. Based strictly on the interpretation of disclosed facts in the case file, it is doubtful LCA will prevail on a summary judgement motion. Most companies settle when SJ's are denied as not much can be done to prevent a jury trial afterward. Until then, it's a tug of war.
Reply With Quote
 






Anonymous said:
These next 2 copied posts are a must read:: FLORIDA EMPLOYEE'S TESTIFYING IN A FEDERAL CASE-THIS IS FOR YOU!
I read the legals this whole thing is a bunch of BS.


Actually, that's false. People with experience and knowledge of employment law should comment on factual claims, not those with established prejudice or bias for one side or the other. If you indeed read the case file, LCA has asked for extensions three times, two of which were granted entirely and one in part. MB has not. Who's dragging the case? Evidence speaks for itself. An average EEO case takes 3-5 years for full litigation including appellate rulings.

As far as sexual harassment, there is no mention of such a claim in the complaint. There are three different claims for relief in the complaint, all with different implications: Gender Discrimination under EEO, Whistleblower Protection under Florida Civil Rights Act, and Failure to Pay Required Benefits; which is a civil matter stemming from LCA's acquisition of Dynacare under the Predecessor/Successor rule. There are other minor claims, but the above highlights the major issues.

In answer to the question, suits like these go forward because uneducated and incompetent individuals are unable or unwilling to address employment-related issues as they arise. Instead, they allow feelings to fester, whether they are justified or not, and then explode on-stage in the form of lawsuits. Human Resources, in most organizations I have consulted for, plays a prominent role in keeping companies out of litigation. They are experts in the field of Labor Management and are usually empowered with the ability to place the calm hand on the shoulders of management and employees. LCA's Human Resources Policy follows a unitary theory of management, with virtually no oversight by HR, Corporate, or internal departments (Operations, Sales, etc).

Favorable rulings for employees who have been slighted by their employers are going to be the norm, not the exception. ADR, Mediation, and Arbitration are less costly and more private. They are becoming the de-facto preference for employment-related disputes.

This case hasn't even proceeded to Summary Judgement yet. Based strictly on the interpretation of disclosed facts in the case file, it is doubtful LCA will prevail on a summary judgement motion. Most companies settle when SJ's are denied as not much can be done to prevent a jury trial afterward. Until then, it's a tug of war.
Reply With Quote
Click to expand...
 












Anonymous said:
Then answer is in the post, Einstein. They use the merger, duplication of job excuse. That would explain what is going on now. Most people don't want to go through the hell of taking m to court. However, they will fk over the wrong person on of these days and get the shyt sued out of them.
Click to expand...

Oops! Looks like someone already has.
 


















Anonymous said:
How do you know this? The over staffing at the other labs make no sense unless that is the plan. To close Monrovia and divide up the work between the two labs. There are laws limiting the number of Paps that a tech can read in a 24 hour period...the equivalent of 80. There are non-gyns, fna's and biopsies to be read, transcribed and reported.
Neither of these labs can handle the volume now without significant sacrifice to TAT. The Monrovia lab might be expensive, but from the outside looking in, it is state of the art. What a waste to throw that away.

What is the real reason for the drop in volume? Mismanaged transition?
Click to expand...

No. The economy, alternate testing options, recommendations from professional organizations, the HPV vaccine etc. Volumes from same clients one year previous are down 30%.
 






I might buy the economy as a partial cause, but the rest, NO. HPV vaccine--You must be dreaming...these same repeat testing rules from professional organizations have been in effect for many years, so no. Ancillary testing, partly. However, the drop was deep and immediately after the transition started. I have gathered from reading some of the other threads that:

It seems this lab has a rep: Mainly that it does not care about maintaining good, experienced employees and so service suffers greatly. The business model relies on contracts rather than service. The lab grows by aquisition,buying labs for their technology and clients, rifing the employees, dismantling what is left and parting it out to the highest bidder. They don't care about the sales force because all they do is babysit the clients that they purchased and were able to contract.
 






Anonymous said:
Is that you, sk?
Click to expand...

Probably not. She is too busy playing cytocop.

