5 ms·

It's terrible. Even executives deserve to be treated with respect.

messe 4y ago
It's the kind of thing employment laws should really cover. The US is an extreme outlier in the developed world in how few rights employees have compared to employers.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  What rights do employers have that employees don’t?
  - Retric 4y ago
    Employers get to change the job location, schedule, approach etc unlike the employee who can basically agree to everything or quit.
  - messe 4y ago
    I might have phrased it poorly. What I meant is that there's a significant power imbalance between employer and employee and as such, employees in many jurisdictions outside the US have significant protections to prevent employers from taking advantage of them. For example, countries in the EU don't allow for termination without cause (without some form of severance, and assuming you're outside a probation period); unlike the US, where you're employment status is entirely at the whims of your employer. Other examples are vacation days, sick leave, parental leave, rest periods between shifts, etc.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      > significant power imbalance between employer and employee In this case, the employee was an executive himself, who usually is the one wielding that power against non-executive employees.
      - messe 4y ago
        That'd still fall under employment law here in Ireland. A precedent that allows an employer to reduce director salaries at will, would apply to other employees also here.
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      You did phrase it rather poorly, because what you’re describing here is an employee who has _far_ more rights than an employer. Really the main unique aspect of employment law in the US (compared to Europe at least) is that both parties are allowed to terminate the employment agreement at will.
      - messe 4y ago
        > because what you’re describing here is an employee who has _far_ more rights than an employer How so? What rights do they have that the employer doesn't? From what I've gathered here, the employer can change their salary at will. The employee can't turn around and do that. The employer could presumably change their location of work, their hours, or even the job they've been hired to do, at will. This would all be protected against in the EU. Keeping in mind that I agree with you that I phrased my original statement poorly: more importantly, how do these additional rights that you're talking about translate to benefits for the employee?
        AmericanChopper 4y ago
        An employer in the US can’t change a salary at will either. What either party can do if they are no longer satisfied with the working arrangement is propose a change to it, and subsequently choose to terminate the arrangement if they are not satisfied with the response of the other party. Either party can propose basically any change they want, and terminate the arrangement any time they choose. What an employee “can do” is determined entirely by how much the market values their labor. I have proposed take it or leave it remuneration increases (as well as other changes to working conditions, such as location) to employers on many occasions, and they’ve nearly always been accepted.
        tptacek 4y ago
        There's no distinction between employers being able to issue an ultimatum on salary reduction and being able to change a salary at will. Virtually all of an employers authorities reduce to "this is what will happen, else we'll sever your employment".
- AYBABTME 4y ago
  It's also the most vibrant economy of the developed world by miles. I feel the two are related in a way (although I'm a salaried employee as well). I think a lot of cut-throat oddities in the US employment sphere have a lot to do with its success. That along with how laws also support the ~treacheries that give birth to the Intel-from-Fairchild types of business.
  - messe 4y ago
    And with some of the least developed public infrastructure and largest amounts of inequality in the developed world by kilometers. I don't disagree with you that it's a factor in US economic growth, I'm just not remotely convinced that it's worth the suffering caused by it.
    - mardifoufs 4y ago
      >least developed public infrastructure By which measure? Also, how is ireland any better in that regard, especially w.r.t infrastructure? Europe in general wouldn't necessarily have a better public infrastructure either, it's just that there is a lot more discussion about America and its issues (even in Europe). And I'm saying that as someone who is neither american nor European. (Not to mention that ireland was almost a third world country until it started attracting capital with shady loopholes and lack of regulations compared to the US and Europe, which makes the comparison even weirder.)
      - messe 4y ago
        Public transport, healthcare, even the fucking roads, just to name a few. Every time I've gone to the US, I've been astounded at how awful the roads are in comparison—in particular along the west coast, which given California's GDP, you'd expect better. Even Ireland, which has comparitively shit public transport compared to the rest of europe, is miles ahead of most of the US. > (Not to mention that ireland was almost a third world country until it started attracting capital with shady loopholes and lack of regulations compared to the US and Europe, which makes the comparison even weirder.) It's significantly more nuanced than that (and the US is equally as guilty of aiding corporate tax evasion thanks to Delaware—if the US actually wanted to tax income that is currently being routed through Ireland, it could just pass a law to do so). We're definitely a tax haven, no denying that, but our infrastructure started improving well before that became the case. But that's not really relevant to the discussion, which is about employment rights.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  “Constructive termination” is a thing employment law covers.
taeric 4y ago
I'm sympathetic, but more for the implications to everyone else. Most people aren't in a position to get a severance package negotiated. Now we will also not be in a position to negotiate based on a salary reduction. :(
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > implications to everyone else What are the implications? He's an executive. He negotiated an employment contract with early termination provisions, as is pretty common at the executive level. I don't see that this particular situation has much implication for regular non-executive employees.
  - taeric 4y ago
    Since this was reversed on appeal, the implications were already covered, it seems. I was not personally familiar with the term "constructive discharge," but I am glad to see that it is not something you have to be in a position of extreme leverage to protect yourself against.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      To be fair, because of at will employment, you mostly have no protection against discharge, constructive or direct, other than specific negotiate contractual provisions, or protected class discrimination, or some retaliation protections. But, the doctrine of constructive discharhe means when you do have protection against discharge, your employer imposing intolerable working conditions so you quit instead of directly firing you isn’t an effective hack around them.
      - taeric 4y ago
        Right, the protection against the constructive is that you can keep benefits owed on direct terminations. That is, my main concern before was on the last sentence you have here. Many negotiated benefits are on getting fired. If they can instead basically force you out so that you don't get those benefits, that is pretty terrible. Note that this still allows you to take pay cuts and such. Those are not directly illegal. Nor do I think they should be.
Retric 4y ago
Contracts can’t cover every single possible action by either party. They need to assume context of existing case law to avoid being tens of thousands of pages long. This edge case is already covered under such case law which is why the decision was reversed on appeal.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  The guy was an executive, FFS. Negotiating a golden parachute is an expected part of his job. How he did not forsee a salary reduction as a real possibility, I can't say.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 4y ago
    He did negotiate a salary, such a large drop didn’t need to be explicitly negotiated as that’s covered by constructive termination. Which is why it was reversed on appeal, this isn’t some odd edge case.

