3 ms·

What you say is technically true, but those procedures also exist because it's better, from the company's perspective, to have such demonstration in place than

What you say is technically true, but those procedures also exist because it's better, from the company's perspective, to have such demonstration in place than to have to prove, in court, that it did nothing wrong. Companies don't want HR data of any kind (even if it will prove the firm's case) seeing fresh air. For one example that can be played (by employee) to a win, the most common case of a good person being fired seems to be one in which he's seeking transfer to another team, and the manager decides to punish the "disloyal" report, often with negative reviews and "performance improvement plans" that block transfer outright. In that particular case, it's arguably retaliation (over a legitimate use of internal mobility procedures) and harassment (negative communication interfering with job performance) for the manager to be doing so. Technically, if a manager interferes with a report's ability to transfer, that is harassment, and bad performance reviews qualify in companies that use Enron-style reviews (i.e. reviews that are part of the transfer packet). That's why Google has secret calibration scores: it's a CYA move. Managers can give positive verbal feedback and annotate it with a smear that the employee never sees. This makes it less likely that a report's lack of mobility will result in a lawsuit. That's why if you ever see a PIP, you should never sign it, and in fact leave the room immediately. "I have to go to the bathroom". Then you start your internal mobility search immediately. If you do it properly (this includes that you were never there to see the PIP) then the pursuit of transfer happened before the PIP, which hints at a retaliatory context. This move doesn't work under a probationary period because anyone who seeks transfer when on probation is (reasonable man standard) deemed unwilling to follow workplace policies-- or, more informally but to the point, a flake.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> What you say is technically true, but those procedures also exist because it's better, from the company's perspective, to have such demonstration in place than to have to prove, in court, that it did nothing wrong. No, its because having those procedures in place is how they prove in court that they did nothing wrong. If you can prove that you did it for a specific legitimate reason, that proves that you did not do it for a specific illegitimate reason. Now, its true that that also means that a case is less likely to end up in court, but that's because the evidence exists for use in court, its not some feature of the process independent of its evidentiary value in court.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  Companies don't want the case to go to court at all. Even if it wins, it looks bad and a lot of embarrassing stuff is discovered. So much of the process is also around making the employee perceive that there is no recourse, or that a case should not be pursued. For example, most of the time, a person will pursue a case if he or she perceives moral superiority over the other party. So the employer's goal is to equalize that difference, either by bringing itself up or by bringing the employee down. Severance payments are there to make the employee feel good about the company. It didn't work out, but the company was fair and everyone can move on to a better arrangement. This is a decent way of doing because, after all, most people don't want to sue ex-employers. They want to move on with their careers. A PIP's purpose is to make the employee feel bad about himself. PIPs actually make it easier for employees to sue, but are justified on the basis that they will be less likely to do so if they think they have less recourse. I have no idea how this works out empirically.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Companies don't want the case to go to court at all. That's not in dispute. The point you are missing is that the value of the practices I was addressing (which weren't, you'll notice, PIPs) is still the evidentiary value those practices provide in court, because that evidentiary value is itself the mechanism by which they prevent disputes from ending up in court in the first place.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> What you say is technically true, but those procedures also exist because it's better, from the company's perspective, to have such demonstration in place than to have to prove, in court, that it did nothing wrong. No, its because having those procedures in place is how they prove in court that they did nothing wrong. If you can prove that you did it for a specific legitimate reason, that proves that you did not do it for a specific illegitimate reason. Now, its true that that also means that a case is less likely to end up in court, but that's because the evidence exists for use in court, its not some feature of the process independent of its evidentiary value in court.

michaelochurch 13y ago
Companies don't want the case to go to court at all. Even if it wins, it looks bad and a lot of embarrassing stuff is discovered. So much of the process is also around making the employee perceive that there is no recourse, or that a case should not be pursued. For example, most of the time, a person will pursue a case if he or she perceives moral superiority over the other party. So the employer's goal is to equalize that difference, either by bringing itself up or by bringing the employee down. Severance payments are there to make the employee feel good about the company. It didn't work out, but the company was fair and everyone can move on to a better arrangement. This is a decent way of doing because, after all, most people don't want to sue ex-employers. They want to move on with their careers. A PIP's purpose is to make the employee feel bad about himself. PIPs actually make it easier for employees to sue, but are justified on the basis that they will be less likely to do so if they think they have less recourse. I have no idea how this works out empirically.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Companies don't want the case to go to court at all. That's not in dispute. The point you are missing is that the value of the practices I was addressing (which weren't, you'll notice, PIPs) is still the evidentiary value those practices provide in court, because that evidentiary value is itself the mechanism by which they prevent disputes from ending up in court in the first place.