5 ms·

Well - you deliver 40 for the week and be gone. Not that hard. At 1800 you leave office. There is nothing your boss can tell you.

lordnacho 11y ago
When they decide to fire you, the real reason is never said. They'll just think of some BS and you'll be out the door.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  Exactly. In most states companies can fire you for any reason, or even no reason. And if there is a reason, they aren't obligated to disclose it.
  - kabdib 11y ago
    And let's not forget that Washington does not forbid non-compete agreements.
  - imgabe 11y ago
    Except when you're fired without cause, you can collect unemployment, which costs the company money. So they usually either need cause - which means documenting poor performance for several months - or they have to gain more money than unemployment costs by letting you go i.e. layoffs. If you're creating value for the company, even if it's not the extreme 80 hours per week value they want, it still makes more financial sense to keep you. Yes, we have at-will employment, blah blah. It's no reason to be a pushover. If you're skilled enough to get a job at a place like Amazon, there's plenty of less insane places you could probably work.
    - VikingCoder 11y ago
      We're moving you from a level 6 engineer to a level 3 engineer, with reduced pay and benefits. We don't think you're contributing at the level we hired you at. Your job has also been relocated to ISIS-controlled territory in Syria. And you need to learn COBOL. And your job now requires 85% time travel on small, yellow, inflatable boats that leak somewhat.
      - imgabe 11y ago
        Eh, paid time to learn COBOL, then leave for a cushy job maintaining legacy bank systems. OSHA will definitely have some questions about why programming for a web retailer requires travelling on leaky inflatable boats.
        VikingCoder 11y ago
        OSHA. In Syria. Right.
        imgabe 11y ago
        I ignored that part because it's plainly hyperbole. There are no commercial flights to Syria at this time, as there generally aren't to any active war zone. Even if a company wanted to send an employee there, they couldn't. Plus it's not going to look good when you bring up the email ordering you to go to a war zone where the company has no business interests or even an active office during your wrongful termination suit. So, obviously, that was an exaggeration for effect, yes? If you want to keep coming up with excuses for why employees need to put up with bullshit from companies, by all means, knock yourself out. The more suckers there are taking the shit jobs, the less competition there is for the better jobs.
        VikingCoder 11y ago
        > Even if a company wanted to send an employee there, they couldn't. You don't need a commercial flight to go somewhere. Don't fight something you think is hyperbole with hyperbole. > If you want to keep coming up with excuses for why employees need to put up with bullshit from companies Slow down. I'm documenting the kind of BS companies pull. I'm not endorsing it. My mom was essentially fired for having cancer. It was done very creatively and legally.
        imgabe 11y ago
        > You don't need a commercial flight to go somewhere. Don't fight something you think is hyperbole with hyperbole. Are you seriously contending that sending an employee into an active war zone is something an actual employer [1] is actually capable of doing? Since you're documenting BS companies pull, care to provide any documentation of something like that actually happening? Whatever Amazon is like, I'm pretty sure they're not going to go to the trouble of flying someone halfway around the world and arranging transport into a war zone just because they went home at 5pm. Yes, companies pull all kinds of shady shit, but they're not gods. There are laws, and failing that, public shaming. If you act powerless, you'll be powerless. [1] Aside from the military, or a defense contractor, or other company where employees would be aware that such an assignment is a possible requirement of their employment.

lordnacho 11y ago

When they decide to fire you, the real reason is never said. They'll just think of some BS and you'll be out the door.

enraged_camel 11y ago
Exactly. In most states companies can fire you for any reason, or even no reason. And if there is a reason, they aren't obligated to disclose it.
- kabdib 11y ago
  And let's not forget that Washington does not forbid non-compete agreements.
- imgabe 11y ago
  Except when you're fired without cause, you can collect unemployment, which costs the company money. So they usually either need cause - which means documenting poor performance for several months - or they have to gain more money than unemployment costs by letting you go i.e. layoffs. If you're creating value for the company, even if it's not the extreme 80 hours per week value they want, it still makes more financial sense to keep you. Yes, we have at-will employment, blah blah. It's no reason to be a pushover. If you're skilled enough to get a job at a place like Amazon, there's plenty of less insane places you could probably work.
  - VikingCoder 11y ago
    We're moving you from a level 6 engineer to a level 3 engineer, with reduced pay and benefits. We don't think you're contributing at the level we hired you at. Your job has also been relocated to ISIS-controlled territory in Syria. And you need to learn COBOL. And your job now requires 85% time travel on small, yellow, inflatable boats that leak somewhat.
    - imgabe 11y ago
      Eh, paid time to learn COBOL, then leave for a cushy job maintaining legacy bank systems. OSHA will definitely have some questions about why programming for a web retailer requires travelling on leaky inflatable boats.
      - VikingCoder 11y ago
        OSHA. In Syria. Right.
        imgabe 11y ago
        I ignored that part because it's plainly hyperbole. There are no commercial flights to Syria at this time, as there generally aren't to any active war zone. Even if a company wanted to send an employee there, they couldn't. Plus it's not going to look good when you bring up the email ordering you to go to a war zone where the company has no business interests or even an active office during your wrongful termination suit. So, obviously, that was an exaggeration for effect, yes? If you want to keep coming up with excuses for why employees need to put up with bullshit from companies, by all means, knock yourself out. The more suckers there are taking the shit jobs, the less competition there is for the better jobs.
        VikingCoder 11y ago
        > Even if a company wanted to send an employee there, they couldn't. You don't need a commercial flight to go somewhere. Don't fight something you think is hyperbole with hyperbole. > If you want to keep coming up with excuses for why employees need to put up with bullshit from companies Slow down. I'm documenting the kind of BS companies pull. I'm not endorsing it. My mom was essentially fired for having cancer. It was done very creatively and legally.
        imgabe 11y ago
        > You don't need a commercial flight to go somewhere. Don't fight something you think is hyperbole with hyperbole. Are you seriously contending that sending an employee into an active war zone is something an actual employer [1] is actually capable of doing? Since you're documenting BS companies pull, care to provide any documentation of something like that actually happening? Whatever Amazon is like, I'm pretty sure they're not going to go to the trouble of flying someone halfway around the world and arranging transport into a war zone just because they went home at 5pm. Yes, companies pull all kinds of shady shit, but they're not gods. There are laws, and failing that, public shaming. If you act powerless, you'll be powerless. [1] Aside from the military, or a defense contractor, or other company where employees would be aware that such an assignment is a possible requirement of their employment.