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.
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.
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.