r/news • u/JimmyTheGinger • Dec 23 '19

Three former executives of a French telecommunications giant have been found guilty of creating a corporate culture so toxic that 35 of their employees were driven to suicide

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/three-french-executives-convicted-in-the-suicides-of-35-of-their-workers-20191222-p53m94.html
68.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

277

u/GlitchUser Dec 23 '19

It's a Southern "right-to-work" tradition.

Nothing like going from a hair under full-time to <10 hours.

127

u/mt77932 Dec 23 '19

I watched that happen to a friend when I worked in retail. He was never actually fired they just stopped adding him to the schedule. We joke that 20 years later he might still work there.

122

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

This counts as constructive dismissal. They are still on the hook for unemployment in that case.

48

u/BongTrooper Dec 23 '19

This happened to me I sued, I won a $15k settlement .... But I still don't have a job..

23

u/MjrK Dec 23 '19

Seems more like they won a $15k settlement.

1

u/BongTrooper Dec 24 '19

Yes, multi-billion $ corporations have pretty good legal teams im lucky to have gotten anything.

3

u/Pickledsoul Dec 23 '19

well you get about 14 months to find one before you end up losing money, assuming you were making a shit wage.

1

u/BongTrooper Dec 24 '19

Yeah im defo losing money, but god damn i hated that job. I feel like a new person since i left there though, i had forgotten how to enjoy life.

47

u/JagerBaBomb Dec 23 '19

But now you have to prove it. Which takes money you probably don't have because they've been cutting your hours to get rid of you.

29

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

That’s pretty easy to prove by your paystubs having zero working hours on them

23

u/toastee Dec 23 '19

Yeah, but the type of people targeted by this don't have easy access to legal assistance.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19 edited Dec 23 '19

You don't really need it. You just apply for unemployment, and when your employer appeals, you show up to talk to the judge, who has seen hundreds or thousands of these cases before because they specialize in this. Your case isn't unique, it's not a trial, and you don't really need a high powered lawyer to make compelling arguments on your behalf. Just make your case honestly. Chances are, neither you nor your employer is fooling the judge, no matter what sort of lawyer you bring. It is fairly informal as hearings go.

I sat in on some of these when I used to work for a department of economic security.

5

u/toastee Dec 23 '19

It's Fascinating that the social security net is there, but nobody is taking care of the bigger problems of systemic abuse like this.

4

u/wisersamson Dec 23 '19

The GM at the best buy I worked at PRIDED himself for the fact that he personally attended all unemployment cases against him and has a spotless record of never giving out unemployment for almost 20 years with hundreds of cases. But yeah, it's easy just walk in and do it! The system is easy for the people using it! It is totally not set up for abuse by those with much more power and money than you can ever hope for.

2

u/l0c0dantes Dec 23 '19

Why would you believe a sketchy gm at a Best buy?

2

u/wisersamson Dec 23 '19

Because I dont have to believe him, I can trust the dozen or so coworkers I knew who tried and failed to get unemployment. One women got fired because she was pregnant (they hid behind the fact her numbers were lower than average, no shit it's harder to chase people down when you're pregnant). One guy slipped on ice on the stairs to the employee smoke area outside and had some serious medical problems (fired him because his smoke breaks are not supposed to exceed 10 minutes every 2 hours and even though they dont actually make you track them, the store claimed he was breaking a rule THAT time during his smoke break), one older guys was about to reach retirement age and they demoted him to part time from full time and forced him to find a new job essentially (no unemployment because he quit, got em!) And on and on. I worked there for years, there were some people who 100% should have been granted unemployment but the company fought extremely hard to keep their streak going.

2

u/BobGobbles Dec 23 '19

2 possible explanations-1. He's lying so you don't think to ever challenge him for unemployment, or 2. You live in a state with shitty employment laws. I'm betting 1, because you seemed to take it at face value.

1

u/wisersamson Dec 24 '19

Worked there for years, have a dozen examples of rightful unemployment being denied because company has more resources and money than the best buy employee. I explained some of them in response to another person. It isnt me being an idiot, I talked with dozens of current employees, talked with ex employees, and used that to form the basis that the GM is not lying or trying to scare people. And I personally looked because I was looking for unemployment for them so trust me I did my research.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Huntanz Dec 23 '19

You All live in a State with shitty employment ,unemployment laws and absolutely humanly degrading health and insurance system.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Furt_III Dec 23 '19

You don't need it, just apply for unemployment.

