Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the mind-body-and-soul dept.

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.

81 of 513 comments (clear)

  1. WTF!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:WTF!!! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?!

      You are jumping to conclusions that are not supported by evidence. We was fired on his first day of work. The reasons for that are not clear, but there is almost always more to these stories than what is on the surface. You are only hearing one very biased side of it.

    2. Re:WTF!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      mind that average HR person is a woman, are you ready to put hands on a woman?

    3. Re:WTF!!! by shri · · Score: 3

      +1 - Like an onion, there are layers to this story which have not been peeled.

    4. Re:WTF!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That might be. However, the most important thing here is in my opinion that employers have a terrible amount of control over their employees' lives. Here in the EU, and especially in Scandinavia, we have very good protection by law for workers in situations like these. There is also fair means of state-sponsored compensation for employees (especially smaller ones) that may otherwise suffer financially from an employees personal crisis.

      We need to start treat workers as humans and stop thinking private corporations have the right to anything and everything. They take advantage of the stable society we all provide for them. It should come with a responsibility to treat employees humanely.

    5. Re:WTF!!! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Sexist pig! How should we EVER overcome gender issues if we still treat women and men differently?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:WTF!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      employers need to treat workers as humans, likewise workers need to treat emplooyers with at least some basic respect, for such a situation to only be revealed to the employer on the day he starts screams that he hid the fact to ensure they would not suspect he had issues performing his duties. respect is a 2 way street and in this situation it seems the same respect was shown for him as he had shown for them.

    7. Re:WTF!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:WTF!!! by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Funny

      And like an onion, they will likely make you cry when peeled.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    9. Re:WTF!!! by Macthorpe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hiding what? Do you go to job interviews and they ask you if your wife has cancer? Is it relevant to your competency to work the hours you're contracted?

      Your employment system is fucked.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    10. Re: WTF!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, we are not suposed to reveal such things pre-employment, and it is against the law for companies to ask such things. Just because some idiot makes an asinine comment doesn't mean that you should base your opinion of our employment system on it. There are plenty of bad things about it to base your opinion on.

    11. Re:WTF!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you seriously going to pretend that

      A) people should immediately give any family medical circumstances right along with their Resume
      and
      B) that *any* corporation in america would have ever hired him knowing he had sick family?

      Because the first is none of their business - dangerous even due to how easily it can open one up to abuse. And the second? The second is an outright lie. Not one HR entity in this country would *ever* see "my family member has advanced cancer and I may need to work from home when doing overtime" and think anything other than "hahahaha! lol! into the reject pile! hey bill check out this Sobbing SOB! Get it?"

    12. Re:WTF!!! by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh yeah, he revealed on the day he started that working beyond the official hours would come with a caveat.

      How HORRIBLE of him! He didn't bring a sleeping bag and a toothbrush to work after divorcing his dying wife before leaving his home for the last time!

      Respect goes both ways, sure - but due to the insane power difference between employer and employee that respect has to start at the TOP, otherwise it's bootlicking and grovelling in the hopes of being thrown a treat and a kind word one day.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    13. Re: WTF!!! by thundercattt · · Score: 2

      I'm not surprised these days. I had requested time off work when my daughter was in the hospital. Employer said I know she's sick but we need you here, if you can't be here.....well..... Pink slip came.

    14. Re:WTF!!! by ebyrob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Surely if you were recruiting for a job which requires someone to be physically available after hours (or travel away from home half the month, or whatever) this would be discussed at the interview, and put in the job contract?

      What makes you think it wasn't?

    15. Re: WTF!!! by ebyrob · · Score: 2

      If you legitimately had available PTO (Paid Time Off) and they didn't let you use it under those circumstances... That's really messed up, you would probably own them in court. In fact, even without PTO, that's against the Family Leave Act.

    16. Re:WTF!!! by JeffOwl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe that this is the more likely scenario: They are interviewing for a specific job. They tell him the job involves doing work that can't be done at home. They tell him the job will involve working after hours from time to time on things that cannot be done at home. He accepts the job offer and then on the first day of employment says he cannot do the job for which he was hired, rather he would like to do the job for which he would have liked to have been hired. The company says no, he cries to the media.

