Work-Life Balance: Cryptographer Fired By BAE Systems For Taking Care of Dying Wife (bostonglobe.com)

mdecerbo writes: A new lawsuit by cryptographer Don Davis against multinational defense giant BAE Systems highlights the fact that companies are free to have their boasts about "work-life balance" amount to nothing but idle talk. The Boston Globe reports that on his first day on the job, Davis explained that his wife had late-stage cancer. He would work his full work day in the office, but if he was needed nights or weekends, he'd want to work from home. His supervisor was fine with it, but the human resources department fired him on the spot after four hours of employment. The lawsuit raises interesting questions, such as whether employment law requires corporations to have the sort of common decency we expect from individuals. But what I want to know is, if BAE Systems loses this lawsuit, will they prevent future ones by making their "work-life balance" policy say simply: We own you, body and soul? Don Davis' lawyer, Rebecca Pontikes, contends he was discriminated against because the company "requires its male employees to be the stereotypical male breadwinner and to leave family responsibilities to women." BAE issued a statement to The Boston Globe saying, "we do not tolerate discrimination of any kind and work hard to provide our employees with flexible working options that enable them to have a meaningful work/life balance." The company declined to discuss specifics, citing pending litigation.

Comments

24/7 job

[roman_mir]

Davis said, the woman didnâ(TM)t entertain temporary alternative arrangements, such as working from home if needed. She simply insisted he needed to be available at the office 24/7.

- 24/7 ? Interesting arrangement. What do you need as compensation to accept an offer like that? I get it when a business owner has to work like that, but an employee? I am curious who takes this and for how much?

Re:24/7 job

[Dr. Evil]

That's exactly what IBM did. It even ended pager-pay... since we were always on the clock.

For reference, https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/tools/srt/coverage_government_it.php

Information technology professionals are not entitled to overtime pay.

And my favourite:

Information technology professionals are not covered by the daily and weekly limits on hours of work

From what I could find, these were laws meant to cover fisheries and agriculture, where the seasonal nature of the work meant that the only time you would work on a harvest or catch was when there would be work. It was understood that the nature of the work was feast-or-famine, and it was paid hourly. If they had to pay overtime, they would be paying nothing but overtime. Strangely, the rules also included accounting, some screwball argument that month-end and year end was a busy period and that people could take time in lieu or have downtime between busy periods.

Somehow this slippery slope was extended to IT. As a salaried employee, it meant they could pay you *nothing*.

Thank you Dalton McGuinty.

Wow.

[Harlequin80]

I work in the employment sector. This story would see the company dragged over the coals if it happened here in Australia. That and the individuals involved would also be personally liable.

I don't even understand the wording of it. They didn't "rescind his offer of employment" as he had commenced work.

Re:Wow.

[bsolar]

Even this in most countries this would be illegal. E.g. here by law an employee may not be required to work on call for more than seven days in any period of four weeks. On top of that, you are entitled at least 11 hours of uninterrupted rest time every day which can be reduced to 8 hours only once a week.

Most companies actually *bar* you from exceeding these limits since violations would result in very harsh penalties not to mention the reputation damage.

Welcome to Sweden

[Troed]

There are countries where this is not idle talk - please be welcome to Sweden. We treat dads and moms equally when it comes to parental leave, and you'd be hard pressed to find a manager who's not understanding of family emergencies. That includes the HR departments.

/one such manager

Too One Sided, Not Enough Info

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at BAE and have a disability. HR was basically worthless but my managers have been ok. They could fire me any day due to the poor 'accommodations' agreement I signed but none of them have yet. There is some flexibility in hours and there is supposed to be flexibility in work schedules, meaning you can take a 15% cut in pay and benefits to get a 15% cut in hours. I'm not sure if this is something that opened to me after being here for over a year, but I didn't know about it my first year.

BAE Systems is a military defense contractor (and we make electronic buses...). If he was doing encryption work it was probably going to be classified and classified work can't be done remotely, but you also aren't going to be working nights or be on call unless he was specifically being hired for special duties which would have been in the job description. Since we're government contractors, we have to record our time down to every 6 minutes. Time tracking is very strict because screwing up is considered an attempt to defraud the federal government and thus a federal crime. You aren't allowed to work overtime (over 45 hours) without management approval. None of the teams I've worked on worked weekends.

I agree it was wrong to fire him, but the discrimination line about "stereotypical male breadwinner" is complete bullshit. And why was he even talking to HR? You don't go to HR to tell them you're going to work a normal schedule. To me it sounds like the guy was hired for some extra responsibilities and then the very first thing he did was tell them he couldn't do those. My first 4 hours was setting up my desk and taking a tour of the building, not having policy meetings. During the hiring process he should have said he could only work part-time for the first couple months before transitioning to full-time. He probably would have been ok doing that. BAE is trying to hire a lot of people.

From my experience, companies that prompt things like 'not tolerating discrimination of any kind', 'diversity', or 'XYZ encouraged to apply' are generally the ones who tolerate those things the least. It's just like 'safe spaces'. Go to a safe space and provide an opinion different from their status quo and you're aggressively kicked out. The ones who argue the loudest for something are the worse at it.

One last thing, the USA side is "BAE Systems Inc." "BAE Systems" is the British side of the company. For the people posing .uk links, they have nothing to do with the USA side of the company.

(Please don't fire me for this post)

Re:How was he wronged?

[geekmux]

If you can't meet the requirements a specific job needs, the employer has a right to not hire you or to fire you. Promises of work-life balance are subjective, and it's up to the employer to decide their policy. It's up to the employee to decide whether or not they like the company. It's definitely not up to the government to decide. I feel bad for the guy, but he hasn't really been wronged. He might have a case, though, if he can show damages from thinking he had a job, and lost time looking for another job.

He applied for a job.

He was hired based on his qualifications.

He explained very clearly specific limitations upon being selected for said job, which his supervisor agreed to those terms.

He was wronged because after ALL that, he was fired from said job because he was not afforded an opportunity to work long enough to prove the specific limitation was even going to be an issue for the employer. This might be different if he was still in the probationary period and growing demands at home started interfering with his ability to work or deliver. That was certainly not the case since he was fired within hours of all parties accepting all terms.

Re:WTF!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, then I'm pretty sure you can come up with a scenario where someone agreeing to work beyond his normal working hours from home is a reason to fire him.

easy. this was the cyber security team at BAE, a well known defense supplier. If he was hired as part of a incident response team dealing with classified environments with his role then he could easily have requirements to come into the office after hours as many environments cannot be accessed remotely. I have had that exact scenario myself working with another defense contractor.

I was very lucky

[SuseLover]

In December 2014 my wife was in her last weeks of life when I was informed I would be laid off in a few months. The company allowed me to spend the rest of my employment through February 2015 at home with her until her death on Christmas day 2014. I did not even have to report for work or do my job but got paid and kept our insurance.

I don't know what I would have done if I couldn't be with her to take care of her at the time. It was very depressing to lose my job, especially at that time. But I must say they went above and beyond for me and the CEO came to the funeral even though he did not ever meet or know her.

Fuck cancer (colon), she was 51, never drank, smoked, or did drugs and we were married for 20+ years. RIP My Love - I miss you

Re: WTF!!!

[PatientZero]

But to the original point, given that it's illegal for companies to ask about such issues and BAE didn't in this case (good!), was it disrespectful for the guy to wait until his first day to bring it up?

I would definitely have discussed it with my supervisor once I had accepted the position and signed the paperwork, but that's usually handled on the first day in the office.