3 ms·
Isn’t this illegal?
by mukmuk 5mo ago
Isn’t this illegal?
- Analemma_ 5mo agoOnly if you're dumb enough to leave a paper trail showing that's what you did.
- mmooss 5mo agoIt seems it would be easy to show a pattern.
- rdtsc 5mo agoYou would need some class action lawsuit I’d think? Need a good number of laid off people to join it and you need solid statistics that would convince a jury more than the corporate lawyers would with whatever HR covered their assess on paper have.
- knollimar 5mo agoIs it not fine to just cut for pay rate? That should be easy
- mmooss 5mo agoIs it legal to cut pay rates based on age? I doubt it. 'We didn't fire them, we cut their six-figure salary to minimum wage'.
- knollimar 5mo agoNo I'm saying you lay off your senior people. Not because they're old and you don't want to pay retirement but to save on payroll since they make more money than juniors. After all, they're all just Claudr users now.
- davebren 5mo agoI know there's an unspoken rule to not speak directly about whatever shady thing your organization and leadership is doing but for this situation it would be surprising if there isn't some correspondence that would come up in discovery detailing the strategy. It's too much of a coincidence and too big of a decision to hire 20% of your workforce as interns and then a couple months later fire 20% of your employees.
- xingped 5mo agoJust your average Thursday in American capitalism!
- winrid 5mo agoShould companies be forced to retain talent of a certain age group? Should they be forced to retain less competent people? How do you expect this to work?
- voxelghost 5mo agoIn Sweden,the Employment Protection Act, (LAS ) mandates 'last in - first out', meaning if there are layoffs due to over-capacity, people with seniority (years of employment) take priority for available positions. This is kind of partioned by profession-group, so yes you can fire nurses but keep doctors, or other way around. (Its been a while since I looked into it, but thats the rough gist of it)
- brabel 5mo agoYes, and that makes working for a Swedish company so much better. You know you can’t just be shown the door at any moment after years of service and you get a lot of peace of mind which is worth more than the inflated salaries in the US. There is still a way to get rid of people, of course, but that goes a little like the Japanese do: just don’t give any important work to the person, or give them a bad performance review. People quickly understand they need to move on and they can do it with dignity.
- krs_ 5mo agoOr if you really want to get rid of someone you can buy them out with a severance deal that is better than standard and hope they take it.
- Saline9515 5mo agoThat also means that a) it's harder for younger people to get a stable job b) the bare minimum of work not to get fired decreases over time, which is bad for productivity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider%E2%80%93outsider_theory_of_employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider%E2%80%93outsider_theor...
- kakadu 5mo agoMaking it illegal would be communism
- ornornor 5mo agoYes because anything that is good for individuals is communism.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- _carbyau_ 5mo agoPeople are feeling more alone than ever. But whatever you do, don't do anything communal!
- lovich 5mo agoAnything I don’t like is communism
- platevoltage 5mo agoWould it be Communism to require a license stating you know what that word means in order to use it?
- throwaway2037 5mo agoIn the United States (where most Cloudflare employees work): > The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. To answer your question: Probably not. Even so, it is incredibly hard to prove workers 40 and older were laid off as a result of age discrimination.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- pantulis 5mo ago> Even so, it is incredibly hard to prove workers 40 and older were laid off as a result of age discrimination. The only way for this to happen is by leaked private conversations, I think.
- sunrunner 5mo agoSo you can’t be discriminated against if you’re less than 40, but that seems somewhat discriminatory (maybe you wanted to be), but that means that you are being discriminated against, but that’s meant to be forbidden. I sense a paradox.
- throwaway2037 5mo agoYes, from a legal perspective this will always be true: in-group vs out-group. Age discrimination is a special category because everyone will be in the out-group (when young) the age into the in-group. In this case, it is probably legal to fire someone for being too young. It sounds weird, but that is not a protected class of employees.
- toast0 5mo agoThere's no paradox. The law is you can't descriminate against a protected class. Lots of things are protected classes, like race and religion. Old age is, but young age isn't. Clothing choices in general aren't, but if it's a religous choice, it likely is protected. Etc. It's kind of weird that you can fire young people because they're young, but not old people because they're old. But it's not a paradox, it's just how the system is codified.
- tempest_ 5mo agoTechnically yes, IBM just got sued successfully for it. That said they just settled the case for what happened in 2016. So you might be right and even win but that wont help you for a decade (assuming you win at all)