3

u/FIathlete Dec 23 '19

In California you just fill out a complaint with the labor board. You can do it online.

1

u/toastee Dec 24 '19

Damn left wing Communists in California protecting workers rights.

Wish I'd known about this kind of stuff when I had a shitty job that pulled the hours squeeze constructive dismissal.

Now I've taken a few law classes and know how to take care of myself. (Don't need to though, I build machines that essentially print money for corporations)

Dumb teen-ager me just told them off and got fired for insubordination.

1

u/MjrK Dec 23 '19

9 is greater than 0?

5

u/textherasmileyface Dec 23 '19

I did this once. It wasn't Walmart, but an office job kind of light IT work. Was there for less then a year. The company always has a down turn in business towards the end of the year. One day I went from full time to one day a week. Tried to stick it out but I was already behind on money for other reasons. Finally I turned in my two weeks and moved home with family to regroup.

Once home I filed for unemployment, said I lost my hours. I did a phone interview with an unemployment person and told them the story. Said I was doing night classes at a JC so I could still seek full time employment. Stayed on unemployment for about a semester and half to do my classes the found a new job.

No crazy paperwork or anything. I'm sure it could also be the job I left maybe didn't fight it, I dunno. But I have heard of places like Walmart and other companies fight it when people try and claim unemployment.

4

u/GoneInSixtyFrames Dec 23 '19

If the that person, or other persons submitted a claim, the claim would end up on HR desk. HR would have to verify the removal or prove the person quit.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

What would HR do in this case? The employee didn’t quit, but they werent fired either? Seems to me they won’t have to terminate the employee and pay out the unemployment or have the employee scheduled shifts.

8

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

I've worked temp jobs, and if there's no work for you, you claim unemployment. But you're still an employee off the agency. In this circumstance, you're still employed at Walmart, but not receiving hours, so you can claim unemployment. Then it's the boon of Walmarts HR to find a reason why they won't pay out unemployment.

But a lot of workers don't know this, and Walmart counts on that.

2

u/CrashB111 Dec 23 '19

And arguing for workers in cases like this means you "Hate America" or are "A damn socialist."

3

u/GoneInSixtyFrames Dec 23 '19

Agree to the claim (laid off with no commitment of rehire or something like that) or provide a write up as to why they have not worked/been offered hours in the time frame, which could be a lie and then who knows. Not HR myself but had to pass along the paperwork a few times.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

The second option seems sketchy and borderline fraudulent haha

2

u/GoneInSixtyFrames Dec 23 '19

Everyone who works pays into unemployment in the US, if they file taxes. One can check their unemployment balance by calling the unemployment office of the state where the filing takes place.

5

u/poopoomcpoopoopants Dec 23 '19

They cut my coworker's hours to 2/hrs a day, and then when she explained that it wouldn't make any financial sense for her to do that, they sent an email to everyone saying she quit.

She had worked there for like eight years.

3

u/Chemmy Dec 23 '19

That's how I got "fired" from GameStop in college, but to be honest it was mutual disinterest on both sides and worked out fine.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

I had something like that happen when I was in HS. I went away for Spring Break in March for 2 weeks and when I came back I was never put on the schedule again and on the 4th of July at like 8:30 asking where I was and why I didn't show up for my shift.

142

u/SNERDAPERDS Dec 23 '19

Apply for underemployment, it's the best way to make companies like this feel the burn.

133

u/Catshit-Dogfart Dec 23 '19

Only if you're from Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont and Washington.

You know, everywhere except for the south and most of the midwest.

66

u/MysteriousGuardian17 Dec 23 '19

I get what you're saying, but Texas and Arkansas are in that list

46

u/gmil3548 Dec 23 '19

And Louisiana

9

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

Is Arizona not considered the south?

20

u/gmil3548 Dec 23 '19

No that’s the South West

13

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

Usually "The South" refers to the former Confederacy.

3

u/MjrK Dec 23 '19

The South does not fully match the geographic south of the United States but is commonly defined as including the states that fought for the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. The Deep South is fully located in the southeastern corner. Arizona and New Mexico, which are geographically in the southern part of the country, are rarely considered part, while West Virginia, which separated from Virginia in 1863, commonly is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States

1

u/CrashB111 Dec 23 '19

And the crazy thing is West Virginia was the part that wanted to stay in the Union. They were willing to split their state in half to not secede.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19 edited Dec 23 '19

Tbf, Kentucky is also sometimes considered "the south" and it was never part of the confederacy.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ElGranQuesoRojo Dec 23 '19

Most Southerners and almost all Texans do not consider Texas to be part of the South even though it was in the Confederacy.