    17. Re:WTF!!! by flink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We need to start treat workers as humans and stop thinking private corporations have the right to anything and everything. They take advantage of the stable society we all provide for them. It should come with a responsibility to treat employees humanely.

      I think it is telling that we call the people management department of our corporations human resources. It used to be the personnel department. Persons you relate to. Resources are things you exploit.

    18. Re:WTF!!! by tsqr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe that this is the more likely scenario: They are interviewing for a specific job. They tell him the job involves doing work that can't be done at home. They tell him the job will involve working after hours from time to time on things that cannot be done at home. He accepts the job offer and then on the first day of employment says he cannot do the job for which he was hired, rather he would like to do the job for which he would have liked to have been hired. The company says no, he cries to the media.

      TFS: "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."

      What part of that leads you to believe that his work couldn't be performed from home? HR departments in large corporations are typically not intimately familiar with the detailed requirements of a particular position, while the employee's supervisor certainly is.

    19. Re:WTF!!! by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      TFS: "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."

      What part of that leads you to believe that his work couldn't be performed from home?

      BAE Systems is a defense contractor and Davis' area of expertise is cryptography. It's all but certain that a defense contractor is contractually obligated to perform all security-related work on site in appropriately-secured offices, which would imply that no work can be performed from home, and Davis' job as a cryptographer is all about security. It's also very likely that the company's policies require the same, regardless of contractual requirements. Never mind that cryptographic security should absolutely not depend on secrecy... the contracts/policies don't make that distinction.

      I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Davis, but it is important to remember that we're only hearing one side of the story, and that's the story as presented by Mr. Davis' attorney, whose job is to put the strongest possible spin on the facts, without actually lying. Attorneys are very good at that.

      HR departments in large corporations are typically not intimately familiar with the detailed requirements of a particular position, while the employee's supervisor certainly is.

      I fail to see the relevance, unless you're assuming that all hiring is done by HR with no involvement of the hiring department (which does happen in some particularly stupid companies, but not many).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    20. Re:WTF!!! by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      To be fair, the company, like nearly any sane/competent company on the planet, will avoid making any public comment, and instead save it for the courtroom.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    21. Re: WTF!!! by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      And... they break such laws regularly, with impunity, so it's a moot point.

    22. Re:WTF!!! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      It's all but certain that a defense contractor is contractually obligated to perform all security-related work on site in appropriately-secured offices, which would imply that no work can be performed from home

      Well, except most night/weekend work would probably be unclassified things like conference calls and status reports.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    23. Re: WTF!!! by swillden · · Score: 2

      And... they break such laws regularly, with impunity, so it's a moot point.

      If you get asked such questions in a job interview and don't get the job, you have an excellent case for an employment discrimination suit. The laws in question have civil remedies, not criminal, so it's up to the employment candidate to file suit and recover the penalty. It happens regularly, which is why every company I've done interviews at has given me specific training on what questions may not be asked during interviews.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    24. Re:WTF!!! by Archtech · · Score: 2

      It sounds like a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, which is very common in large corporations.

      I had an experience that was similar in some respects, although (fortunately) nothing like as traumatic.

      While working for a large multinational computer corporation many years ago, I had occasion several times to accompany the sales rep for the RAF on some of his calls. I was asked to make some presentations and to answer questions, and after a while the sales guy told me that the RAF loved my attitude and approach, and had asked if I could become his technical assistant. I replied that I'd be delighted to work with him and with such a great bunch of people as the RAF, and we thought that was that.

      Until HR got involved. Apparently no position at that level could be filled without an HR inteview, and I met with a complete stranger who talked to me for about one hour. Then he told me immediately that I was wholly unqualified, and quite the wrong person for the job. My answers revealed that I was not very sociable, and more interested in "things" than in "people". That ruled me out for a presales job.

