41 ms·

>Oh, bonus points, the settlement they got me when my position was made redundant I'm curious why you felt you deserved a settlement just because your employer

>Oh, bonus points, the settlement they got me when my position was made redundant I'm curious why you felt you deserved a settlement just because your employer didn't need you anymore. Did your employer violate relevant laws in your country regarding termination of employment or perhaps violate a contractual obligation on their part that you negotiated when you were hired?

RobertoG 9y ago
Well, it's obvious that he deserved the settlement, otherwise, why the employer pay it? I find that idea, that we hear so frequently, that employees should not extract all the possible value of their employers very uncapitalistic.
- strictnein 9y ago
  Because it was cheaper to do so than have to pay lawyers to deal with him.
  - RobertoG 9y ago
    Yes, my point was that when corporations extract all the possible value of a deal inside the legality, rarely you hear the question of why "they felt that they deserved" it.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      We are constantly questioning whether lawsuits are fair/justified around here. The first that comes to mind are patent trolls. Settlement implies at least the threat of a lawsuit, so it's reasonable to question what a potential lawsuit was about, isn't it?
      - RobertoG 9y ago
        Sure, only that the question was not "what was the dispute about", but: "why you felt you deserved a settlement just because your employer didn't need you anymore. " I read in those words an implied moral position that I wanted to criticize. My excuses if read it wrong.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        I see what you mean. The reason I responded that way was because of the way OP worded their own message: >Oh, bonus points, the settlement they got me when my position was made redundant has paid for the union dues for many years to come. It sounds like he was happy he was able to milk some company out of money just because he got fired. That pinged my frivolous lawsuit radar pretty hard. I would've worded that, "When my employer failed to comply with federal regulations about how to lay me off, my union provided me with a lawyer to help recoup what I was owed." or something to that effect...
edent 9y ago
It's a fair question - and you've got the right answer. In the UK, when you want to make a large number of people then you have to follow a set procedure. My employer did not do that. Then they tried to prevent me taking up a new job via a dubious non-compete. If I didn't have a union provided legal firm working on my behalf, I wouldn't have understood my rights.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  For anyone reading this who happens to live in the US... if something like this happens to you, you can contact the labor board for either your state or the national level one. They handle issues like this all the time and you almost certainly won't have to go through the trouble of seeking out a lawyer.

RobertoG 9y ago

Well, it's obvious that he deserved the settlement, otherwise, why the employer pay it? I find that idea, that we hear so frequently, that employees should not extract all the possible value of their employers very uncapitalistic.

strictnein 9y ago
Because it was cheaper to do so than have to pay lawyers to deal with him.
- RobertoG 9y ago
  Yes, my point was that when corporations extract all the possible value of a deal inside the legality, rarely you hear the question of why "they felt that they deserved" it.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    We are constantly questioning whether lawsuits are fair/justified around here. The first that comes to mind are patent trolls. Settlement implies at least the threat of a lawsuit, so it's reasonable to question what a potential lawsuit was about, isn't it?
    - RobertoG 9y ago
      Sure, only that the question was not "what was the dispute about", but: "why you felt you deserved a settlement just because your employer didn't need you anymore. " I read in those words an implied moral position that I wanted to criticize. My excuses if read it wrong.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        I see what you mean. The reason I responded that way was because of the way OP worded their own message: >Oh, bonus points, the settlement they got me when my position was made redundant has paid for the union dues for many years to come. It sounds like he was happy he was able to milk some company out of money just because he got fired. That pinged my frivolous lawsuit radar pretty hard. I would've worded that, "When my employer failed to comply with federal regulations about how to lay me off, my union provided me with a lawyer to help recoup what I was owed." or something to that effect...

edent 9y ago

It's a fair question - and you've got the right answer. In the UK, when you want to make a large number of people then you have to follow a set procedure. My employer did not do that. Then they tried to prevent me taking up a new job via a dubious non-compete. If I didn't have a union provided legal firm working on my behalf, I wouldn't have understood my rights.

Consultant32452 9y ago
For anyone reading this who happens to live in the US... if something like this happens to you, you can contact the labor board for either your state or the national level one. They handle issues like this all the time and you almost certainly won't have to go through the trouble of seeking out a lawyer.