It's the kind of thing employment laws should really cover. The US is an extreme outlier in the developed world in how few rights employees have compared to employers.

AmericanChopper 4y ago
What rights do employers have that employees don’t?
- Retric 4y ago
  Employers get to change the job location, schedule, approach etc unlike the employee who can basically agree to everything or quit.
- messe 4y ago
  I might have phrased it poorly. What I meant is that there's a significant power imbalance between employer and employee and as such, employees in many jurisdictions outside the US have significant protections to prevent employers from taking advantage of them. For example, countries in the EU don't allow for termination without cause (without some form of severance, and assuming you're outside a probation period); unlike the US, where you're employment status is entirely at the whims of your employer. Other examples are vacation days, sick leave, parental leave, rest periods between shifts, etc.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    > significant power imbalance between employer and employee In this case, the employee was an executive himself, who usually is the one wielding that power against non-executive employees.
    - messe 4y ago
      That'd still fall under employment law here in Ireland. A precedent that allows an employer to reduce director salaries at will, would apply to other employees also here.
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    You did phrase it rather poorly, because what you’re describing here is an employee who has _far_ more rights than an employer. Really the main unique aspect of employment law in the US (compared to Europe at least) is that both parties are allowed to terminate the employment agreement at will.
    - messe 4y ago
      > because what you’re describing here is an employee who has _far_ more rights than an employer How so? What rights do they have that the employer doesn't? From what I've gathered here, the employer can change their salary at will. The employee can't turn around and do that. The employer could presumably change their location of work, their hours, or even the job they've been hired to do, at will. This would all be protected against in the EU. Keeping in mind that I agree with you that I phrased my original statement poorly: more importantly, how do these additional rights that you're talking about translate to benefits for the employee?
      - AmericanChopper 4y ago
        An employer in the US can’t change a salary at will either. What either party can do if they are no longer satisfied with the working arrangement is propose a change to it, and subsequently choose to terminate the arrangement if they are not satisfied with the response of the other party. Either party can propose basically any change they want, and terminate the arrangement any time they choose. What an employee “can do” is determined entirely by how much the market values their labor. I have proposed take it or leave it remuneration increases (as well as other changes to working conditions, such as location) to employers on many occasions, and they’ve nearly always been accepted.
        tptacek 4y ago
        There's no distinction between employers being able to issue an ultimatum on salary reduction and being able to change a salary at will. Virtually all of an employers authorities reduce to "this is what will happen, else we'll sever your employment".
AYBABTME 4y ago
It's also the most vibrant economy of the developed world by miles. I feel the two are related in a way (although I'm a salaried employee as well). I think a lot of cut-throat oddities in the US employment sphere have a lot to do with its success. That along with how laws also support the ~treacheries that give birth to the Intel-from-Fairchild types of business.
- messe 4y ago
  And with some of the least developed public infrastructure and largest amounts of inequality in the developed world by kilometers. I don't disagree with you that it's a factor in US economic growth, I'm just not remotely convinced that it's worth the suffering caused by it.
  - mardifoufs 4y ago
