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.
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"must be available oncall 24/7" and that included coming to office then I can understand him having his job offer rescinded regardless of his personal circumstances.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).
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.
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.
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)
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)
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
And my favourite:
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.
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.
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
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.
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?