4 ms·

You've clearly never had this happen to you. Go ahead, document everything, it's not going to matter. That's not how this works. If you do that they'll either s

by zcw100 6y ago

You've clearly never had this happen to you. Go ahead, document everything, it's not going to matter. That's not how this works. If you do that they'll either say, "Ok, I see what you've got there. But that's not what we're here to discuss. We're here to discuss your negative attitude" or they can look at your documentation and say, "So what were you charging the time you were doing all this documentation to?", or, "So this is why you're not getting your work done. You're spending all this time on this paranoid documentation instead of doing your work". Go to HR? Are you kidding me? First, HR is not your friend. They're there to protect the company. Perhaps sometimes your interests align with the company but that's just an accident. Second, there is no way these people are engaging in abusive behavior without HR having their backs so going to HR just risks exposing HR to accusations of abuse so now you've got an even bigger target on your back.

andrewmcwatters 6y ago
I have. I don't know why you presume to know my work history. The fact that I can provide succinct actionable advise on the matter should be evidence in itself. You don't need to tell people you're documenting events. Do I need to spell that out for you? Where I live, employment is "at-will," so it would be good to establish acting in good faith first--taking an issue to HR--before taking legal action.
meekrohprocess 6y ago
I think they mean that you should document everything, then express your concerns to HR in a non-confrontational way, then quietly bring your documentation to a lawyer if nothing changes. The documentation is your "plan B" which HR doesn't need to know about.
- andrewmcwatters 6y ago
  Yes.
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  Documenting everything is good advice, but it can give false hope to people in these situations. Hiring a lawyer is never as easy, cheap, or as quick as it sounds from internet comments. It's easy to armchair quarterback these situations and talk about hypothetically lawyering up, but what's the endgame? Suing your company won't suddenly convert a toxic job into a happy job, regardless of the outcome. Settlements, if they ever arrive, are rarely significant enough to make a financial difference unless someone has a truly home-run protected class harassment case with hard evidence (not just verbal conversations recited from memory). Good lawyers won't take cases that don't appear winnable from the start. However, there are plenty of bad lawyers who will happily give people false hope about their chances and then bill as much as they can get away with before the client gives up. "Plan B" should always be to find another job ASAP, if possible. (Not easy in the author's case).
  - meekrohprocess 6y ago
    Yeah. It's always a bad situation, and really the best we can do is empathise when people have to go through it. Voting with your feet is usually the best policy, but people with visa issues have an especially hard time with that. Sadly, asking our representatives for visa reforms to avoid putting people in indentured positions doesn't seem to accomplish much. And some people will choose to demand justice even when it isn't the best move for their career or personal lives. I don't think it's right to admonish that.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Good lawyers won't take cases that don't appear winnable from the start. Very false. Generally, the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer is that the good lawyer will counsel the client about the chances of not winning the case, especially after discovery has concluded, while a bad lawyer won't. If the the winnability of a case was apparent at the start, there wouldn't be a case as the parties would settle before a formal lawsuit was filed. This happens very frequently, especially for labor cases where the employee has documented instances of harassment. A lot of cases that appear to be "winnable" at the beginning turn out not to be winnable based on evidence that becomes available during discovery, and a lot of cases that didn't appear to be winnable turn out to be slam dunks after discovery. Most of the landmark cases today were cases that didn't appear "winnable" at the start (see, e.g., the DuPont and Erin Brokovich cases). Moreover, for most cases of this type (and generally for almost all civil cases involving individual torts), lawyers work on a contingency basis for plaintiffs, so they only get paid if they win. The only lawyers that won't handle civil torts for individual clients on a contingency basis are the bad ones who don't expect to win, or the truly amazing ones that charge fixed or hourly fees because they're so good that they can resolve the case without doing the amount of work that would justify a 30% or 40% fee.
asveikau 6y ago
> First, HR is not your friend. They're there to protect the company. This is absolutely correct. However the next sentence reveals a curious mis-alignment in our culture at large: > Perhaps sometimes your interests align with the company but that's just an accident. It is absolutely in the interest of the company to not treat people like shit, from multiple vantage points ranging from selfishly not wanting to be embarrassed by their own misconduct, to more altruistic moral obligation. If the company does not believe that, they are mistaken and foolish, prioritizing perceived short term gain over the right thing to do. Unfortunately, this particular brand of short-sightedness is the norm and our cultural expectation.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bdowling 6y ago
> Go to HR? Are you kidding me? First, HR is not your friend. The purpose of going to HR is so that the employee's attorney can later show that the company (1) had actual knowledge of the abuse and (2) subsequently did nothing.
slmjkdbtl 6y ago
I haven't been in this kind of situation, but I'm curious if the HR's goal is to help the company, not individuals, how is protecting abusers and ignoring negative workplace dynamics helping the company?
- corty 6y ago
  In such situations: a) HR provides the appearance of some orderly process to settle such situations b) HR provides partial witnesses for settlement talks c) HR produces documentation about the situation to be used to the company's advantage in later lawsuits d) HR creates (beforehand) a net of regulations that a "troublemaker" can easily be found to have violated e) HR shields more important employees (i.e. bosses), because they represent more value to the company f) HR shields larger numbers of employees (i.e. the mob of abusers) against smaller numbers (i.e. the single victim), because larger numbers represent more value and higher risk of complications Nowhere in the above list I did mention anything about workplace happiness or positive energy or anything. That is not up to HR, and if a "situation" arises it's too late anyways. Good interpersonal conditions are up to all persons and especially management. HR is just there as an executive, to sweep up the broken cutlery and make things look nice and tidy. It isn't that an HR department doesn't want good working conditions. They are just in no position to impose them, only management is.
jiveturkey 6y ago
one thing missing. it does matter of you’re a member of a protected class. otherwise, you’re painting a target on yourself, right or wrong.