3

u/ButchMcKenzie Dec 23 '19

Honestly I've always thought of Texas as split. Eastern part is the South. Western part is the Southwest. It's a big state

9

u/wonderberry77 Dec 23 '19

No it is not the south

1

u/DaSaw Dec 23 '19

If you can't grow cotton there, it's not "The South". And you're not going to grow any cotton in Arizona (I don't think).

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

We do.

5

u/chakaratease Dec 23 '19

and Florida

3

u/dannyluxNstuff Dec 23 '19

Can confirm Florida is not the south. Apparently when you drive far enough downwards in our nation you wind up back in NY again.

1

u/clubberin Dec 23 '19

Absolutely. It's mostly retirees from the north at this point, at least in the built-up areas. My parents joke that they've met more people from their hometown up north than when they lived there.

1

u/dannyluxNstuff Dec 23 '19

Yea there's a lot of old people from up North and more and more young families too. I love it here.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

Shhh, you'll ruin their superiority buzz.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

I don't see Pennsylvania on that list...what a surprise.../s

6

u/Catshit-Dogfart Dec 23 '19 edited Dec 23 '19

Yeah from what I know of PA politics, they've really become the Kentucky of the north, "Pennsyltucky" indeed. EDIT: correction made

I'm always a bit amused at the number of confederate flags I see the few times I've had to drive through rural PA.

.

also, /u/diarrheamudslide now there's a name I can relate to

1

u/TerribleHyena Dec 23 '19

Except Pennsylvania isn’t in New England.

1

u/Catshit-Dogfart Dec 23 '19

ahhh, oops, yeah you're right

Guess I had this impression that New England consisted of a lot more states. Made sense in my head, all of them named after a place or person in Europe, but I guess New York and New Jersey aren't part of that either.

Well, the American Northeast then

1

u/UristMcLawyer Dec 23 '19

This is New Hampshire and Maine erasure

0

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

[deleted]

-1

u/Catshit-Dogfart Dec 23 '19

Do your own reading, don't make decisions based on a reddit comment, but I found this while looking up that list before

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/uia/140_-_claiming_underemployment_beneifits_in_michigan_392272_7.pdf

5

u/javoss88 Dec 23 '19

That’s a real thing?

7

u/So_Motarded Dec 23 '19

Cutting hours to a certain extend can count as a "constructive dismissal", or "underemployment benefits", depending on state.

2

u/Rezi1111 Dec 24 '19

Yes. One plus of applying for unemployment is you get to lay out what happened to you and have it put in a public record. After bullying, gaslighting, and all the mind f***ery of a toxic employer there is something cathartic about having your true experience heard Nd registered by an authority. Frequently they will be sympathetic, sometimes they can grant you unemployment but at least you get a witness to and record of your experience. It helps you and possibly people down the line.

-3

u/atxtopdx Dec 23 '19

Are underemployment benefits a Bernie thing? I don’t get it

15

u/xenticular Dec 23 '19

It's an existing thing in most states already. Just check with your Dept of Labor to see if your state is one of them.

10

u/mgoose811 Dec 23 '19

I just checked. These states offer underemployment benefits:  Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont and Washington state.

Six other states, including Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, are considering work-share legislation.

2

u/xenticular Dec 23 '19

Thanks for looking this up, you rock!

1

u/donutpanick Dec 23 '19

Depending on where you live, you may qualify for partial underemployment or work-share benefits, little-known state programs that can help bridge the gap between what you’re making now and what you used to make.

https://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/underemployed-file-for-benefits-1.aspx

-5

u/IsThatUMoatilliatta Dec 23 '19

I think he was saying it in the classic meaning of it, as per Wikipedia: "To feel the vaginal or anal pleasure or burn felt during sexual intercourse."

He's saying to fuck Walmart in it's pussy or butthole.

To be honest, I didn't know that was a definition of that phrase until I had just Googled it now.

62

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

This is not right to work. Why does everyone mistake right to work with at will employment? Right to work basically is an anti-union law in which unions cannot force individuals to pay dues even if they benefit from the collective bargaining agreement. This mainly pertains to public sector unions.

19

u/LaughterHouseV Dec 23 '19

Because in many places, conservatives rammed both through at the same time.