    >least developed public infrastructure By which measure? Also, how is ireland any better in that regard, especially w.r.t infrastructure? Europe in general wouldn't necessarily have a better public infrastructure either, it's just that there is a lot more discussion about America and its issues (even in Europe). And I'm saying that as someone who is neither american nor European. (Not to mention that ireland was almost a third world country until it started attracting capital with shady loopholes and lack of regulations compared to the US and Europe, which makes the comparison even weirder.)
    - messe 4y ago
      Public transport, healthcare, even the fucking roads, just to name a few. Every time I've gone to the US, I've been astounded at how awful the roads are in comparison—in particular along the west coast, which given California's GDP, you'd expect better. Even Ireland, which has comparitively shit public transport compared to the rest of europe, is miles ahead of most of the US. > (Not to mention that ireland was almost a third world country until it started attracting capital with shady loopholes and lack of regulations compared to the US and Europe, which makes the comparison even weirder.) It's significantly more nuanced than that (and the US is equally as guilty of aiding corporate tax evasion thanks to Delaware—if the US actually wanted to tax income that is currently being routed through Ireland, it could just pass a law to do so). We're definitely a tax haven, no denying that, but our infrastructure started improving well before that became the case. But that's not really relevant to the discussion, which is about employment rights.
dragonwriter 4y ago
“Constructive termination” is a thing employment law covers.

taeric 4y ago

I'm sympathetic, but more for the implications to everyone else. Most people aren't in a position to get a severance package negotiated. Now we will also not be in a position to negotiate based on a salary reduction. :(

rootusrootus 4y ago
> implications to everyone else What are the implications? He's an executive. He negotiated an employment contract with early termination provisions, as is pretty common at the executive level. I don't see that this particular situation has much implication for regular non-executive employees.
- taeric 4y ago
  Since this was reversed on appeal, the implications were already covered, it seems. I was not personally familiar with the term "constructive discharge," but I am glad to see that it is not something you have to be in a position of extreme leverage to protect yourself against.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    To be fair, because of at will employment, you mostly have no protection against discharge, constructive or direct, other than specific negotiate contractual provisions, or protected class discrimination, or some retaliation protections. But, the doctrine of constructive discharhe means when you do have protection against discharge, your employer imposing intolerable working conditions so you quit instead of directly firing you isn’t an effective hack around them.
    - taeric 4y ago
      Right, the protection against the constructive is that you can keep benefits owed on direct terminations. That is, my main concern before was on the last sentence you have here. Many negotiated benefits are on getting fired. If they can instead basically force you out so that you don't get those benefits, that is pretty terrible. Note that this still allows you to take pay cuts and such. Those are not directly illegal. Nor do I think they should be.

Retric 4y ago

Contracts can’t cover every single possible action by either party. They need to assume context of existing case law to avoid being tens of thousands of pages long. This edge case is already covered under such case law which is why the decision was reversed on appeal.

rootusrootus 4y ago
The guy was an executive, FFS. Negotiating a golden parachute is an expected part of his job. How he did not forsee a salary reduction as a real possibility, I can't say.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 4y ago
  He did negotiate a salary, such a large drop didn’t need to be explicitly negotiated as that’s covered by constructive termination. Which is why it was reversed on appeal, this isn’t some odd edge case.