3 ms·
How does that work when the employer puts you in a position where you must provide an answer, the expected answer would involve commiting a crime, and the only
by II2II 3y ago
How does that work when the employer puts you in a position where you must provide an answer, the expected answer would involve commiting a crime, and the only alternative is to tell the truth? Whether we like it or not, employers have a lot of leverage over employees. Arguably, it is one of the reasons why employees are paid disproportionately less. Such protections should exist.
I'll believe youbif you claim they don't. I'm not an American, nor do I work for an American firm. On the other hand, I do find it ironic that a country would tout law and order while not providing the means for individuals to uphold that ideal.
- prewett 3y agoYou tell the truth. It is wrongful dismissal to fire someone for telling the truth (that is the retaliation prohibition clause). The US government has a brief summary at https://www.usa.gov/wrongful-termination https://www.usa.gov/wrongful-termination
- eschneider 3y agoDon’t do crimes. That might lead to problems, but they’re easier problems to deal with.
- II2II 3y agoIf you're caught, yes it is easier dealing with the truth. On the otherhand, I doubt that the boss thought they would be called out on the claim and I doubt they think they will be called out on the verification of the 'evidence'. After all, it sounds like at least part of the correspondence was in writing, so it could come back on them. It's not a fun game to play if you're someone who believes in honesty, or think that you will be accountable. On the other hand, some people seem to believe that the costs outweigh the risks. That's particularly true if most of the blame can be diverted to someone else.
- eschneider 3y agoPeople who ask you to do crimes against others will eventually do crimes against you. They obviously don’t have ethics and will just do what’s convenient for THEM. Don’t work for people like that.