      No one told the little HR man that his description of me was also a perfect fit for everyone whom I had met in the RAF. They, too, were all about technology and getting results. They revelled in technical specifications and discussions, and never wasted a moment on unnecessary social chit-chat. And they appreciated the fact that I knew my company's products and their capabilities almost as well as they understood their aircraft and procedures - unlike most of my colleagues whom they had met. (Including senior managers).

      That's essentially why big corporations fail.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    25. Re:WTF!!! by Enigma2175 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      . Usually when people have steady jobs that have health insurance and someone covered has a serious illness, they won't change jobs because doing so has possible health insurance implications that could be negative.

      And this is reason #45123998 why the US should have single-payer healthcare. When you tie healthcare to work it gives the employer an extraordinary amount of leverage over the employee. Of course, employers like it this way which is why the system is the way that it is, since those with the money make the rules in this country.

      --

      Enigma

    26. Re:WTF!!! by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And I'll bet there's *tons* of aspects of the job that can be done from home, without violating any contractual obligations.
      Do the sensitive stuff 8-5 and do the rest at home.

      As someone who's been penalized for trying to use their (former) company's work-life balance programs I am going to assume the little guy's side on this until evidence to the contrary is provided.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    27. Re:WTF!!! by JeffOwl · · Score: 2

      BAE Systems is such a huge company. They likely have hundreds of dying spouses on their insurance at any given time. While the aggregate cost impacts their premiums, it isn't so bad that it isn't worth one more for a good crypto expert.

    28. Re:WTF!!! by Altus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that he almost certainly wouldn't have taken the job if it was? The fact that his boss was ok with him working any extra hours from home?

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    29. Re:WTF!!! by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      I believe that this is the more likely scenario: They are interviewing for a specific job. They tell him the job involves doing work that can't be done at home. They tell him the job will involve working after hours from time to time on things that cannot be done at home. He accepts the job offer and then on the first day of employment says he cannot do the job for which he was hired, rather he would like to do the job for which he would have liked to have been hired. The company says no, he cries to the media.

      Even so, it was only a highly temporary arrangement. His wife had a few weeks to live (the article notes she passed a couple of months after the incident). Once she passed, he would be free to go to the office and live there if need be. Just in the meantime, a little consideration would be nice.

      And no, stuff like this doesn't need to be mentioned during the job interview. (A company wouldn't want to know it, anyways, because it increases the risk of a discrimination lawsuit.)

      Life happens. Timing can suck at times - think companies don't have to deal with new hires that suddenly need to go on maternity leave? (Some companies take a few months to hire - what would've been the employee working a few months while pregnant turns into the employee needing to take leave within a few weeks of being hired).

      The situation was at most temporary. It may be an issue if it was dragging on for a year, but the doctors gave only weeks (2 weeks to 2 months).

      And chances are, at his position, even though he's probably have to be in the office, he'd very likely not have to work overtime (government contractor and all).

      So it's not only a temporary situation, but one that's very unlikely to happen over the two months.

      And the supervisor was probably correct - it didn't matter to him and being human was the best thing possible. I've had to tell coworkers to simply go home or to not worry about things when they needed to take care of someone. Granted, I don't have the authority to do so, but I will defend my decision as a decent human being trying to be compassionate. There is no work so important that it cannot wait until the next day that cannot be temporarily handled by someone else that would justify lack of compassion.

    30. Re: WTF!!! by tylersoze · · Score: 2

      More to the point what kind of cryptography needs to be done nights and on the weekends?

    31. Re:WTF!!! by ebyrob · · Score: 2

      If *your* wife had at most 2 months to live, seriously, would YOU be working? (okay, husband whatever)

      He obviously felt he really needed the work, especially the benefits. Why would he risk his chances of getting the job by complaining about extra off-hours work during the interview process? Why would he share any of this with the writer of the article when it doesn't fit with his agenda? (brand new lawsuit pending)

      From TFA:

      the woman didn’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.

      His words.

