6 ms·

Well that is gangsta. It's an unlikely coincidence that these three people had poor performance with such timing that led to firing in the same week or two. Y

Well that is gangsta. It's an unlikely coincidence that these three people had poor performance with such timing that led to firing in the same week or two. You gotta space out the firings to give the cover story more plausibility.

pmiller2 7y ago
Three? Last I checked, there were only 2. Has a third person been fired?
- graedus 7y ago
  Yes, it's mentioned in the first reply to the linked tweet. https://twitter.com/taylordotbiz/status/1172260257613123608 https://twitter.com/taylordotbiz/status/1172260257613123608 Last week another member of the organizing committee, @ClarissaRedwine was also fired, and today a third prominent member of the union was told there is no place for him at the company. I stand firm in solidarity with my friends and colleagues.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
paulddraper 7y ago
> give the cover story more plausibility Do they need to? Many employers would rather publicize it: we don't tolerate a union.
- comex 7y ago
  Retaliating against someone for trying to unionize is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as well as New York state law (Kickstarter is headquartered in New York) – hence the need for a cover story.
  - download13 7y ago
    Yeah, but for legal purposes it doesn't matter if "everyone knows" about the real reasons. The company gets to have it both ways. Send a message that unionization isn't tolerated, while saying in court that unionization had nothing to do with the firings.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      The whole court case will be about the plausibility of the company's performance claims. So, responding to the root comment: yes, the company very much needs to establish plausible reasons for firing.
    - cbanek 7y ago
      You are so right and it's quite Machiavellian. Specifically, chapter 18 - "In what way princes should keep their word".
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    Oh, interesting. There was an episode of the U.S. version of The Office where an exec said they'd all be fired if they got "even a whiff" of unionization. And really openly to dozens of people, not in any sort of wink-wink way. I figured this was a legit threat in the U.S.
    - tdburn 7y ago
      I'm guessing that in some states it might be legally questionable while not federally across the board
      - zerocrates 7y ago
        It's illegal anywhere in the US; the NLRA is a federal law.
    - jaredklewis 7y ago
      IIRC, Jan didn’t threaten to fire them. She simply asserted that unionization would cause them they would lose their jobs because Dunder Mifflin would close down the branch if the workers unionized, as apparently had happened at another branch. So not advocating that we use The Office (a sitcom) as a reference for American labor law, but I think Jan’s statements might be permissible. As long as her reasoning is that the increased cost of the workers being in a union will lead to the branch closing, not that the branch would be closed in retaliation, it would be fine. Companies can and often do complain that if workers are in a union, the company’s operating costs will increase, which will consequently have adverse effects on the workers like layoffs, plant closings and so on. To be clear, this is my understanding of legal issues in a sitcom. I am not necessarily advocating Jan’s point of view, our labor laws as they stand, or anything else.
dehrmann 7y ago
Regarding Moore, > The company told staff that Moore had been on a performance improvement plan He'd apparently been at Kickstarter for six years. Being on a PIP after that long seems unusual. And Redwine, > But current and former employees with knowledge of the firing told me that management didn’t establish a “performance improvement plan” for Redwine, despite her being told she would have one. Not quite sure how to read the second. Was it being used as a formality so the firing looks genuine, or was she actually under-performing, and they just ripped the bandaid off?
- scarmig 7y ago
  I've known several people at different companies who departed because of performance reasons. Every one of them got a PIP. The PIP was pretty much always pro forma, but I've never heard of a company letting someone go without a PIP, unless there's active malfeasance involved. Rookie move on Kickstarter's part, regardless. Even if Redwine had basically decided to stop working, it's probably less costly in reputational damage and legal risks to go through the usual process and give them a couple months pay. I'm pretty sure if Kickstarter had a relationship with a good union busting firm, they would have handled this in a much less damaging way.
  - dehrmann 7y ago
    The inconsistency with Kickstarter is at best odd, and they either did wrong by that employee or screwed up hiding what they're doing. But I've been at a place that fired without PIPs, so it does happen.
  - aksss 7y ago
    It just depends on the severity of the problem. Some problems can be fixed (PIP), while others don’t warrant the attempt - just use your imagination. If employer is an at-will, they certainly have more flexibility to fire quickly. They may increase the odds of a wrongful termination suit by doing this, but that’s what insurance is for. Nobody wants to pay a wrongful term suit though, and usually a company dousing an employee will have enough of a reasonable cause they can piece together after the fact. Shit gets dicey if employee age is above the mean or is on FMLA, but generally an at-will employer has a lot of flexibility to drop an employee.
dehrmann 7y ago
Critics of unions would point out that under-performing employees are more likely to benefit from unions, so they're more likely to try to organize them. I have no idea if this is actually the case. It certainly makes it hard to sort out what's actually going on, here.
- malandrew 7y ago
  The most competent colleagues I've had are always the ones most anti-union.
- aksss 7y ago
  Unions raise the base comp for everyone and introduce barriers to disciplinary process so the mediocre benefit. Unions also limit the comp of the best performers and introduce variables such as longevity to the comp structure and lay-off schemes, both of which work against the most competent employees. So yeah, star performers and heroes generally don’t like unions, layabouts do. I admire unions when they are organizing around safety issues, but not many of us are working in a food factory here.
- koonsolo 7y ago
  I remember a story my father told me when he started working (in Belgium). It was a bit before 9am, and everyone was standing in front of their workbench. My dad, a farmers son, thought it was weird and started working on his task. A colleague came up to him and said "we only start working at 9". Since then he, like all the others, stood there doing nothing until it was 9 o'clock. Unions have a "us vs them" mentality, where the boss tries to pay you as little and try to get as much work out of you, and you do the least amount of work for the most pay. I myself like to see a cooperation more as a win-win situation, where you do something for me and I for you. The more we do for each other, the better for both of us.
  - iron0013 7y ago
    Would the workers have gotten paid more if they started before 9am? If not, it wasn't a "the more we do for each other" scenario, it was a "the more the workers do for their employer, with no additional compensation" scenario.

