6 ms·

Here's the other thing though. Law suits are expensive. Law suits burn bridges (you'll never get a recommendation from an employer you've sued). Law suits preve

Here's the other thing though. Law suits are expensive. Law suits burn bridges (you'll never get a recommendation from an employer you've sued). Law suits prevent future jobs (would you hire someone who sued a previous employer?). And wrongful termination isn't the end. And things are rarely black-and-white. If your boss thinks you're a douche, it will hurt your career. If your next performance review is a 7 instead of a 9, that might not lead to termination now, but it prevents career growth, and gets you sacked next layoff. I don't think anyone would every get laid off JUST for sharing salary info, but it would push a lot of people over the edge. All I'm saying is be careful about how you do it.

tptacek 6y ago
Here's the other other thing, though: lawsuits are expensive. Employers settle them routinely. I've seen frivolous suits settled for real money, just to get them out of the way. Legal expense probably scares most employers a lot more than it scares former employees. Getting fired for sharing salary information is not high up on my list of concerns, in part for that reason.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  On the other end there are companies that fight every lawsuit tooth and nail, even if it's more costly and they know they're going to lose because they don't want to get a reputation as easy pickings among employment lawyers.
  - Gamemaster1379 6y ago
    100% confirm these exist. When I first came to California, I worked for a computer repair shop in Sacramento as my first gig with a "budding software division". Place was a bait and switch on what they had me doing. Market took a downturn just after I moved so I was stuck in the job. They pressured me into doing full on software architecture but paid me like an intern for it. Eventually went from bad to worse. It was so stressful it caused a condition of mine to flair up. Long story short, I was vomiting blood and stomach acid on the daily in the mornings. Work from home would have accommodated me but they refused because the CEO was an asshole. He let others work from home as a "favor", but wouldn't meet medical needs. After giving me more than one death threat, I finally quit and sued. Pro bono, of course, since I had no money. They hired the most expensive defense firm in California to take the case over what would have been a $5-$10k settlement. My lawyer was unbelievably startled by this, and immediately dropped the case after.
    - bdowling 6y ago
      > After giving me more than one death threat, I finally quit and sued. Threatening to kill you is probably another claim beyond failing to reasonably accommodate your medical condition. It may also be a criminal threat that a prosecutor would be interested in. I would think that would strengthen your case. > Pro bono, of course, since I had no money. > ... My lawyer was unbelievably startled by this, and immediately dropped the case after. Depending on what type of pro bono attorney you had, that may have been reasonable. For free legal aid type attorneys, litigation is out of the scope of what they can help with. What you probably wanted was a lawyer who would take the case on a contingent fee basis. That means that they don't get paid anything unless you win, but if you do win they take 30-40%. Many plaintiff-side personal injury and employment lawyers like to work contingency because if they're good at it they can make way more money than an attorney working for an hourly rate. It's often a good deal for the plaintiffs too because they may get 60-70% of a much larger settlement amount. It sounds like you got some bad advice.
      - JamesBarney 6y ago
        Most employment lawyers would be very reluctant to take a case like this for 5-10k. Litigating against a company like the one he described would cost more than he would make even if he was paid on 100% contingency fee.
        kasey_junk 6y ago
        I’m not sure how you made that determination. I’m no employment lawyer and facts differ by locality, but where I am there are tons of contingent lawyers who’d take that case just based on discovery costs.
        JamesBarney 6y ago
        I'm acquaintances with two employment lawyers and they talk shop when they're together. Their hourly rates are 300-500ish so 5,000-10,000 is 20ish hours of work. For that amount of work they are looking for an employer who is risk averse , and an employee who emotionally has moved on and is just looking for a little extra cash. If the employer is legally aggressive or the employee is looking for a fight they would never take a case like that.
shandor 6y ago
> Law suits are expensive Don't know about the US, but in countries with strong (or existing) worker unions the unions would jump at that kind of case to help the employee with expenses, legal counsel, and what have you. Unions definitely have their problems, but keeping the employers on their toes about actually breaking the law is one of their big benefits. Of course all that doesn't help with all the other things you brought up, so there's that.
- shim__ 6y ago
  A unionized workforce isn't likely to have this problem, since they would all be working under the same union contract being paid the same.
  - dukeyukey 6y ago
    That very much depends on the type of union. For example, the union that exists for tech workers in the UK (https://prospect.org.uk/tech-workers/ https://prospect.org.uk/tech-workers/) provides legal support, advice and other professional help to it's members, but doesn't get involved in negotiation unless you ask, and even then they do it on an individual basis, based on your skills and employer requirements.
blaser-waffle 6y ago
> Here's the other thing though. Law suits are expensive. Maybe. Depends on the state, the complaint, and the lawyer. Several states allow/force the loser to pay legal fees, to allow small-fry folks with legit complaints to fight against larger orgs with money to spend. Lawyers may also take cases on contingency, or you may be able to find legal aid / pro-bono / reduced rates. There are also lots of levers available via state or provincial labor boards. These will vary greatly, and may not replace a lawyer or lawsuit -- but some will. > Law suits burn bridges (you'll never get a recommendation from an employer you've sued). They already fired you for reasons that are "wrongful" -- the bridges are already burned. Were they going to give you a good recommendation before the lawsuit? Probably not. Maybe they didn't, and that's why there are lawyers involved. > Law suits prevent future jobs (would you hire someone who sued a previous employer?). And wrongful termination isn't the end. Depends on the role and hiring pool. For roles that are harder to fill, or situations where I'm willing to take a good hard look at the candidate then maybe. Like, these are public records, and if I'm on the fence I could always just get a copy of those records. Plus there is plenty of shitty behavior on the part of employers -- no shortage of stories about it here on HN -- so I'm willing to give a qualified candidate the benefit of the doubt. Totally agree with your point if this is for a role where I get 500-1000+ resumes -- plenty of talent out there, so why settle for someone who picked a fight?

tptacek 6y ago

Here's the other other thing, though: lawsuits are expensive. Employers settle them routinely. I've seen frivolous suits settled for real money, just to get them out of the way. Legal expense probably scares most employers a lot more than it scares former employees. Getting fired for sharing salary information is not high up on my list of concerns, in part for that reason.