      Typically even a soul-sucking HR drone isn't going to "insist on 24/7 availability" if it's not in the job requirements. These people follow a script, and if it wasn't in the script she wouldn't have been asking for it.

    32. Re:WTF!!! by slinches · · Score: 2

      Single payer isn't the only alternative that avoids this issue. There are more direct ways to decouple employment from health insurance, like requiring employers to offer the cash value of health benefits for use toward a privately purchased plan and/or allow anyone to enroll in a corporate health plan at the full cost.

      Just those two regulations would do a lot to eliminate the imbalance of information in employment benefits and health insurance costs that create the imbalance in power.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    33. Re:WTF!!! by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      It's like those stories one hears about middle-class white people having run-ins with the cops where their rights aren't respected. It's as if class no longer matters in the USA.

      You're definitely putting too much emphasis on class. There are quite a few upper-class black people who get pulled over by police under the assumption that the car is stolen.

    34. Re: WTF!!! by PatientZero · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
      I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
    35. Re:WTF!!! by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      BAE Systems is a defense contractor and Davis' area of expertise is cryptography. It's all but certain that a defense contractor is contractually obligated to perform all security-related work on site in appropriately-secured offices,

      And you are arguing that his supervisor is not aware of this. That's the only possible way the supervisor would be fine with him working from home if night/weekend work is required.

      It's amazing how many posts get modded up when people don't bother to read TFSummary, much less TFS.

  2. 24/7 job by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:24/7 job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I had such a job for 2 years. My conditions were that regardless of what time I was called into the office I would receive double my hourly rate and I would be paid a minimum of 3 hours even if it only took me 10 mins to resolve. Generally this worked out to be almost a days pay for what usually was at most a 30 min fix, in 2 years I think only twice did I need to actually work more than 3 hours in these callins.

    2. Re:24/7 job by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2

      Ditto.

      Then they made IT workers overtime exempt in the province of Ontario, meaning you'd get *nothing*.

      So I became a contractor.

    3. Re:24/7 job by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I had such a job for 2 years.

      I did it for 4 years. My conditions were that they would provide me with a room to sleep in, and a shower. There was a kitchen in the break room, so I was all set. I saved a fortune by not renting an apartment in the SF Bay Area ($2000 / month for a studio).

      If a server crashed at 3am, I could get dressed and be in the machine room in 2 minutes (maybe 3 minutes if I needed to pee).

    4. Re:24/7 job by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:24/7 job by gsslay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like you gave up all chances of having a normal private life for 4 years to become a company drone. Fine for a short period, and if financially rewarding, but no way to spend a life.

      If a company wants me to be available 24/7, in the office, in addition to usual office hours, they would have to pay me a small fortune and I'd be planning my exit from day 1. Employing me does not mean you own my life.

    6. Re:24/7 job by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds like you gave up all chances of having a normal private life for 4 years to become a company drone.

      Yeah but for 4 years, and look at all the money he saved. That's "putting yourself through college" money. No you're not going to do that and raise a family, but if you're poor or an immigrant and need to bootstrap yourself? That's a damn good opportunity.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:24/7 job by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      That seems like a miserable existence.

      Not at all. It is better than 90% of the world lives. My co-workers spent an hour commuting everyday. My commute was two meters from my bunk to my desk. I had heat in the winter, AC in the summer, no rent to pay, no utility bills, and a nice computer with big dual monitors. What more could I ask for?

      What did you do for fun?

      I wasn't in prison. I could go out anytime to anyplace, as long as I had my cellphone. During normal working hours, when other people were at the office, I didn't even need to take the cellphone.

      Did you never have friends visit?

      I didn't have friends. Friendship is overrated. If you feel a need for male bonding, that is fine, but I always considered that a waste of time, and a distraction from my life goals. I have only had one really close friend in my life, and I am married to her.

      What did you do with all the money you saved?

      I bought a house, funded my 401k, and saved enough to get married and start a family without financial stress.

