5 ms·

Isn't this against some non-retaliation laws?

heyflyguy 4y ago
I would be willing to bet that in the employee handbook it requires that nobody act in a nature that is contrary to the advancement of the company. This most certainly is, and is also likely easily cited as a lack of productivity of the employee while being paid by the company.
- orangepurple 4y ago
  Illegal policies are not enforced by courts. For instance, forced arbitrarion clauses, no discussions of wages, non-disparagement (Does your company say you aren't allowed to say negative things about the company, whether online or otherwise? Again, this probably violates your right to discuss working conditions), confidential information (if it violates your right to discuss working conditions), or social media prohibitions (if the company social media policy says you aren't allowed to discuss or disparage the company in social media, that may well violate your right to complain about working conditions)
  - heyflyguy 4y ago
    All true but a wrongful termination suit is far less costly than a unionized workforce. I still don’t think it’s wrongful termination but do want to appreciate your point.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
0daystock 4y ago
At will employment. You can be fired anytime for any reason, and there's not much in the way of recourse. Though you also get to quit without notice at such a job.
- itsoktocry 4y ago
  >Though you also get to quit without notice at such a job. This sounds strange to me. Since there's a massive power imbalance between employee and employer, how is that seen as an equivalent tradeoff?
  - notafraudster 4y ago
    At-will employment laws aren't an equivalent tradeoff -- which is why they are very uncommon outside the United States -- but the alleged benefit of such an arrangement to an employee is two-fold: 1. In places where termination is for cause, termination often causes an employee not to have access to various government benefits 2. At-will employment likely encourages more hiring in the first place, so it's possible that with more restricted firing you'd never have gotten the job. I do not feel these benefits make up for the drawbacks and do not favour at-will as an organizing principle for industrial relations. But I just figured it would make sense to at least say the apparent argument.
    - Broken_Hippo 4y ago
      It should be mentioned here that "for cause" can be any number of things, including simply "attendence issues", which realistically can be any sickness of you or your children that aren't quite covered by FMLA. All this realistically takes is you plus your three young children getting influenza at different times in a span of two months. Or not working mandatory overtime due to child care issues.
      - scollet 4y ago
        You may also be fired for your race and gender. They just have to find an excuse.
  - djbebs 4y ago
    How is there a power imbalance?
  - 0daystock 4y ago
lp0_on_fire 4y ago
There are some protections for whistleblowers exposing illegal activity, yea, but these employees were not exposing illegal activity. They were complaining about his antics/politics.
freespit 4y ago
Yeah right, non-retaliation. Shit the bed like Amber Heard and then dont expect any consequences from it.

I would be willing to bet that in the employee handbook it requires that nobody act in a nature that is contrary to the advancement of the company. This most certainly is, and is also likely easily cited as a lack of productivity of the employee while being paid by the company.

orangepurple 4y ago
Illegal policies are not enforced by courts. For instance, forced arbitrarion clauses, no discussions of wages, non-disparagement (Does your company say you aren't allowed to say negative things about the company, whether online or otherwise? Again, this probably violates your right to discuss working conditions), confidential information (if it violates your right to discuss working conditions), or social media prohibitions (if the company social media policy says you aren't allowed to discuss or disparage the company in social media, that may well violate your right to complain about working conditions)
- heyflyguy 4y ago
  All true but a wrongful termination suit is far less costly than a unionized workforce. I still don’t think it’s wrongful termination but do want to appreciate your point.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

0daystock 4y ago

At will employment. You can be fired anytime for any reason, and there's not much in the way of recourse. Though you also get to quit without notice at such a job.

itsoktocry 4y ago
>Though you also get to quit without notice at such a job. This sounds strange to me. Since there's a massive power imbalance between employee and employer, how is that seen as an equivalent tradeoff?
- notafraudster 4y ago
  At-will employment laws aren't an equivalent tradeoff -- which is why they are very uncommon outside the United States -- but the alleged benefit of such an arrangement to an employee is two-fold: 1. In places where termination is for cause, termination often causes an employee not to have access to various government benefits 2. At-will employment likely encourages more hiring in the first place, so it's possible that with more restricted firing you'd never have gotten the job. I do not feel these benefits make up for the drawbacks and do not favour at-will as an organizing principle for industrial relations. But I just figured it would make sense to at least say the apparent argument.
  - Broken_Hippo 4y ago
    It should be mentioned here that "for cause" can be any number of things, including simply "attendence issues", which realistically can be any sickness of you or your children that aren't quite covered by FMLA. All this realistically takes is you plus your three young children getting influenza at different times in a span of two months. Or not working mandatory overtime due to child care issues.
    - scollet 4y ago
      You may also be fired for your race and gender. They just have to find an excuse.
- djbebs 4y ago
  How is there a power imbalance?
- 0daystock 4y ago

lp0_on_fire 4y ago

There are some protections for whistleblowers exposing illegal activity, yea, but these employees were not exposing illegal activity. They were complaining about his antics/politics.

freespit 4y ago

Yeah right, non-retaliation. Shit the bed like Amber Heard and then dont expect any consequences from it.