11 ms·

"insubordination" wtf, was this a job or a prison camp?

by jacknews 4y ago

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
Judging by their webpage they seem like a classic body shop making a living on selling cheaper EU devs to US firms.
- castis 4y ago
  Its hilarious that on the 3rd line they say "quality software is important to us..."; and immediately following is jquery soup.
stingraycharles 4y ago
I think it’s a bad translation, the actual Dutch word being used is “ongehoorzaamheid”, which means something like “not following the rules”. I will say that it’s typically used in the context of raising children for example, but it’s definitely acceptable to use this word in Dutch in this context.
- krono 4y ago
  Then it is a correct translation, as that is what insubordination means.
  - 6stringmerc 4y ago
    Yes, a friend raised concerns about his health versus company mandates / peer pressure in an emotional and kind of irritating way and the company Terminated him for that. Still finding out if he’s eligible for unemployment in the US state he lives. Specifically, he wrote that the company’s only option was “not up to his standards” and the Executive who fired him cited that as a reason, because how could an individual possibly have higher standards than him and the company? Hint: it’s not hard because they are malicious hillbillies.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- em500 4y ago
  "ongehoorzaamheid" means disobedience. Even in the context of raising children it seems pretty unfashionable nowadays. It has the air of authoritarianism that in my experience modern Dutch parents try to avoid. I wouldn't consider it acceptable in the context of employment relationships (except perhaps in military positions).
ifqwz 4y ago
Seems an appropriate word... "Insubordination is the act of willfully disobeying a lawful order of one's superior." Your boss is your superior, so disobeying what he asks of you is insubordination.
- castis 4y ago
  Since the lawsuit was successful, the order given was proven to not be lawful. Thus, not insubordination.
  - philipwhiuk 4y ago
    Sure, but that wasn't the expectation of the company at the time they called it that. If the court ruled in their favour it would have been insubordination.
  - PebblesRox 4y ago
    True, but it's still the case that he was fired by his company with the claimed reason of insubordination. I think it's a valid translation given the context (i.e. talking about what they said he did, not about what he actually did.)
- talideon 4y ago
  You seem to have missed the word "lawful".
  - philipwhiuk 4y ago
    lawful just means the order itself wasn't illegal. It doesn't mean that it's "enforcing the law" If I tell you to go buy 10 apples, refusing would be insubordination because it's legal to buy apples. If I tell you to go steal 10 apples, refusing would not be insubordination because it's legal to buy apples. Until the court ruled against them, the view of the firm would have been it was legal to require someone to have their camera on. Hence they viewed it as insubordination to refuse. They are wrong, it's not insubordination, but it's not unfair of them to think it was.
flotzam 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insubordination#Private_Sector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insubordination#Private_Sector
rocqua 4y ago
As others said, the dutch term is probably different. Their (bad) legal argument was. He refused to follow work instructions, hence he did not perform his work as required, hence we can fire him "op staande voet" which is an on the spot firing that does not require a long process of attempting to improve employee performance. They needed a 'op staande voet' firing because the long process takes months. The justifications for this are limited to things like "theft or fraud", "Threatening or causing Grievous insult", "repeated innebriation" (called out specifically in law), or "refusing a task". That final cause "Refusing a task" ,or in dutch, quoting from the law: "wanneer de werknemer hardnekkig weigert te voldoen aan redelijke bevelen of opdrachten, hem door of namens de werkgever verstrekt", can be translated to insubordination. A full translation of the dutch phrasing would be: "when the employee persistently refuses to comply with reasonable orders or instructions issued to him by or on behalf of the employer". Hence the company argued that "turn on your webcam all working day" was a "reasonable order or instruction issued by the employer". Note that the story mentions this was during a "Corrective Action Program". That sounds like they were already in the firing process. Which starts with a process of notifying an employee their performance is not good enough, and requires they are offered a chance to improve. This 'offering a chance to improve' is usually done by putting employees on a 'performance improvement plan'. I believe many US states have similar procedures.
- mcherm 4y ago
  > I believe many US states have similar procedures. Most US companies follow similar procedures because they are a sensible thing to do. But 49 out of 50 US states have "at will" employment which means that employers can fire any employee at any time for no reason at all.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    They have at will firing. When employees choose to leave, not so much: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/thedacare-lawsuit-wisconsin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/thedacare-lawsuit-wisc...
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
duxup 4y ago
The term seems fine to me. Actions of the company absurd, but I don’t associate that word with just a prison camp type situation.
denton-scratch 4y ago
Insubordination is simply refusing a proper direct instruction; for example, refusing to turn on your webcam. I'd argue that instruction wasn't "proper". But one of the legitimate grounds for dismissal is refusing to do what you're told. After all, if you hire someone, and they won't do what you pay them to do, then natural justice would seem to say that you can stop paying them, and hire a replacement. From what I've read, this employee was indeed insubordinate; but they were entitled to be insubordinate, because the instruction they were given wasn't proper. It would be wrong to court-martial a soldier, for example, if they refused an order to murder PoWs, even though prima facie that would be insubordination.
jesuspiece 4y ago
same thing in the states

"insubordination" wtf, was this a job or a prison camp?