  3. Wow. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Wow. by mark-t · · Score: 2

      He probably hadn't even been at work long enough for all the paperwork to have been filled out that proved he was ever even an employee there in the first place. As far as HR was concerned at the time, he wasn't an employee yet, so a "rescinded" job offer would make sense from their perspective. And if they really wanted to be assholes (which it appears that they did, so why not go the whole ten yards?), they might have even been able to plausibly deny that he had even actually worked there for the alleged four hours.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    2. Re:Wow. by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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. False advertising, contractual misrepresentation and employment under false conditions. Why they chose this path, in this incident, is likely indicated of poor hiring practices, specifically the human resources twit, who will likely be looking for a new job (one rush of ego and power trip and millions of dollars of recruiting advertising pissed against the wall). That BAE have to self promote extensively to hire people into Death industries, is pretty indicative of unpopular working for them has become, if affect making their employees death eaters (oddly apt for them, http://scifi.stackexchange.com... and they sick desire to fully control the deaths of others). It really is a crap industry, surviving on the death and misery on others but they like to tell themselves they provide for the defence of their country. Nah, just greedy and a lack of self conscious though to guide them past the immorality of their employment.

      Puts me in two minds about the victim, when employees or ex-employees of death industries want us to be sorry for them when they show not the slightest bit of sympathy or empathy for the people their efforts mangle, main and kill, men, women and children and even their pets. Like all things a choice but not empathy for others in your employment choice but you demand empathy. Might be a bit harsh but when those death industries actively and corruptly promote war, and lobby for more conflict with complete disregard for all those they kill, you have to start looking at their employees in a different way, even when you are related.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Wow. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IMO, most countries have hours of work laws that mean an employer isn't in a position to ask employees to work 24x7 in the first place.

      They are not asking him to stay at his desk for 24 hours everyday. They are saying he should be available to work 24/7. I have had plenty of jobs with that requirement. I typically received a middle-of-the-night call once every month or two, but when they came, I was expected to deal with the issue. And, yes, I was paid well.

    4. Re:Wow. by bsolar · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Wow. by Xyrus · · Score: 2

      You have a very naive view of what defense companies do.

      While some parts of these companies manufacture weapons of war, that is only one part of what they do. Take a company like, say, Northrop Grumman. Yeah, they develop drones. But they also develop things like the Webb telescope, emergency response systems for police/fire/etc., so on and so forth. Raytheon develops weather monitoring systems used by NWS. Lockheed has been pouring money into fusion research.

      Classifying defense industries as nothing but merchants of death is like classifying Walmart as baby killers because they sell things that can (and have) killed babies (rat poison, bleach, etc.). There are very few companies that do nothing but defense work these days. Most are diversified across many sectors.

      If you want manufacturers of death and misery, try gun and tobacco manufacturers.

      --
      ~X~
  4. difficult to tell who is at fault from article by gravewax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:difficult to tell who is at fault from article by codeButcher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The article mentions about the HR person: "She simply insisted he needed to be available at the office 24/7".

      Be that as it may, I am not even available 24/7 in my own head. When did they think he would sleep? Go to the toilet?

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    2. Re:difficult to tell who is at fault from article by gravewax · · Score: 2

      you are only hearing one side of this tale at this point. maybe he is 100% correct and she was being a megabitch and backed by pure evil or more likely it was a bit of both with him exaggerating what was actually said as really when have you ever heard of a position that requires you to be in the office 24/7? Also he was working in cryptography for BAE I seriously doubt this would even be work you would be permitted to take home and work on even if they were willing to be really nice and sympathetic.

    3. Re:difficult to tell who is at fault from article by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's also fucking unlikely that a cryptographer is needed outside of normal work hours. What do people imagine, that BAE would be handed a secret message that had to be decoded by a human sitting in a locked, secure room, with no time to waste?

    4. Re:difficult to tell who is at fault from article by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My guess is he works on cryptographic code and if an urgent fix is needed in crypto code (I know, my heartbleeds over this idea..) in defense systems, well, then they need him to work outside normal hours.

    5. Re:difficult to tell who is at fault from article by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      If this happens often enough that a dying wife is an issue, remind me never to buy anything from BAE.