Its a new system for everyone. Errors are bound to be made. Instead of informally showing or explaining a mistake to an employee, or having a general employee meeting to show what common errors are being made (as any normal person operating in good faith would ) she documents and files every tiny knit picking error. Same old blame game.

Can she get any pettier? If you sneeze, she would probably insert into her notes the exact time of day of your sneeze, the decibal level, how many times you sneezed and how long each sneeze lasted, if you sprayed saliva from your mouth or failed to cover your nose, etc. Then she would have to report you to higher ups. That would be her duty. After all, there must be some infraction that you just broke. And she will be able to show that she does serve a purpose and she IS working. Talking about anal.

But its ok, because documenting can go both ways.
 






Anonymous said:
Is that you, sk?
Click to expand...

Probably not. She is too busy playing cytocop.

Its a new system for everyone. Errors are bound to be made. Instead of informally showing or explaining a mistake to an employee, or having a general employee meeting to show what common errors are being made (as any normal person operating in good faith would ) she documents and files every tiny knit picking error. Same old blame game.

Can she get any pettier? If you sneeze, she would probably insert into her notes the exact time of day of your sneeze, the decibal level, how many times you sneezed and how long each sneeze lasted, if you sprayed saliva from your mouth or failed to cover your nose, etc. Then she would have to report you to higher ups. That would be her duty. After all, there must be some infraction that you just made. And she will be able to show that she does serve a purpose and she IS working. Talking about anal.

But its ok, because documenting can go both ways.
 
























Anonymous said:
Anonymous said:
These next 2 copied posts are a must read:: FLORIDA EMPLOYEE'S TESTIFYING IN A FEDERAL CASE-THIS IS FOR YOU!
I read the legals this whole thing is a bunch of BS.


Actually, that's false. People with experience and knowledge of employment law should comment on factual claims, not those with established prejudice or bias for one side or the other. If you indeed read the case file, LCA has asked for extensions three times, two of which were granted entirely and one in part. MB has not. Who's dragging the case? Evidence speaks for itself. An average EEO case takes 3-5 years for full litigation including appellate rulings.

As far as sexual harassment, there is no mention of such a claim in the complaint. There are three different claims for relief in the complaint, all with different implications: Gender Discrimination under EEO, Whistleblower Protection under Florida Civil Rights Act, and Failure to Pay Required Benefits; which is a civil matter stemming from LCA's acquisition of Dynacare under the Predecessor/Successor rule. There are other minor claims, but the above highlights the major issues.

In answer to the question, suits like these go forward because uneducated and incompetent individuals are unable or unwilling to address employment-related issues as they arise. Instead, they allow feelings to fester, whether they are justified or not, and then explode on-stage in the form of lawsuits. Human Resources, in most organizations I have consulted for, plays a prominent role in keeping companies out of litigation. They are experts in the field of Labor Management and are usually empowered with the ability to place the calm hand on the shoulders of management and employees. LCA's Human Resources Policy follows a unitary theory of management, with virtually no oversight by HR, Corporate, or internal departments (Operations, Sales, etc).

Favorable rulings for employees who have been slighted by their employers are going to be the norm, not the exception. ADR, Mediation, and Arbitration are less costly and more private. They are becoming the de-facto preference for employment-related disputes.

This case hasn't even proceeded to Summary Judgement yet. Based strictly on the interpretation of disclosed facts in the case file, it is doubtful LCA will prevail on a summary judgement motion. Most companies settle when SJ's are denied as not much can be done to prevent a jury trial afterward. Until then, it's a tug of war.
Reply With Quote
Click to expand...

A very well-written and intelligent opinion. I respect that and believe you. Much better than the morons with their ass and mother retorts.

Let's face it, LabCorp is evil and tries to get away with a lot. It's about time they and other big labs were called on it and exposed for what they are. Stop the underminded crap already and do what you can to make your money honestly and take care of your patients. Why the hell do they think they need private jets and 5 mansions?? Make an honest living and stop trying to star in "American Greed".
Click to expand...
 






Top Bottom
Back
Quote