Ah, sorry, you sent it to the wrong person. You must want the Nigerian prince sitting in the back row of the cafeteria over there.
I don't do ID theft or other crimes, but if you want to e-mail me the private keys for a Bitcoin wallet with a few hundred BTC in it.......
the supervisor was shown the door rather quickly, that tech had friends in high places.
Very effective.... use a sacrificial supervisor/lower-level-employee to break the law and fire folks over Section 7 rights exercise / unionization attempts.. Supervisor fired, and plausible deniability regained.
In theory they could still be sued, but it's probably exceedingly unlikely.
That's why... if you want to do a unionization effort, then you better make sure it succeeds, and ideally involve observers outside the company with legal assistance.
Initially... some verbal discussions of pay information in safe place off work premises is probably harder for management to combat.
Ideally, there would be legal papers written up, letters already crafted, and backup plans established to address retaliation attempts, before management becomes aware... if an organizer gets canned, then management should be served with legal papers the same day.
No.... it's a 3rd party messaging service using HTML E-mail and a custom browser extension. To enforce the "self-destruct" rule, the e-mail is hosted on the Dmail provider's mail servers instead of the content being sent in the e-mail message.
Nothing to see here..... I'm not going to be accepting any e-mail sent using such a service. I will tell the sender "No, send me a normal e-mail message; I can't read that one."
if google fired a significant number of those people, they'd have an unwinnable class action suit on their hands
There will be enough plausible deniability to go around when they batch those dismissals with their next mass layoff that includes people not on the list as well.
And they don't have to fire them all at once..... just make sure that over time the people putting themselves on the list don't do well on the company, and those that are promoted are always the people that maintain the expected confidentiality.
They can start an informal informal internal investigation to figure out who was responsible for setting this whole thing up.
Then have a discussion with their respective managers and make sure their next performance review will reflect abysmal performance.
And promote the people not on that list offer benefits and bonuses conjoined with a confidentiality requirement on those bonus deals....
Many slashdotters are opposed to being scrubs. Most house rules are an attempt to make a game more fun by cutting off higher level play. You don't think it's fair that someone learned more 2 letter words than you, so you made up a way to temporarily prevent him from using them after the game started.
You could have found counters, but you didn't, because you're a scrub.
Pattern is the evidence of discrimination
No... Pattern warrants investigation.
I'm just going to say that the case says nothing about this issue; discrimination is a totally different bit of legal code, it's also a taboo in society with different status in the courtroom. Find a case where an employee was laid off or fired, and the employer was fined a big sum, since it was found to be retaliation for divulging salary, even though the employer said they had a very different reason.
they don't put that they fired them because they were pregnant.
The employee had a conversation with their boss where they were urged to quit or told their performance would be bad because they were pregnant.
They didn't have a credible reason for the firing, And their management created witnesses to a scheme for creating a bogus reason to fire.
A manager creating a scheme to frame someone for a firing offense seems pretty convincing that there is not a legal reason for the firing, otherwise they would not feel a need to do something in order to falsify a reason, since a manager can just fire them.
$185 million in damages to a former employee
For overt acts involving sex-based discrimination and discrimination based on pregnancy.
They could have avoided paying out damages if they weren't actively discriminating based on sex And their firing reason was based on performance reviews showing a failure by the employee to do their job w.o./ insinuation that pregnancy was a reason for the firing.
However..... people are not commodities, so two different people can have the same job role and yet provide completely different level of value; that makes this hard.
Yup. Same law that says you can unionize says they can't stop you from sharing pay and benefits information.
The law says they cannot; However, most employers feel the law is unfair to the employer and may very well intentionally disobey the law in a subtle manner.
If they find you shared your salary, then your company might find another reason to fire you and terminate you for that other reason. In an at-will state it's easier..... "According to the latest performance review, you're just not a good fit for our company, so we have to let you go."
Google could technically do the same for everyone on that spreadsheet. Sharing their own salary info would not be mentioned on the official papers as reason for termination, But their accessing/showing the spreadsheet could be grounds for termination upon suspicion of gaining unauthorized access to HR systems.
Companies need to make the money, and employment costs going up would be a huge negative for the shareholders and managers' bonuses.
The big difficulty is that salary gets really complicated, really fast. It helps many people, but building the system that is equitable would be difficult, and all the positive outliers could be harmed in the process.
SCENARIO: Money is a little tight but applicants are plentiful. We interview lots of people, and three of them look very qualified and are willing to work for a certain wage in a tight range. All hired. Three months later the group discovers a unique need, needing a developer on a specific tool with specific skills. They'll be hired at the same job title, but because the group need a specialized skill immediately, they will go through a headhunter and ultimately pay a premium for that fourth worker. Now, because all four have the same job title, the critical question: should the company go back and increase the three other workers' pay to the same pay rate of the fourth worker with the specialized skill? Should they refuse to hire the specialist at a rate above the other three?
In some fields it can make sense to standardize pay. Most skilled trades operate this way. There is a standard rate in a region for a Journeyman with specific certifications. Trade unions can help fight for specific benefits. You know that this class of tradesman has a specific skill set and can be hired for $27/hour. You need four of them. All of them are treated as interchangeable.
In other fields it can make far less sense to standardize pay, mostly because there are many variables. Unfortunately software development is one of those fields where it is complicated. It would be really convenient -- both for applicants and employers -- to have such a scale. This is a Java programmer with seven endorsements certified at grade 27, so pay is automatically $x.
But unfortunately for this field, technology is ALWAYS changing, so the scale would be difficult. You were certified in version 3.2, but the system has moved on to version 4.1. Does that individual lose the old certification? If they take the new industry trade group's course do they now have 8 certifications instead of seven? Do certifications expire over time, or transfer between technologies? With the huge number of technologies out there, does that mean we'll have thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of different certifications for the trade union? How are individual certifications weighted, and how are they equivalent? Is a master Direct3D 12 certification the same value as a master PostgreSQL 9.4 certification? Is a PostgreSQL 9.4.4 certification valued differently than a PostgreSQL 9.3.9 certification? If someone has certifications in other specializations, must those apply in the cost? With the rapid pace of an enormous number of technologies, what prevents someone from getting hundreds of certifications? Such as "I've got 47 certifications, one for each version of the software released over the past two years"? While it works good for slower-moving trades, it does not work so well in software.
Sometimes I feel it would be nice to have programming trade unions. There are many features like collective bargaining for benefits that could be nice. But for actual salary levels, union-based standardized wages would be a nightmare. It would add a convenience factor to ensure new workers have certain minimum competencies, but it unfortunately adds maximum values as well. Nobody wants to know that they could be making more due to market pressure.
By establishing fixed buckets of pay levels, it establishes both a minimum (yay) and a maximum (boo) within a region. If you've got any kind of specialization or exotic skill -- and many of us do -- those same pay buckets that help many people also hurt the top performers.
The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine
