Slashdot Mirror
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.
What?! He would work his full work day but if he was needed during night or weekend he would work from home and they fired him? For taking care of his dying wife?! Holy Jesus if only I could put my hands on the HR assholes department of BAE systems...I would teach them the lesson of their miserable life.
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?
You can't handle the truth.
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.
impossible to know whether this is a case of an evil company or a case of a self entitled git without knowing what was the conditions of employment he was knowingly signing up to. e.g. if they said in job description "must be available oncall 24/7" and that included coming to office then I can understand him having his job offer rescinded regardless of his personal circumstances. Work-Life balance is all about providing that balance outside of the expected job requirements and sometimes flexibility inside job requirements (but not always).
Sounds like more bullshit on the part of the company. There was most likely a very quick decision made to get rid of him before they had to shell out any benefits. The costs of late stage cancer care in the US are fucking obscene and it is like a bunch of fucking vultures circling sucking the bucks out of the dying and their loved ones. Corporate health and employee benefit schemes for profit are a huge scam, corporations know this and to a large extent are just as much at financial risk when someone is really sick. The whole health care system in the US is complete mess because of health care for profit bullshit. This most likely was the reason why they dumped him real quick.
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.
it's in my head
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.
If his "His supervisor was fine with it", then why the hell did HR get involved in the first place?
Something fishy is going on and I'm calling shenanigans.
The lawsuit raises interesting questions, such as whether employment law requires corporations to have the sort of common decency we expect from individuals.
They don't. And that's exactly why they were created in the first place: to avoid pesky human feelings from hindering business.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
> The Boston Globe reports that on his first day on the job, Davis explained that his wife had late-stage cancer.
Why did he wait until his first day? We all know the answer to this one. Had he thought it would have increased his chances of getting a job in the first place he'd have mentioned it in the interview. All things being equal, you're going to hire the guy who's going to be able to devote more of his time and attention to the job. How is this remotely controversial?
The irony is this is a British company, but in Britain he would have had the legal right to take time off to make other arrangements. (though probably not for much longer)
My cynical guess is that this company's corporate HR is on a mission to avoid situations that would make group health insurance premiums go up; when they figure out that this new employee could be one of those, although a court would probably say they've already technically hired him, they figure they shouldroll the dice and attempt to put the pin back in. Many people would say "no harm, no foul" and go get a job somewhere else.
Depending on the timeline, it could have been the other -philia.
Ezekiel 23:20
....and the inflammatory sexist statement, made without any proof, at the end doesn't help. Extrapolating from the timing (we have literally nothing else to go on) it looks to me that he wasn't fired for wanting to take care of his wife. Seems more likely he was let go for either lying (or "sin of omission") at the interview and then asking for special treatment when he turned up.
We don't know what the role was, so we don't know how likely it would be for evening/weekend work etc.. A company may well have a duty of care to its employees, but it does not have a duty of care to people who aren't its employees. Unless this was all nailed down at interview then the company didn't get what they were told they were getting. Sympathy for an employee is one thing and we don't know how the company would have responded to an existing employee suddenly having that need. What we're seeing appears to be a potential employee hiding something until actually employed and then trying to spring it on a company as an obligation.
I am currently at a company that has been extremely generous to me in terms of time needed at home. I would not expect that same generosity if I had turned up at interview asking for the same, and I certainly wouldn't expect it if I turned up without letting them know and then saying "surprise, I'm working like this now".
"Work/life balance - We aim to give you time to focus on what's important outside the office, as well as at work."
Except if you actually believe that your FAMILY is part of that balance, in which case, FUCK YOU and YOUR SICK WIFE !!
Bunch of cunts - but sadly, they're not alone.
The weapons support industry (all of us who work in secondary industries supplying the weapons manufacturers) are chock full of corporate arselickers, so enthusiastic to fuck over employees for an imagined leg up the stinking chain hierarchical chain of scum.
We've got so many burn-outs, the HR department can't keep up. Then again, the HR department has the worst turnover of any department in the company, so looks like we're permanently fucked forever :(
Time to update the CV ....
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)
If BAE systems are as honest in business with their customers and partners as they are with their employees, you're better off going elsewhere.
