3 ms·

But they didn't actually do anything to her! What did they do? Please, I am clearly missing it. Yes they can absolutely be unhappy that their employees are cau

But they didn't actually do anything to her! What did they do? Please, I am clearly missing it. Yes they can absolutely be unhappy that their employees are causing a problem, that's why they tried to discuss it with her. But they didn't do anything to her for it.

eropple 11y ago
An employer is the power-holder in almost any employer/employee relationship. And so even the "discussion" exists to have a chilling effect upon that worker. The act of having that uncomfortable and fraught discussion is in itself a threat. You have those "discussions" to get a worker to stop exercising their rights. There's no other reason to have it. When your employee does something that is entirely legal and protected, you don't have a "discussion" with them. You nod, say "OK", and you do absolutely nothing else, because nothing you do in response to it, as it pertains to that employee, can be anything other than hostile--and hostility of your direction. Not the employee's, not now and not ever.
- msutherl 11y ago
  Isn't it possible that employee and employer can have a non-antagonistic relationship? What if the "discussion" was intended entirely in the interest of the employee? In any event, it seems to me that it was good advice given the context.
  - eropple 11y ago
    > Isn't it possible that employee and employer can have a non-antagonistic relationship? I'm skeptical, given the vastly divergent goals of employer and employee. I'm borderline-dismissive at Google scale, where there's no meaningful employer/employee relationship to be found at most levels of the hierarchy (and a relationship with a manager isn't the same thing). Of course, there are models of organization (co-ops and the like) where one can have a mutualistic relationship with the other stakeholders, but--these aren't that. > What if the "discussion" was intended entirely in the interest of the employee? The interest of the employee just happens to involve not rocking the boat, not ensuring that everybody's got an accurate picture of the market, and depressing workers' negotiation position so that the company can profit? To me the possibility of this what-if is so remote as to be laughable.
- deadmik3 11y ago
  First off, all we know is that it was a question "Do you know what could happen?", not some scary "discussion". Such a chilling question to ask someone, so intimidate, very trigger. It's good to know that my employer can never question anything I do legally without being hostile, though.
  - eropple 11y ago
    That's an interesting misreading of what I said. Let's try again: your employer had best not even give the appearance of questioning legally protected actions. Is that straightforward enough? Does that make sense? But I cannot envision a situation where the question "do you realize what could happen?" is not implicitly suggesting that the realization to be made is one of company harm--and thus, yes, threatening.

eropple 11y ago

An employer is the power-holder in almost any employer/employee relationship. And so even the "discussion" exists to have a chilling effect upon that worker. The act of having that uncomfortable and fraught discussion is in itself a threat. You have those "discussions" to get a worker to stop exercising their rights. There's no other reason to have it. When your employee does something that is entirely legal and protected, you don't have a "discussion" with them. You nod, say "OK", and you do absolutely nothing else, because nothing you do in response to it, as it pertains to that employee, can be anything other than hostile--and hostility of your direction. Not the employee's, not now and not ever.

msutherl 11y ago
Isn't it possible that employee and employer can have a non-antagonistic relationship? What if the "discussion" was intended entirely in the interest of the employee? In any event, it seems to me that it was good advice given the context.
- eropple 11y ago
  > Isn't it possible that employee and employer can have a non-antagonistic relationship? I'm skeptical, given the vastly divergent goals of employer and employee. I'm borderline-dismissive at Google scale, where there's no meaningful employer/employee relationship to be found at most levels of the hierarchy (and a relationship with a manager isn't the same thing). Of course, there are models of organization (co-ops and the like) where one can have a mutualistic relationship with the other stakeholders, but--these aren't that. > What if the "discussion" was intended entirely in the interest of the employee? The interest of the employee just happens to involve not rocking the boat, not ensuring that everybody's got an accurate picture of the market, and depressing workers' negotiation position so that the company can profit? To me the possibility of this what-if is so remote as to be laughable.
deadmik3 11y ago
First off, all we know is that it was a question "Do you know what could happen?", not some scary "discussion". Such a chilling question to ask someone, so intimidate, very trigger. It's good to know that my employer can never question anything I do legally without being hostile, though.
- eropple 11y ago
  That's an interesting misreading of what I said. Let's try again: your employer had best not even give the appearance of questioning legally protected actions. Is that straightforward enough? Does that make sense? But I cannot envision a situation where the question "do you realize what could happen?" is not implicitly suggesting that the realization to be made is one of company harm--and thus, yes, threatening.