by zcw100 6y ago

andrewmcwatters 6y ago

I have. I don't know why you presume to know my work history. The fact that I can provide succinct actionable advise on the matter should be evidence in itself. You don't need to tell people you're documenting events. Do I need to spell that out for you? Where I live, employment is "at-will," so it would be good to establish acting in good faith first--taking an issue to HR--before taking legal action.

meekrohprocess 6y ago

I think they mean that you should document everything, then express your concerns to HR in a non-confrontational way, then quietly bring your documentation to a lawyer if nothing changes. The documentation is your "plan B" which HR doesn't need to know about.

andrewmcwatters 6y ago
Yes.
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Documenting everything is good advice, but it can give false hope to people in these situations. Hiring a lawyer is never as easy, cheap, or as quick as it sounds from internet comments. It's easy to armchair quarterback these situations and talk about hypothetically lawyering up, but what's the endgame? Suing your company won't suddenly convert a toxic job into a happy job, regardless of the outcome. Settlements, if they ever arrive, are rarely significant enough to make a financial difference unless someone has a truly home-run protected class harassment case with hard evidence (not just verbal conversations recited from memory). Good lawyers won't take cases that don't appear winnable from the start. However, there are plenty of bad lawyers who will happily give people false hope about their chances and then bill as much as they can get away with before the client gives up. "Plan B" should always be to find another job ASAP, if possible. (Not easy in the author's case).
- meekrohprocess 6y ago
  Yeah. It's always a bad situation, and really the best we can do is empathise when people have to go through it. Voting with your feet is usually the best policy, but people with visa issues have an especially hard time with that. Sadly, asking our representatives for visa reforms to avoid putting people in indentured positions doesn't seem to accomplish much. And some people will choose to demand justice even when it isn't the best move for their career or personal lives. I don't think it's right to admonish that.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Good lawyers won't take cases that don't appear winnable from the start. Very false. Generally, the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer is that the good lawyer will counsel the client about the chances of not winning the case, especially after discovery has concluded, while a bad lawyer won't. If the the winnability of a case was apparent at the start, there wouldn't be a case as the parties would settle before a formal lawsuit was filed. This happens very frequently, especially for labor cases where the employee has documented instances of harassment. A lot of cases that appear to be "winnable" at the beginning turn out not to be winnable based on evidence that becomes available during discovery, and a lot of cases that didn't appear to be winnable turn out to be slam dunks after discovery. Most of the landmark cases today were cases that didn't appear "winnable" at the start (see, e.g., the DuPont and Erin Brokovich cases). Moreover, for most cases of this type (and generally for almost all civil cases involving individual torts), lawyers work on a contingency basis for plaintiffs, so they only get paid if they win. The only lawyers that won't handle civil torts for individual clients on a contingency basis are the bad ones who don't expect to win, or the truly amazing ones that charge fixed or hourly fees because they're so good that they can resolve the case without doing the amount of work that would justify a 30% or 40% fee.

asveikau 6y ago

> First, HR is not your friend. They're there to protect the company. This is absolutely correct. However the next sentence reveals a curious mis-alignment in our culture at large: > Perhaps sometimes your interests align with the company but that's just an accident. It is absolutely in the interest of the company to not treat people like shit, from multiple vantage points ranging from selfishly not wanting to be embarrassed by their own misconduct, to more altruistic moral obligation. If the company does not believe that, they are mistaken and foolish, prioritizing perceived short term gain over the right thing to do. Unfortunately, this particular brand of short-sightedness is the norm and our cultural expectation.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bdowling 6y ago

> Go to HR? Are you kidding me? First, HR is not your friend. The purpose of going to HR is so that the employee's attorney can later show that the company (1) had actual knowledge of the abuse and (2) subsequently did nothing.

slmjkdbtl 6y ago

I haven't been in this kind of situation, but I'm curious if the HR's goal is to help the company, not individuals, how is protecting abusers and ignoring negative workplace dynamics helping the company?

corty 6y ago
In such situations: a) HR provides the appearance of some orderly process to settle such situations b) HR provides partial witnesses for settlement talks c) HR produces documentation about the situation to be used to the company's advantage in later lawsuits d) HR creates (beforehand) a net of regulations that a "troublemaker" can easily be found to have violated e) HR shields more important employees (i.e. bosses), because they represent more value to the company f) HR shields larger numbers of employees (i.e. the mob of abusers) against smaller numbers (i.e. the single victim), because larger numbers represent more value and higher risk of complications Nowhere in the above list I did mention anything about workplace happiness or positive energy or anything. That is not up to HR, and if a "situation" arises it's too late anyways. Good interpersonal conditions are up to all persons and especially management. HR is just there as an executive, to sweep up the broken cutlery and make things look nice and tidy. It isn't that an HR department doesn't want good working conditions. They are just in no position to impose them, only management is.

jiveturkey 6y ago

one thing missing. it does matter of you’re a member of a protected class. otherwise, you’re painting a target on yourself, right or wrong.