2 ms·

I have thought about leaving. My first goal is to confirm that I really understand what I'm observing. I don't want to resign because of a legal issue only to d

I have thought about leaving. My first goal is to confirm that I really understand what I'm observing. I don't want to resign because of a legal issue only to discover later that it's not actually illegal and I misread the situation. I have no animosity for the company or the leaders. No desire to "take them down" or cause any drama. But avoiding drama definitely wouldn't be a reason to do something illegal imo.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Not wanting to violate labor law and anti discrimination regulations isn’t “causing drama”. It’s wanting to avoid civil and criminal repercussions, both against the corporation and individuals personally. If you don’t get a satisfactory answer, report them to the US Dept of Labor/EEOC. I’d also recommend reporting them to the labor board in whichever state their headquarters is located (or what they consider their HQ if a remote org). To do nothing is to allow the unfair, abusive practice to continue. And if you do nothing, it will continue after you leave. https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discriminati...
- drdeca 5y ago
  I think they are just saying that they don’t have a positive motivation to “cause drama” and don’t have any vendetta against anyone which would motivate them to act against the company, but at the same time, that they don’t see “avoiding drama” as a reason enough to do an illegal thing asked of them. I’m not sure quite what you mean when you say it «isn’t “causing drama”». It seems to me like some actions taken out of a desire to avoid violating labor law and anti-discrimination regulations, could result in people being upset with people, etc. which could be called “drama”. If you interpret “causing drama” as meaning, acting with a motivation of causing drama, then yes, as you say, acting with a motivation of avoiding violating [stuff] is not acting with a motivation of causing drama. (I have no comment on what they should do; I imagine you are likely correct on that front, idk.)

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Not wanting to violate labor law and anti discrimination regulations isn’t “causing drama”. It’s wanting to avoid civil and criminal repercussions, both against the corporation and individuals personally. If you don’t get a satisfactory answer, report them to the US Dept of Labor/EEOC. I’d also recommend reporting them to the labor board in whichever state their headquarters is located (or what they consider their HQ if a remote org). To do nothing is to allow the unfair, abusive practice to continue. And if you do nothing, it will continue after you leave. https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discriminati...

drdeca 5y ago
I think they are just saying that they don’t have a positive motivation to “cause drama” and don’t have any vendetta against anyone which would motivate them to act against the company, but at the same time, that they don’t see “avoiding drama” as a reason enough to do an illegal thing asked of them. I’m not sure quite what you mean when you say it «isn’t “causing drama”». It seems to me like some actions taken out of a desire to avoid violating labor law and anti-discrimination regulations, could result in people being upset with people, etc. which could be called “drama”. If you interpret “causing drama” as meaning, acting with a motivation of causing drama, then yes, as you say, acting with a motivation of avoiding violating [stuff] is not acting with a motivation of causing drama. (I have no comment on what they should do; I imagine you are likely correct on that front, idk.)