Their "official statement" - it's not even "I can explain!" - it's like your wife walks in on you as you're balls deep in your mistress, then without stopping, you say "But darling, I never cheated on you and never will!" in-between thrusts. "...and I refuse to comment on what I'm doing right now and here."
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
to avoid the legal liability for inevitable insane, evil things that come out of having your sole legal obligation being the pursuit of profits.
On the contrary. Once the British leave the neo-conservative corporatocracy called the EU, they at least have the opportunity to become human again. The British can choose to be governed by a democratic power instead of lobbyists. Whether they do so is off course the question. Much of the neo-conservative belief system came from people like Margaret Thatcher after all.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
If you think a 50 50 is balance then you're scammed. Let's ignore the fact that you only have 1 life and it encompasses everything you do it in including work. You'd be hard press to do a life life balance if you don't even have to work. Let alone this bs balance you're sold to.
Back to strategizing the groupthink retraining matrix lol.
Surely if we wanted accommodation for dealing with a dying family member he should have gone with a company that touts its commitment to work/death balance?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's not that uncommon. Yes, you cannot work more than 10 hours a day, so if you happen to have a meeting outside of town at the end of your work day, well, see how you get home, 'cause we won't pay for your return trip or hotel room.
The logical consequence is that people start to forge their time sheets. You cheat me without remorse, don't expect me to be honest with you!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The British can choose to be governed by a democratic power...
Which is why the first thing May's government did was to try side-stepping parliament...
It's the same all over - people like to push the blame onto others, otherwise they'd have to admit their own stupidity. I work with a couple of people like that - it's always somebody else's fault.
The EU will continue to be a great scapegoat all the way through the Article 50 negotiations, and even after if the UK doesn't get a good deal. I wonder what will replace it in the future?
Due to this page http://www.baesystems.com/en/c... they are pretty much screwed any where in the world, when that page hits the court.
The page specifically states that it is for "Careers in the UK". Last time I checked, the state of Massachusetts was not part of the United Kingdom... It hasn't been ruled by English overlords for over 200 years. ;-)
This is the US Benefits Page. Note that there is no "take care of dying wife" leave, but there is "bereavement" leave for *after* she dies. :-O
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
This is clickbait BS most likely. BAE is a government contractor. They don't give a shit about little stuff like this. They just bill the government. Since the article fails to name the people involved I take this with a grain of salt. Chances are there is a lot more to this story.
I ask any perspective employer or recruiter what the work from home policy is during the job interview. If it's none, I usually end the interview at some point. If it's some, we continue to talk and I base my salary request on commute time and costs. The less work from home and the longer the commute, the more I ask for.
The only person to blame was the employee that neglected to figure things out ahead of time.
BTW .. my current job lets me work from home 100% of the time, so don't tell me it isn't a good idea to ask.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
The black guys' lives do not depend on whether a girl is willing to date them. Our lives DO depend on whether someone is willing to employ us. When you have a UBI high enough to allow people to survive WITHOUT having a job, then your analogy is correct (and I might even agree with it as I consider many racial discrimation complaints to be idiotic). We need to disconnect jobs from survival, otherwise there will always be a conflict between allowing people to survive and allowing companies to succeed.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Not exactly sufficient amount of time to have earned any assumptive rights. Without a written contract, there's no case here.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Seems like a non-story to me.
The man was offered a job based on the expectation that he would be available 24/7, and he got the job because he agreed to those terms. Usually those term include a probationary period of 30-90 days. Then he shows up on the first day and asks to change those terms. His manager is fine with it but HR is not and
Davis was informed his job offer was being rescinded. Don Davis had been in the office all of four hours.
What did you think was going to happen? You can't sign a contract and then demand major changes in the first four hours. This is the kind of thing supposed to be settled before the contact is signed. And based on HR's reaction they would have never signed the contact if he had made these conditions known up front. This guy just tried to pull the old bait and switch. He negotiated that contract in bad faith. I suspect what is really happening is his lawyer sees an 'evil' big corp with lots of money and a man who's wife just tragically died of cancer, and figured he/she can play up the sympathy angle. Get the company to settle to avoid bad press rather than win on the merits of the case.