  5. Welcome to Sweden by Troed · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

    --
    it's in my head
    1. Re:Welcome to Sweden by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even in Switzerland, employers are expected to show some flexibility not just for family emergencies but also for taking care of business. If you have to deal with banks or the government, you'll likely not be able to schedule that outside of business hours after all.

      This seems to be yet another example of how questionable the US economy operates sometimes.

    2. Re:Welcome to Sweden by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Most of the civilized world work that way. Because we understand the necessity.

      If you burn out people, you will lose them just as they get productive. That's bad for business.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. How was he wronged? by coteriescavenger · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:How was he wronged? by geekmux · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  7. Decency? by lorinc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Decency? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporations are intelligence without conscience. Yes, the people working there may have "morals", but they don't come into play because you always have someone you can blame for you "having to do" what you're doing.

      If you get laid off by your boss, he's not to blame. He gets that order from higher up. He has to fire one of you guys for the sake of the allmighty profit. And his boss, and his boss, all the way up to C-Level, can pass the blame buck upwards. C-Level isn't to blame either. The CEO has to make the company more profitable because he's responsible for it to the board. And the shareholders, let's not forget the share holders. If he allows his profit to plummet, stock prices will fall and portfolios will sell them. So the investment bankers are to blame? Hell no. They're not doing it with their own money, they have been entrusted with the money of probably hard-working people to invest that money wisely, so they can at some point go into retirement. Holding stock that doesn't perform is not in the interest of those people that trusted them with their money.

      So, in a nutshell, you have a retirement fund? Guess who just caused you to lose your job.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. The irony is by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

  9. cynical guess by rakslice · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. Doesn't smell right by mccalli · · Score: 2

    ....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".

  11. Re:on his first day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is it even relevant ? You want to give your employer the entire medical records of everyone in your family just in case?

    Why the hell does everyone in the US consider overtime work normal ? If your business can't get all the work done in 8 hours, hire additional people. Don't expect ME to spend more than 8 hours in work unless it's a critical emergency - no more than 50 hours per year.

  12. Too One Sided, Not Enough Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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)

    1. Re:Too One Sided, Not Enough Info by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Uh huh. Sure. You worked their for 15 years, but it was so bad, right? And they fire people on a whim for going to hospitals to visit their mothers, right? You "saw" that. Sure you did.

  13. Re:contradiction by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    Something fishy is going on and I'm calling shenanigans.

    I ain't. BAe has been in the news enough with incredibly shady stuff that at this point, assuming guilt from an accusation is reasonable. Remember: corporations are not people.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  14. The message by SharpFang · · Score: 2

    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
  15. Re:Sounds like the UK post Brexit by oobayly · · Score: 2

    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...

  16. Re:Sounds like the UK post Brexit by oobayly · · Score: 2

    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?

  17. Re:on his first day by Skorpion · · Score: 2

    If your SOC / CSIRT has an oncall policy you should have hired more people. Source: am manager at a CSIRT involved in nation-scale incidents. We have 24/7 coverage and nobody works overtime or is oncall.

  18. I was very lucky by SuseLover · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  19. Unlikely by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  20. Complete BS by johnlcallaway · · Score: 2

    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.
  21. I think the company is just following the trend. by mark_reh · · Score: 2

    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.

  22. Just goes to Show Ya by sycodon · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Just goes to Show Ya by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      HR could end up costing the company money as well...

      A few years back, my wife was in-and-out of the hospital for what turned out to be a rare congenital disorder (currently under control and in remission of sorts). When it began, I filed ADA paperwork with HR to the effect that, as her de-facto caretaker, I would occasionally have to work remotely or take off from work on occasion for her doc appointments. HR and my manager were understanding and quite fine with it; I just had to occasionally work odd hours to ensure that it never affected my performance.

      If Mr. Davis filed similar paperwork (he really should have, even before starting work there), the company may well end up eating a big judgement.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  23. What's wrong with this people? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 2

    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.