5 ms·

The problem isn't that people don't know about them, but even if people knew about them, most wouldn't use their right. Legal protections really only matter af

The problem isn't that people don't know about them, but even if people knew about them, most wouldn't use their right. Legal protections really only matter after you have been fired. If you exercise your protections while you are still employed, in most states the employer can just wait a month or two and then fire you for something unrelated. Even if they don't fire you and grudgingly put in place the changes, chances are it will simply create a work environment of distrust. Not to mention your vertical mobility in the company is now ruined, since who wants to promote someone who rocks the boat. In most cases, if you are lucky enough to have the freedom to do so, it is better to simply quit your job and find someplace that follows the rules and respects you from the get-go.

dalke 12y ago
Your last comment got me to wondering - how does one tell if workplace follows the rules, etc. from the get-go? Perhaps a Joel-like list of questions to ask? If most of the employees during the interview can explain the difference between 'quid pro quo' and 'hostile environment' harassment, then they probably have a good understanding of EEOC guidelines. As to your first paragraph, I think you're right, except that it's also a numbers issue. For example, Title VII case law and EEOC guidelines are very clear that complaints about illegal discrimination are not required to go through formal/predefined channels. But in my discussions with people, many believe that it's okay for management to ignore complaints made outside of channels. (Some even think it's okay for management to punish those who didn't go through formal channels.) My optimistic belief is that if 95% of the people knew the law, instead of 5%, then it would be harder for management to carry out those illegal actions. Not impossible of course, just harder. I think your comment "create a work environment of distrust" is interesting. I would think that breaking workplace law also creates a work environment of distrust. Why is it often that the employee who complains is accused of distrust, rather than the lawbreaker? I recognize that it's common, but I don't know why. I can't see it as simply an aversion to rocking the boat, as the employer started the rocking, not the employee. My first thought was that it's simply a power asymmetry, but I think there's also a dark side even in egalitarian teams where people don't want to face up to the dirty laundry and prefer denial ("no one talks about Uncle XYZ's 'problem' with little children"). It's essentially the same with those who report fraud, waste, mismanagement, illegal activities, etc. Many have written about reasons why whistle blowers are often reviled - something I also don't really understand. ... I'm therefore somewhat relieved to know that no one really can explain why. The 2011 paper at http://www.vu.nl/nl/Images/Artikel%20Paul%20van%20Lange_tcm9-259358.pdf http://www.vu.nl/nl/Images/Artikel%20Paul%20van%20Lange_tcm9... says "We have no evidence based answers" to the question of why some people blow the whistle instead of obeying. Thanks for your comments - coming up with a response helped me understand my own thoughts better.

dalke 12y ago

Your last comment got me to wondering - how does one tell if workplace follows the rules, etc. from the get-go? Perhaps a Joel-like list of questions to ask? If most of the employees during the interview can explain the difference between 'quid pro quo' and 'hostile environment' harassment, then they probably have a good understanding of EEOC guidelines. As to your first paragraph, I think you're right, except that it's also a numbers issue. For example, Title VII case law and EEOC guidelines are very clear that complaints about illegal discrimination are not required to go through formal/predefined channels. But in my discussions with people, many believe that it's okay for management to ignore complaints made outside of channels. (Some even think it's okay for management to punish those who didn't go through formal channels.) My optimistic belief is that if 95% of the people knew the law, instead of 5%, then it would be harder for management to carry out those illegal actions. Not impossible of course, just harder. I think your comment "create a work environment of distrust" is interesting. I would think that breaking workplace law also creates a work environment of distrust. Why is it often that the employee who complains is accused of distrust, rather than the lawbreaker? I recognize that it's common, but I don't know why. I can't see it as simply an aversion to rocking the boat, as the employer started the rocking, not the employee. My first thought was that it's simply a power asymmetry, but I think there's also a dark side even in egalitarian teams where people don't want to face up to the dirty laundry and prefer denial ("no one talks about Uncle XYZ's 'problem' with little children"). It's essentially the same with those who report fraud, waste, mismanagement, illegal activities, etc. Many have written about reasons why whistle blowers are often reviled - something I also don't really understand. ... I'm therefore somewhat relieved to know that no one really can explain why. The 2011 paper at http://www.vu.nl/nl/Images/Artikel%20Paul%20van%20Lange_tcm9-259358.pdf http://www.vu.nl/nl/Images/Artikel%20Paul%20van%20Lange_tcm9... says "We have no evidence based answers" to the question of why some people blow the whistle instead of obeying. Thanks for your comments - coming up with a response helped me understand my own thoughts better.