In the future, everyone will be an independent contractor with no benefits of any kind. When jobs are stripped of all benefits there's absolutely no advantage to being an employee so everyone will gladly accept the new way of working (or not working).
With the GOP in power, the social safety net will disappear completely, starting with health care.
Enjoy it people. You voted for them.
An employer who refuses to hire someone for an illegal reason is still liable. The prospective employees don't need to have either contacts or any minimum term of service to make illegal actions illegal.
Why does everyone assume he was fired because of the work-left balance issue? He told them on day 1 his wife had cancer. Presumably he was going to be getting medical insurance, including for his wife. Since there are no pre-existing condition clauses anymore, and since many large companies self-insure (not sure if this includes BAE or not), I think it's just as likely he was fired because they figured he was going to cause a big spike in their costs due to expensive cancer treatment. HR had probably been getting crap about doing what they can to reel in their health care expenses, they saw a big budget buster, and said HELL NO. Of course those may not be fair assumptions on their part (maybe she already has insurance from another source), but they can't exactly go asking too many questions without creating evidence of discrimination. So just play it safe and get rid of him right away.
Due to this page http://www.baesystems.com/en/c... they are pretty much screwed any where in the world, when that page hits the court.
The page specifically states that it is for "Careers in the UK". Last time I checked, the state of Massachusetts was not part of the United Kingdom... It hasn't been ruled by English overlords for over 200 years. ;-)
This is the US Benefits Page. Note that there is no "take care of dying wife" leave, but there is "bereavement" leave for *after* she dies. :-O
The point is that the benefits in the UK are minimal by UK standards, so it is reasonable to infer that they will also be minimal by US standards in the US too.
For instance, 27 days annual leave probably sounds like some sort of mad socialist dream to most US readers, but even the stingiest of employers here will give you 20 days + bank (public) holidays).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The company was being a dick, and the way people are reacting every time someone plays the gender discrimination card these days is not going to gain him any sympathy. And he should have a lot of sympathy.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
On the contrary. Once the British leave the neo-conservative corporatocracy called the EU, they at least have the opportunity to become human again. The British can choose to be governed by a democratic power instead of lobbyists. Whether they do so is off course the question. Much of the neo-conservative belief system came from people like Margaret Thatcher after all.
Whatever you think of Maggie T's beliefs, linking her philosophically to the EU is, um, counter-intuitive to say the least.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The result of one referendum is not the be all and end all of UK democracy.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Yes, you cannot work more than 10 hours a day
Bullshit. You can't be forced to work more than 10 hours a day, that's all. You can always opt out.
Thanks for more proof that most of the arguments for Brexit were built on a combination of ignorance and lies.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
They once cancelled my kids health insurance after an audit for eligibility (basically prove we were married and they were my kids). I submitted all the required documentation, but they misplaced it and without warning cancelled my children (but continued to insure my wife and I).
As it turns out in addition to them being in the wrong (they located the documentation I submitted), the HR guy was gay, and angry about (then) same sex marriage not being allowed, so when corporate finally relented and agreed to turn the benefit back in, the gay dude refused to process the request because it was for a heterosexual couple (this is all in email) and left it on his desk for weeks.
I had to quit to get coverage.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
His supervisor was fine with it, but the human resources department fired him on the spot after four hours of employment.
HR is a scourge that must be eliminated by any means necessary.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Talk for your country. In mine, your employer can actually be fined if for whatever reason you work more than 10 hours.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I suspect you'll find BAE offer 25 days (starting) plus the bank holidays. So 33 days in total.
Which is pretty standard for professional roles at a large organisation.
The rest are fairly basic benefits though, yes.
"...whether employment law requires corporations to have the sort of common decency we expect from individuals"
Anyone that expects a corporation to have "common decency" hasn't been paying attention for the last 100 years or so.
Humans are just another disposable resource that a corporation will use, abuse, and then discard in the interests of keeping the bottom line down. Corporations are like the Terminator in that they have no feelings or empathy, and they act in their own self-interest to the exclusion of all other factors.