JamesBarney 6y ago
On the other end there are companies that fight every lawsuit tooth and nail, even if it's more costly and they know they're going to lose because they don't want to get a reputation as easy pickings among employment lawyers.
- Gamemaster1379 6y ago
  100% confirm these exist. When I first came to California, I worked for a computer repair shop in Sacramento as my first gig with a "budding software division". Place was a bait and switch on what they had me doing. Market took a downturn just after I moved so I was stuck in the job. They pressured me into doing full on software architecture but paid me like an intern for it. Eventually went from bad to worse. It was so stressful it caused a condition of mine to flair up. Long story short, I was vomiting blood and stomach acid on the daily in the mornings. Work from home would have accommodated me but they refused because the CEO was an asshole. He let others work from home as a "favor", but wouldn't meet medical needs. After giving me more than one death threat, I finally quit and sued. Pro bono, of course, since I had no money. They hired the most expensive defense firm in California to take the case over what would have been a $5-$10k settlement. My lawyer was unbelievably startled by this, and immediately dropped the case after.
  - bdowling 6y ago
    > After giving me more than one death threat, I finally quit and sued. Threatening to kill you is probably another claim beyond failing to reasonably accommodate your medical condition. It may also be a criminal threat that a prosecutor would be interested in. I would think that would strengthen your case. > Pro bono, of course, since I had no money. > ... My lawyer was unbelievably startled by this, and immediately dropped the case after. Depending on what type of pro bono attorney you had, that may have been reasonable. For free legal aid type attorneys, litigation is out of the scope of what they can help with. What you probably wanted was a lawyer who would take the case on a contingent fee basis. That means that they don't get paid anything unless you win, but if you do win they take 30-40%. Many plaintiff-side personal injury and employment lawyers like to work contingency because if they're good at it they can make way more money than an attorney working for an hourly rate. It's often a good deal for the plaintiffs too because they may get 60-70% of a much larger settlement amount. It sounds like you got some bad advice.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      Most employment lawyers would be very reluctant to take a case like this for 5-10k. Litigating against a company like the one he described would cost more than he would make even if he was paid on 100% contingency fee.
      - kasey_junk 6y ago
        I’m not sure how you made that determination. I’m no employment lawyer and facts differ by locality, but where I am there are tons of contingent lawyers who’d take that case just based on discovery costs.
        JamesBarney 6y ago
        I'm acquaintances with two employment lawyers and they talk shop when they're together. Their hourly rates are 300-500ish so 5,000-10,000 is 20ish hours of work. For that amount of work they are looking for an employer who is risk averse , and an employee who emotionally has moved on and is just looking for a little extra cash. If the employer is legally aggressive or the employee is looking for a fight they would never take a case like that.

shandor 6y ago

> Law suits are expensive Don't know about the US, but in countries with strong (or existing) worker unions the unions would jump at that kind of case to help the employee with expenses, legal counsel, and what have you. Unions definitely have their problems, but keeping the employers on their toes about actually breaking the law is one of their big benefits. Of course all that doesn't help with all the other things you brought up, so there's that.

shim__ 6y ago
A unionized workforce isn't likely to have this problem, since they would all be working under the same union contract being paid the same.
- dukeyukey 6y ago
  That very much depends on the type of union. For example, the union that exists for tech workers in the UK (https://prospect.org.uk/tech-workers/ https://prospect.org.uk/tech-workers/) provides legal support, advice and other professional help to it's members, but doesn't get involved in negotiation unless you ask, and even then they do it on an individual basis, based on your skills and employer requirements.

blaser-waffle 6y ago

> Here's the other thing though. Law suits are expensive. Maybe. Depends on the state, the complaint, and the lawyer. Several states allow/force the loser to pay legal fees, to allow small-fry folks with legit complaints to fight against larger orgs with money to spend. Lawyers may also take cases on contingency, or you may be able to find legal aid / pro-bono / reduced rates. There are also lots of levers available via state or provincial labor boards. These will vary greatly, and may not replace a lawyer or lawsuit -- but some will. > Law suits burn bridges (you'll never get a recommendation from an employer you've sued). They already fired you for reasons that are "wrongful" -- the bridges are already burned. Were they going to give you a good recommendation before the lawsuit? Probably not. Maybe they didn't, and that's why there are lawyers involved. > Law suits prevent future jobs (would you hire someone who sued a previous employer?). And wrongful termination isn't the end. Depends on the role and hiring pool. For roles that are harder to fill, or situations where I'm willing to take a good hard look at the candidate then maybe. Like, these are public records, and if I'm on the fence I could always just get a copy of those records. Plus there is plenty of shitty behavior on the part of employers -- no shortage of stories about it here on HN -- so I'm willing to give a qualified candidate the benefit of the doubt. Totally agree with your point if this is for a role where I get 500-1000+ resumes -- plenty of talent out there, so why settle for someone who picked a fight?