LIMA, OH – August 15, 2025 — A local temporary employee working through Staffmark’s Lima office is raising concerns about transparency and policy enforcement after being penalized for missing a scheduled shift due to a dentist appointment — despite giving three days’ notice.
The worker, who began their assignment at Alpla on Friday, August 8, 2025, said they disclosed the upcoming August 13 appointment via text message on Sunday, August 10 — three days in advance. The absence, however, was still marked against them. In two phone calls recorded on August 15, a Staffmark representative stated the absence would count against the worker’s attendance record, citing a failure to disclose the appointment prior to accepting the job.
“May I ask why you didn’t disclose your appointment before accepting the job offer?” the recruiter asked in the second call.
“I don’t know, but I believe I did it within a reasonable time,” the worker replied.
No Written Policy Cited
During both phone conversations, which were legally recorded under Ohio’s one-party consent law, the recruiter acknowledged there was no written rule requiring disclosure of all appointments before accepting an assignment.
“You haven’t signed anything except your new-hire paperwork,” the recruiter admitted.
“Where is the paper that I signed that says I can’t have an absence within the first 30 days?” the worker asked.
“There is no rule like that,” the recruiter responded.
Despite this admission, the recruiter maintained that the absence would be penalized because, in her words, “That’s just how any job works,” and “It is your responsibility to inform us before accepting a shift.”
The worker pushed back on this assertion, stating that in their experience, “95% of jobs I’ve ever worked excused medical appointments if notice was given.” They also repeatedly requested copies of any signed documentation or attendance policies, which the recruiter declined to provide.
Key Dates in the Dispute
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 8 | Worker begins assignment through Staffmark |
| August 10 | Notifies Staffmark via message of August 13 dental appointment |
| August 13 | Scheduled appointment date (absence) |
| August 15 | Two phone calls recorded between worker and Staffmark |
Conflicting Justifications
Throughout the second call, the recruiter argued that the worker’s notice was invalid because it came after the assignment had already begun.
“Three days in advance you didn’t know you had the job,” the recruiter said. “You should’ve told us on August 8, the day you started.”
However, this reasoning contradicts the agency’s earlier statement that notice before an appointment is acceptable — and also raises questions about why no expectations were clearly outlined before the start date.
When asked why this crucial information wasn’t disclosed during onboarding or included in the paperwork, the recruiter replied:
“We’re not going to pretend we have written notices… you should’ve known.”
Worker Response: “This Is Going Public”
Frustrated by the agency’s refusal to provide documentation or acknowledge the lack of prior disclosure, the worker identified themselves at the end of the second call as an independent journalist.
“Unfortunately, I’m an independent journalist, and this is going in my story. I’m exercising my First Amendment right,” the caller stated calmly.
The recruiter ended the call immediately after, saying: “Okay, thank you for sharing that. Have a great day.”
Wider Implications for Workers
This incident raises broader questions about whether temporary staffing agencies are fully transparent with workers during onboarding — especially when attendance expectations can affect permanent hire opportunities.
“Most people would never assume a dentist appointment with advance notice could cost them points,” the worker later said in an interview. “But when policies are hidden or undocumented, they’re weaponized after the fact.”
The worker’s full call transcripts and documentation have been retained for public reference. At the time of this publication, Staffmark has not responded to further inquiries regarding the absence policy or why written disclosure was not provided.
Conclusion
While the penalty in this case is described as “just a point,” the story underscores a growing frustration among temp workers — who often walk into assignments with unclear expectations, vague verbal agreements, and little recourse when penalized.
For this Lima worker, the experience is now being turned into a public story, with a commitment to making sure others don’t go through the same confusion.
“I’m not a machine,” they said. “And I’m not a slave. I went to the doctor, I gave notice, and I won’t be quiet about it.”
Editor’s Note:
This article is part of LimaVoices.com’s ongoing coverage of worker treatment, transparency, and labor practices in Ohio. If you’ve had a similar experience or want to share your story, you can contact us anonymously through our submission form.
Pingback: Fired After Speaking Out: Temp Worker Loses Job Days After Publishing Article on Staffing Practices - Lima Voices | Local News, Investigations & Stories From Lima, Ohio