4 ms·

Does the employee handbook/contract/whatever say it's ok? Or is it just done? There is no reality where any employer willfully enabled employees to literally n

by Alupis 2y ago

Does the employee handbook/contract/whatever say it's ok? Or is it just done? There is no reality where any employer willfully enabled employees to literally not do work while being paid to work. This is a silly discussion to be having.

ceejayoz 2y ago
> Does the employee handbook/contract/whatever say it's ok? Or is it just done? It would have to say that there are to be no off-topic conversations during work of any kind, and it would have to have been demonstrably enforced. If it's a new policy that somehow is only ever invoked when someone talks about salaries, you're in for a world of hurt. > There is no reality where any employer willfully enabled employees to literally not do work while being paid to work. If it's like any other significantly sized tech company, there's probably a pool and ping-pong table somewhere. It's also possible to talk while working.
- Alupis 2y ago
  > are to be no off-topic conversations during work of any kind, and it would have to have been demonstrably enforced This is silly. Go read your contract. It most likely has something exactly like this in it, in addition to spelling out what you are allowed to use company property and time for. This is employer 101 level stuff folks. > demonstrably enforced Telling someone to get back to work once in a while is enforcement. You can continue contorting this into some sort of pro-union/organization thing - but it is not. These people literally: 1) Started their work day 2) Used their company-provided computer to browse the internet instead of working 3) Used their company-provided email address to sign up for a non-work-related website 4) If successful in creating the account, would proceed to spend company time gossiping about company policies. On it's own that's a terminatable offense and a gross misuse of company time, money and property.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > You can continue contorting this into some sort of pro-union/organization thing - but it is not. You previously posted "Unskilled labor probably shouldn't be livable", so you'll have to excuse my doubts about your pro-worker stance. > These people literally: There's actually no evidence that occurred. I have my work email on my personal phone, and I can receive a 2FA code outside of work hours; I could sign up for Blind without ever once using company hardware or time. Again, if Automattic has a history of permitting occasional non-work browsing/emailing - which they almost certainly do - sudden specific targeting of payment discussions would be a violation of the NLRA.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      > You previously posted "Unskilled labor probably shouldn't be livable", so you'll have to excuse my doubts about your pro-worker stance. I'm glad you enjoy my work. No, unskilled labor should not be livable. It's literally, unskilled. > Again, if Automattic has a history of permitting occasional non-work browsing/emailing - which they almost certainly do - sudden specific targeting of payment discussions would be a violation of the NLRA. That's a HUGE leap and assumption you are making here, isn't it? Sudden targeting of payment discussions? Do you have any evidence to suggest that is the only non-work-related topic being targeted here?
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > That's a HUGE leap and assumption you are making here, isn't it? No. Scroll up. I started with this, for context: "You'd want to be very sure that at no point an email/text along the lines of 'let's do this, because people are discussing salaries' was sent that might show up in discovery." > Do you have any evidence to suggest that is the only non-work-related topic being targeted here? https://www.teamblind.com/sign-up https://www.teamblind.com/sign-up has the tagline "Real salary data from verified employees"; it's a pretty single-purpose site. Matt had Blind signup emails intercepted and sent to him instead. What other possible purpose of targeting this specific site could there be, if not to impact disclosure/awareness of salaries within Automattic?
        2y ago

by Alupis 2y ago

ceejayoz 2y ago

> Does the employee handbook/contract/whatever say it's ok? Or is it just done? It would have to say that there are to be no off-topic conversations during work of any kind, and it would have to have been demonstrably enforced. If it's a new policy that somehow is only ever invoked when someone talks about salaries, you're in for a world of hurt. > There is no reality where any employer willfully enabled employees to literally not do work while being paid to work. If it's like any other significantly sized tech company, there's probably a pool and ping-pong table somewhere. It's also possible to talk while working.

Alupis 2y ago
> are to be no off-topic conversations during work of any kind, and it would have to have been demonstrably enforced This is silly. Go read your contract. It most likely has something exactly like this in it, in addition to spelling out what you are allowed to use company property and time for. This is employer 101 level stuff folks. > demonstrably enforced Telling someone to get back to work once in a while is enforcement. You can continue contorting this into some sort of pro-union/organization thing - but it is not. These people literally: 1) Started their work day 2) Used their company-provided computer to browse the internet instead of working 3) Used their company-provided email address to sign up for a non-work-related website 4) If successful in creating the account, would proceed to spend company time gossiping about company policies. On it's own that's a terminatable offense and a gross misuse of company time, money and property.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > You can continue contorting this into some sort of pro-union/organization thing - but it is not. You previously posted "Unskilled labor probably shouldn't be livable", so you'll have to excuse my doubts about your pro-worker stance. > These people literally: There's actually no evidence that occurred. I have my work email on my personal phone, and I can receive a 2FA code outside of work hours; I could sign up for Blind without ever once using company hardware or time. Again, if Automattic has a history of permitting occasional non-work browsing/emailing - which they almost certainly do - sudden specific targeting of payment discussions would be a violation of the NLRA.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    > You previously posted "Unskilled labor probably shouldn't be livable", so you'll have to excuse my doubts about your pro-worker stance. I'm glad you enjoy my work. No, unskilled labor should not be livable. It's literally, unskilled. > Again, if Automattic has a history of permitting occasional non-work browsing/emailing - which they almost certainly do - sudden specific targeting of payment discussions would be a violation of the NLRA. That's a HUGE leap and assumption you are making here, isn't it? Sudden targeting of payment discussions? Do you have any evidence to suggest that is the only non-work-related topic being targeted here?
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > That's a HUGE leap and assumption you are making here, isn't it? No. Scroll up. I started with this, for context: "You'd want to be very sure that at no point an email/text along the lines of 'let's do this, because people are discussing salaries' was sent that might show up in discovery." > Do you have any evidence to suggest that is the only non-work-related topic being targeted here? https://www.teamblind.com/sign-up https://www.teamblind.com/sign-up has the tagline "Real salary data from verified employees"; it's a pretty single-purpose site. Matt had Blind signup emails intercepted and sent to him instead. What other possible purpose of targeting this specific site could there be, if not to impact disclosure/awareness of salaries within Automattic?
      - 2y ago