5 ms·
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
by 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 agoBecause it was cheaper to do so than have to pay lawyers to deal with him.
- RobertoG 9y agoYes, 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 agoWe 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 agoSure, 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 agoI 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...