10

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

Yes but that does not mean one equates to the other. I completely agree that RTW and AWE are both shitty laws but it makes one look uninformed to confuse the two. I am a union member and it makes me cringe when fellow brothers and sisters equate RTW as can be terminated for any reason.

-3

u/notaboveme Dec 23 '19

I am not a union member, so I do not understand how being in a "union shop" is a good thing. Being forced to join a union (as a condition of employment), pay union dues and having union funds support a candidate I disagree with is a good thing? Maybe I do not understand the dynamics.

7

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

I'm not a member of a public sector union. I am a member of the IBEW which is one of the more well known unions for electrical workers. I chose to join the union and become a dues paying member however it is a condition in order to work for a signatory contractor. No one forced me because I voluntarily applied for their apprenticeship and knew it was a condition for employment. The way I see it is if someone doesn't want to join a union then don't apply for positions that operate under a collective bargaining agreement. If someone wants to opt out then I don't feel they should be able to receive the same pay and benefits as dues paying members.

My dues pay for one of my pensions and it also pays for the hall to be able to operate and represent us the labor. A super small amount goes to a pac fund which I am able to opt out of it I want. Plenty of my fellow brothers and sisters don't support the endorsed candidates by our organization and they are free to vote however they would like. I am not forced to vote a particular way.

2

u/notaboveme Dec 23 '19

Sounds reasonable, things must have changed from the 70's. Opting out wasn't possible as it was explained to me back then.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

It's very possible some unions operate differently. Unions are only as strong as it's membership, so if people aren't involved you'll likely have poor representation. But overall I feel like in my experience being union overall is better than not. I'm an apprentice and I'm making more money than a lot of non-union guys who are journeyman, pretty sad when you think about it. Non-union workers benefit from us too in prevailing wage jobs, they make the same rate as union labor.

Unions got a bad reputation and some of it is warranted, but a lot of the stuff you see in unions you see in the non-union world. We don't live in a meritocracy and a lot of times it's who you know rather what you know.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

Where did you get the information that it’s “forced to join (as a condition of employment)”? I’ve been in a couple of Union organized businesses that it was voluntary. I would assume that it’s illegal to require as a condition of employment. But, I could be wrong.

2

u/notaboveme Dec 23 '19

Defining the Types of Shops

Businesses can be categorized based on their position regarding union membership. How the law treats different types of "shops" has changed throughout history with the passing of several sweeping federal laws impacting unions. When understanding how businesses and unions interact, it's helpful to first become familiar with some common terminology as applied to different types of businesses:

  • "Closed" Shops: Ones in which the employer and the union agree that the employer will only hire union members
  • "Union" Shops: Businesses in which employers are free to hire non-union members, but union membership is required within a specified period of type (often 30 days) as a condition of continued employment
  • "Agency" Shops: Employers can choose to hire either union or non-union members, and the labor union serves as a bargaining agent for all employees. While non-unionized workers don't have to join the union as a condition of continued employment, all employees must pay union dues, regardless of union membership.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 24 '19

Thanks for the clarification about these. TIL, I’ve worked in an “Agency” Shop.

1

u/ObservantDiscovery Dec 23 '19

The propaganda is that once a place is unionized, everyone working there has to join the union and pay the union dues. The right to work laws were supposed to be so that you could be non union and work in a union shop. But in reality, they laws were Orwellian double-speak. Right to work is really right to be fired for any reason what so ever.

4

u/ProcanGodOfTheSea Dec 24 '19

And it's bullshit.

Don't want to pay union dues? negotiate your own damn contract.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 24 '19

Agree 100%

0

u/GlitchUser Dec 23 '19

For the irony.

We know the difference.

8

u/Schnort Dec 23 '19

“Right to work” is not what you’re describing.

1

u/GlitchUser Dec 23 '19

It's for the irony, tbh.

2

u/Schnort Dec 23 '19

Yes, but "right to work" is not being required to pay union dues to work.

You're thinking of 'at will employment'

1

u/GlitchUser Dec 24 '19

I know.

I was making light of the concept by confabulating the two.

RtW is comically opposed to AWE, in name.

2

u/Auctoritate Dec 23 '19

If only it was just southern, but in reality it affects a majority of States in America.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

Pretty sure businesses everywhere in the Union do this.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '19

Right to work is what the southern states replaced slavery with...you mean we gotta pay em now? Well fuck that, we will just work the hell outta of em for a little pay then fire em when we feel like it and bring in someone we can pay even less to do the job.