pmiller2 7y ago

Three? Last I checked, there were only 2. Has a third person been fired?

graedus 7y ago
Yes, it's mentioned in the first reply to the linked tweet. https://twitter.com/taylordotbiz/status/1172260257613123608 https://twitter.com/taylordotbiz/status/1172260257613123608 Last week another member of the organizing committee, @ClarissaRedwine was also fired, and today a third prominent member of the union was told there is no place for him at the company. I stand firm in solidarity with my friends and colleagues.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

paulddraper 7y ago

> give the cover story more plausibility Do they need to? Many employers would rather publicize it: we don't tolerate a union.

comex 7y ago
Retaliating against someone for trying to unionize is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as well as New York state law (Kickstarter is headquartered in New York) – hence the need for a cover story.
- download13 7y ago
  Yeah, but for legal purposes it doesn't matter if "everyone knows" about the real reasons. The company gets to have it both ways. Send a message that unionization isn't tolerated, while saying in court that unionization had nothing to do with the firings.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    The whole court case will be about the plausibility of the company's performance claims. So, responding to the root comment: yes, the company very much needs to establish plausible reasons for firing.
  - cbanek 7y ago
    You are so right and it's quite Machiavellian. Specifically, chapter 18 - "In what way princes should keep their word".
- paulddraper 7y ago
  Oh, interesting. There was an episode of the U.S. version of The Office where an exec said they'd all be fired if they got "even a whiff" of unionization. And really openly to dozens of people, not in any sort of wink-wink way. I figured this was a legit threat in the U.S.
  - tdburn 7y ago
    I'm guessing that in some states it might be legally questionable while not federally across the board
    - zerocrates 7y ago
      It's illegal anywhere in the US; the NLRA is a federal law.
  - jaredklewis 7y ago
    IIRC, Jan didn’t threaten to fire them. She simply asserted that unionization would cause them they would lose their jobs because Dunder Mifflin would close down the branch if the workers unionized, as apparently had happened at another branch. So not advocating that we use The Office (a sitcom) as a reference for American labor law, but I think Jan’s statements might be permissible. As long as her reasoning is that the increased cost of the workers being in a union will lead to the branch closing, not that the branch would be closed in retaliation, it would be fine. Companies can and often do complain that if workers are in a union, the company’s operating costs will increase, which will consequently have adverse effects on the workers like layoffs, plant closings and so on. To be clear, this is my understanding of legal issues in a sitcom. I am not necessarily advocating Jan’s point of view, our labor laws as they stand, or anything else.