No corporation gives a shit about human beings; if anything humans are an inconvenient part of their Primary Mission, which is to make as much money as possible. If corporations had their way they'd be allowed to throw your body into a hopper and recycle you for spare parts and minerals when you got killed on the job. And they'd bill you for the cost of the electricity and disposal fees to do so.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Apparently, job security based on not having a dying wife.
Also, of the various complaints I've heard about unions over the years, I've never before heard of unions not sufficiently promoting credentials.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I have interacted with human resources people in several companies. By and large, they behaved like a bunch of bastards. It may be the case that they were just obeying the command of higher management, or that they were enjoying the power that they had over their hapless victims, or both. What does not change is the fact that they behaved like complete bastards.
BAE is a shit show, my Ex wife worked there, it was an old boys network where you only go promoted if you had the right genitalia and went out for beers with the right people on the right night. They worked ridiculous hours much of the time and didn't give a rats ass about work life balance. Avoid at all costs
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
First, why the hell switch job when your wife is having late stage cancer and needs your support?
What makes you think it was voluntary? Why do people generally assume that job changes are by choice at all when layoffs are so common in the tech industry?
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
2) Only after being engaged by the company did he disclose he would limit his working time to 40 hours per week
I remember when this was what we called standard employment terms, nobody is supposed to be expected to work more than 40 hours a week.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Since when is a 40 hour work week (with additional off site hours offered) considered a demand?
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
I've never worked anywhere that would not have accommodated someone with a dying wife.
I know it's fun for Europeans to pretend that the US workers are treated like slaves, but it's not actually true, you know.
If it's in software, *why* is it in software?
1. HR departments, who *still* don't know shit about the company, and refuse to learn., and
2. Upper management, who tells them to hire younger, because they're cheaper.
When I was looking, and in my resume, I dropped the first 10 years of work experience. If I were looking again, I'd drop the first 15, at least.
Come the Revolution, we're going to lead HR depts in to the parking lot, toss asphalt on them, and PAVE THEM INTO THE ROADWAY, so that they provide *some* social utility.
A belief based on feelings and not facts is irrational and illogical.
Did you notice that the person worked for a total of 4 hours at BAE? Given that very glaring item:
Is it possible that the employee misled employers and said he was willing to work within their terms, but on day one refused to those same terms? The reasoning does not matter, it's the action that matters.
If the employee was dishonest in the terms of hiring they need to be held accountable for their actions. It never ceases to amaze me how people jump to the guilty verdict due to appeals to emotion. Western Justice works, or is at least supposed to work, on the principle of innocent until proven otherwise.
Reading a blog post full of appeal to emotion arguments does not indicate guilt or innocence. The amount of hyperbole, fallacy, and claims like "If I was their attorney I would settle out of court!" makes me question the claim even more.
I have a deep sympathy for the man and his wife, my dad died of cancer when I was 14 years old. My sympathy does not mean I lose sight of Justice.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The only way in which psychology bells are ringing here is that you're talking out of your ass.
Ezekiel 23:20
I'm fine with that. Companies will just have to accept the contracting rates. After all if I'm an independent contractor I will need to guarantee myself all the benefits that the company normally provides under law, and it'll be reflected in my price.
He should only have one bae in his life.
Any company that places restrictions on what an employee can do in off work hours should be forced to pay the employee 24 hours a day. For example asking employees to stay on stand by in case they are needed should never be allowed unless the employees remain on the clock 24/7. For example "We may need you this weekend if things don't go well here so stay by your phone." was one pulled on me. My reply was I go fishing on weekends and will be offshore and whether you call me or not it might take a full day to get back to you. If an employer occupies my time they will pay or i will not respond. Then there is the other type of nonsense where a bank employee is told that they can not go to a horse race track or dog track as investors get nervous if they see bank employees in a situation where gambling is usually involved, I won't play that game one little bit.
This is about:
A. Incompetence. It's not a sign of corporate greed to offer someone a job and then quickly rescind that offer. This does not exclude greed as a factor, but a greedy corporation that was competent would simply have never made the job offer in the first place. And by corporate competence I am not referring specifically to the competence of any of the individual employees of the corporation, just their collective ability to work together.