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

Judging by their webpage they seem like a classic body shop making a living on selling cheaper EU devs to US firms.

castis 4y ago
Its hilarious that on the 3rd line they say "quality software is important to us..."; and immediately following is jquery soup.

stingraycharles 4y ago

I think it’s a bad translation, the actual Dutch word being used is “ongehoorzaamheid”, which means something like “not following the rules”. I will say that it’s typically used in the context of raising children for example, but it’s definitely acceptable to use this word in Dutch in this context.

krono 4y ago
Then it is a correct translation, as that is what insubordination means.
- 6stringmerc 4y ago
  Yes, a friend raised concerns about his health versus company mandates / peer pressure in an emotional and kind of irritating way and the company Terminated him for that. Still finding out if he’s eligible for unemployment in the US state he lives. Specifically, he wrote that the company’s only option was “not up to his standards” and the Executive who fired him cited that as a reason, because how could an individual possibly have higher standards than him and the company? Hint: it’s not hard because they are malicious hillbillies.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
em500 4y ago
"ongehoorzaamheid" means disobedience. Even in the context of raising children it seems pretty unfashionable nowadays. It has the air of authoritarianism that in my experience modern Dutch parents try to avoid. I wouldn't consider it acceptable in the context of employment relationships (except perhaps in military positions).

ifqwz 4y ago

Seems an appropriate word... "Insubordination is the act of willfully disobeying a lawful order of one's superior." Your boss is your superior, so disobeying what he asks of you is insubordination.

castis 4y ago
Since the lawsuit was successful, the order given was proven to not be lawful. Thus, not insubordination.
- philipwhiuk 4y ago
  Sure, but that wasn't the expectation of the company at the time they called it that. If the court ruled in their favour it would have been insubordination.
- PebblesRox 4y ago
  True, but it's still the case that he was fired by his company with the claimed reason of insubordination. I think it's a valid translation given the context (i.e. talking about what they said he did, not about what he actually did.)
talideon 4y ago
You seem to have missed the word "lawful".
- philipwhiuk 4y ago
  lawful just means the order itself wasn't illegal. It doesn't mean that it's "enforcing the law" If I tell you to go buy 10 apples, refusing would be insubordination because it's legal to buy apples. If I tell you to go steal 10 apples, refusing would not be insubordination because it's legal to buy apples. Until the court ruled against them, the view of the firm would have been it was legal to require someone to have their camera on. Hence they viewed it as insubordination to refuse. They are wrong, it's not insubordination, but it's not unfair of them to think it was.

flotzam 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insubordination#Private_Sector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insubordination#Private_Sector

rocqua 4y ago

As others said, the dutch term is probably different. Their (bad) legal argument was. He refused to follow work instructions, hence he did not perform his work as required, hence we can fire him "op staande voet" which is an on the spot firing that does not require a long process of attempting to improve employee performance. They needed a 'op staande voet' firing because the long process takes months. The justifications for this are limited to things like "theft or fraud", "Threatening or causing Grievous insult", "repeated innebriation" (called out specifically in law), or "refusing a task". That final cause "Refusing a task" ,or in dutch, quoting from the law: "wanneer de werknemer hardnekkig weigert te voldoen aan redelijke bevelen of opdrachten, hem door of namens de werkgever verstrekt", can be translated to insubordination. A full translation of the dutch phrasing would be: "when the employee persistently refuses to comply with reasonable orders or instructions issued to him by or on behalf of the employer". Hence the company argued that "turn on your webcam all working day" was a "reasonable order or instruction issued by the employer". Note that the story mentions this was during a "Corrective Action Program". That sounds like they were already in the firing process. Which starts with a process of notifying an employee their performance is not good enough, and requires they are offered a chance to improve. This 'offering a chance to improve' is usually done by putting employees on a 'performance improvement plan'. I believe many US states have similar procedures.

mcherm 4y ago
> I believe many US states have similar procedures. Most US companies follow similar procedures because they are a sensible thing to do. But 49 out of 50 US states have "at will" employment which means that employers can fire any employee at any time for no reason at all.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  They have at will firing. When employees choose to leave, not so much: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/thedacare-lawsuit-wisconsin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/thedacare-lawsuit-wisc...
- sidewndr46 4y ago

duxup 4y ago

The term seems fine to me. Actions of the company absurd, but I don’t associate that word with just a prison camp type situation.

denton-scratch 4y ago

Insubordination is simply refusing a proper direct instruction; for example, refusing to turn on your webcam. I'd argue that instruction wasn't "proper". But one of the legitimate grounds for dismissal is refusing to do what you're told. After all, if you hire someone, and they won't do what you pay them to do, then natural justice would seem to say that you can stop paying them, and hire a replacement. From what I've read, this employee was indeed insubordinate; but they were entitled to be insubordinate, because the instruction they were given wasn't proper. It would be wrong to court-martial a soldier, for example, if they refused an order to murder PoWs, even though prima facie that would be insubordination.

jesuspiece 4y ago

same thing in the states