dehrmann 7y ago

Regarding Moore, > The company told staff that Moore had been on a performance improvement plan He'd apparently been at Kickstarter for six years. Being on a PIP after that long seems unusual. And Redwine, > But current and former employees with knowledge of the firing told me that management didn’t establish a “performance improvement plan” for Redwine, despite her being told she would have one. Not quite sure how to read the second. Was it being used as a formality so the firing looks genuine, or was she actually under-performing, and they just ripped the bandaid off?

scarmig 7y ago
I've known several people at different companies who departed because of performance reasons. Every one of them got a PIP. The PIP was pretty much always pro forma, but I've never heard of a company letting someone go without a PIP, unless there's active malfeasance involved. Rookie move on Kickstarter's part, regardless. Even if Redwine had basically decided to stop working, it's probably less costly in reputational damage and legal risks to go through the usual process and give them a couple months pay. I'm pretty sure if Kickstarter had a relationship with a good union busting firm, they would have handled this in a much less damaging way.
- dehrmann 7y ago
  The inconsistency with Kickstarter is at best odd, and they either did wrong by that employee or screwed up hiding what they're doing. But I've been at a place that fired without PIPs, so it does happen.
- aksss 7y ago
  It just depends on the severity of the problem. Some problems can be fixed (PIP), while others don’t warrant the attempt - just use your imagination. If employer is an at-will, they certainly have more flexibility to fire quickly. They may increase the odds of a wrongful termination suit by doing this, but that’s what insurance is for. Nobody wants to pay a wrongful term suit though, and usually a company dousing an employee will have enough of a reasonable cause they can piece together after the fact. Shit gets dicey if employee age is above the mean or is on FMLA, but generally an at-will employer has a lot of flexibility to drop an employee.

dehrmann 7y ago

Critics of unions would point out that under-performing employees are more likely to benefit from unions, so they're more likely to try to organize them. I have no idea if this is actually the case. It certainly makes it hard to sort out what's actually going on, here.

malandrew 7y ago
The most competent colleagues I've had are always the ones most anti-union.
aksss 7y ago
Unions raise the base comp for everyone and introduce barriers to disciplinary process so the mediocre benefit. Unions also limit the comp of the best performers and introduce variables such as longevity to the comp structure and lay-off schemes, both of which work against the most competent employees. So yeah, star performers and heroes generally don’t like unions, layabouts do. I admire unions when they are organizing around safety issues, but not many of us are working in a food factory here.
koonsolo 7y ago
I remember a story my father told me when he started working (in Belgium). It was a bit before 9am, and everyone was standing in front of their workbench. My dad, a farmers son, thought it was weird and started working on his task. A colleague came up to him and said "we only start working at 9". Since then he, like all the others, stood there doing nothing until it was 9 o'clock. Unions have a "us vs them" mentality, where the boss tries to pay you as little and try to get as much work out of you, and you do the least amount of work for the most pay. I myself like to see a cooperation more as a win-win situation, where you do something for me and I for you. The more we do for each other, the better for both of us.
- iron0013 7y ago
  Would the workers have gotten paid more if they started before 9am? If not, it wasn't a "the more we do for each other" scenario, it was a "the more the workers do for their employer, with no additional compensation" scenario.