B. Bad regulations. None of this would be an issue if we just had a decent healthcare system to begin with. Forcing the responsibility of healthcare onto employers was a way for cowardly legislators to avoid the blame of raising taxes and not providing public welfare. It's easy to sell a public comprising people desperate for good healthcare and people resistant to paying more taxes on a plan to take the money from "rich corporations" to pay for healthcare. But this poorly thought out solution creates some undesirable incentives.
Whether you are on the left or the right, you should be in favor of single payer healthcare. If you are on the right, if you can get over paying higher taxes to benefit those less fortunate, it actually allows for a more free labor market without the perverse incentives that come with tying healthcare to employment.
If you really don't understand the difference between suicide and starving or dying from exposure to cold then we have no common base for discussion.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
I used to work at a fast food restaurant where the manager's husband depended on the insurance (crappy as it was) for his meds. The owner found out (and this was pre-Obamacare, so no coverage for pre-existing conditions) and worked her 60,70 hours a week. She was still doing it when I left 15 or so years ago...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
BAE is a Defense contractor and his work would involve classified data which can not be accessed remotely. This work involves rooms with layers of physical security and dropping all of your gear into a locker (no cell phones, no external computers) before you enter the rooms.
This is obviously a concern for the employee who would probably want to have a constant ability for his wife to contact him.
Many people can't handle this type of work, many people crack a bit mentally because of the work. It's a choice whether or not to take this type of job, and nobody is unclear about the requirements. Every single person entering this work receives numerous briefings describing the work environment and requirements, and once you are in the job you will continue to be briefed on the work environment and requirements. Those briefings are required by both regulation and policy.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"They are saying he should be available to work 24/7."
If you are in the US, likely it is ILLEGAL for them to require that...
You have never heard of a "right to work" law?
Nobody made the person take this job, they chose the job. Nobody makes you take a job with similar requirements in the US, you volunteer for those jobs. There is no requirement that they pay you truckloads of money, but the market will dictate that they have to pay higher for people to agree to those terms. If you have bunches of people willing to work that type of job, the pay will go down.
The rest of your statements are predicated on a false belief that employee/employer relationships are one way with the employer on the hook for everything the employee wants. Which is complete bullshit, and part of the reason we have to pass bad laws like "right to work". Without those laws, Employers have no protection. With them, both sides gain disadvantages.
IANAL, but...
That was made obvious in the first part of your post. Do society a favor and stop trying to give out bad legal advise based on ignorance and lies.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
How about the employee claiming he had no restrictions for on-call on-site work, but on his first day demanded no call and off site work? That has nothing to do with his wife, but everything to do with terms agreed upon at hiring. Even if you assume that the guy made a decision under personal stress, is that the companies fault that he lied?
Not everything is about "evil employers" you know. There are plenty of bad apples on the employee's side as well.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Up here in Canuckistan we're generally not allowed to probe too deeply into prospective employees' personal lives, but when I'm doing an interview, I ask the question "Is there anything that would interfere with you performing the duties detailed in the job description?"
It's the same in the U.S. You can't ask even simple things like "Are you married?" or "Do you own a car?" as these could be used to discriminate. You might assume their answer would interfere with their work performance. And that question you posted is exactly what's recommended here as well. All employees must be able to perform their duties. It's up to them to deal with their specific circumstances to do so. When they cannot (as in your example), it's their responsibility to speak up.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
I won't tell you where I worked, just that I spent a decade working in Defense. When deaths occurred due to failures in our systems, yes we were expected to be on-call and working on a fix. Reading casualty reports should be incentive for you to do just that. Being a US Army veteran, you bet your ass I was working overtime and odd hours when and where needed. The company compensated where necessary to ensure I didn't burn out in the process.
This person was not hired by the company supporting an intern's iPad, BAE is a defense contractor responsible for gear used by the military for both training and combat.
Not all Government related jobs are bad, you just have that perception.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I work for a medium-sized software company and their work-life balance claims are also bogus. I handed in my resignation last week after nearly a year of trying to work out a 4-day work week. Ever since my wife started a fulltime job, we're running ragged and not even seeing the kids. Since her longterm earning potential dwarfs mine, I figured I'd cut back. But nope -
The company says they need me so much that they're willing to let me go rather than let me work less than fulltime. My manager(s) (I've been talking about this since before a recent reorganization) sound sympathetic enough, but if they agree to my request they've lost part of a headcount which they can't replace.
So yeah, I can underline the fact that "work life balance" is just another empty phrase. But this guy's situation puts mine into some perspective...
Perfectly Normal Industries
We lost that ground, when you implied, somebody owes you a living... That's simply not true — if you can't find something to do, that somebody else is willing to pay for, then you aren't useful on this Earth...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I was working for a Houston-based Halliburton in 2009 when my wife passed away suddenly at the age of 34.
We buried her next to family in Chattanooga. When I got to the funeral home, three divisions of Halliburton - not just the one I worked for - sent huge six-foot-tall flower arrangements. They'd not contacted me or anybody who was helping me out with things that I knew of, so I don't know how they got the info of where to send things.
I went back to work two weeks later (and even after that, had to work my way up gradually to doing a full day over the course of a week). The official company policy was that we got three days of bereavement leave. I asked what to do about the extra time I'd taken off, and a division VP (2-3 org chart positions above my direct manager) said "Put down that you were gone for three days, and don't worry about it."
Other than the coworker (who was from a different country and grew up in a different culture) that walked into my office two weeks later and said "She's dead, get over it", I couldn't have asked for a more supportive company to work for during such a tragedy.
When caught being an idiot, act like a bigger idiot.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I don't know whether someone owes me a living or not. I am saying that it's rational, when denied of living, to try to kill and steal to get it. After all, if even living is denied out of you, whta have you got to lose? I know that libertarians think that somalia is an utopia, but others prefer to actually have a society where everyone can survive, even without working, rather than face a much higher level of crime.
Regarding "aren't useful on earth" well... Is it really wrong to call you a nazi at this point?
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
The result of one referendum is not the be all and end all of UK democracy.
It just happens to be the will of the voting public. People couldn't get off their ass to vote? Don't like the response? That's their problem. You know what's dangerous about believing that a referendum isn't the end of democracy with the voting public? That you can change foundational laws by fiat by using the courts.
Om, nomnomnom...
... it's about a company not wanting to take on insuring a late stage cancer case
'Late stage cancer' is code for hospice. Relatively cheap, as their is nothing to do but kill the pain.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If you only have one client, what you say is sort of true. That makes little difference.
If you have many clients, _everything_ is different.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Oh, this is awesome! So, refusing to buy something — such as labor — from you justifies theft and even murder, in your opinion? This is the only interpretation of the quoted sentence, that makes sense in the context of the employment-discrimination...
No, we don't. This is a stupid meme invented by Illiberal morons, who project their own flaws on others and fail to recognize assholes of their own kind. Somalia was a Collectivist "paradise" — and that is, what lead to its current state. The path, I might add, Venezuela — a darling of Socialists world-wide — is now walking down on as well.
If you wish to support those, who can not support themselves, you are welcome to share your own earnings with them. But there is no moral/ethical justification to compel the rest of us — at the government's gun-point, which is how taxes are collected — to help anyone.
Whether they are destitute through no fault of their own or otherwise, the rest of us do not owe them anything. You can appeal to us to help those, you deem worthy of helping, but you must not be able to force us.
Ah! So it is not the benevolence, that drives you to help others out, but simply fear of criminals? Nice, for a second there I thought, I'm talking to Mother Theresa (reincarnated). Well, here are some numbers for you... The total cost of crime in the US is about $200 bln/year. The annual cost of the "War on Poverty" is four times that. So, if we eliminate those expenditures entirely — and the crime-levels as much triple, we'd still be saving a few hundred billion dollars a year.
That said, this has nothing to do with discrimination — real or imagined — so let's not get sidetracked.
National Socialist? You really are in denial about your own self. Those Collectivists also — like you — worshiped the State and expected it to provide them with everything: Education, Healthcare, Pensions... Unlike Socialists — of all stripes — Libertarians advocate for the Individual, however cantankerous, above the Collective, however Glorious.
So far, we've established, that you are a Socialist and that you approve of killing, when people don't want to hire you or otherwise supply you with "living". If you want to see a Nazi, look into a mirror...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.