Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
I’m guessing it’s because he’s a prick. That’s it, isn’t it?
Good excuse to lay off without paying unemployment while power-tripping. That's all these kinds of things usually are about.
LLMs for code completion cause me more button presses and clicks to ignore them over standard code completion and the chat doesn't help people who think logically and conceptually only ones who think verbally. So, it's useless to me.
Extremely doubtful that this would rise to a firing that was justified enough that would preclude the employees seeking unemployment. They would really want to have a longer paper trail than "CEO sent a slack message and then a meeting a week later." Not saying that this was an illegal firing. This was just power tripping.
Nah, most employers have lots of stuff in their back pocket on almost every employee. That's mostly what HR is for these days. Think you got away with forgetting to put in your PTO day that one time you were sick 5 years ago? Nah, that's just a fireable ofence to use against you later for theft. But this is enough on its own to justify an insubordination firing in most "right to work" states in the US.
Aren't ALL States "Right To Work For Less" ?
"Right to Work" refers to the concept that companies don't need a valid reason to fire someone without notice or severance benefits.
It's marketed as employees not needing a reason to quit or change jobs, but that's not really true anyway considering most of the states allow binding non-compete agreements and your health insurance is tied to your employment and usually impossible to get at similar cost outside of the employer group market due to "stop loss" policies and other risk sharing plans.
And there aren't many laws anyway that prevent employees from leaving a job without a reason in non-binary"right to work" states, so the only real advantage is to companies.
I know what Right To Work is. I just thought literally almost all states had Right To Work legislation on the books
A little over half have them. But several other states do have anti-union laws that are similar to that part of the right to work laws. So that's not all that different across states anymore even though that's what the laws were originally supposed to be for.
The other smaller part of the laws that's actually usually more impactful these days especially for bigger cities, is that local governments can't make laws to limit firings and without unions to make agreements around what kind of things people can be fired for, it effectively allows businesses to fire people "with cause" (i.e. they can't get unemployment) for things that wouldn't be fireable offenses in many other places. This causes large cities to end up with having to support a lot more unemployed people when big companies use these kinds of tactics to fire a lot of people.
For example, often "insubordination" doesn't require that the thing you were told to do and didn't do was in your employment contract. Like a salaried employee who's contractually obligated to work a minimum of 35-40 hours refusing to work an 18hr day when they've already worked 18hr days all week is generally easier to fire someone for "insubordination" for than in some other states that treat employment contracts as actual contracts.
There's nothing stopping them from firing you, but a one time offense will not get the government to deny you you unemployment, assuming you appeal any denial. Especially if the only other ammo they have is from five years ago.
Nope, Texas had no problem denying my unemployment and appeal when the company had a major change in leadership and I wasn't interested in playing politics. They came up with some made up excuse that I was not coming to the office daily per the policy. And my boss had already been pushed out of his role as COO and Executive VP and moved to a marketing director job with no real power, so he couldn't help.
When I was fired the date they gave that I hadn't come in I was able to present evidence to the unemployment when I came in the office and left because traffic was bad that day and I took the toll road and had the receipt. So, they came back with another day. That one I hadn't used the toll road and since I wasn't allowed to get other employees to say they saw me there, so I had no evidence that wasn't fully under the control of the company. That was enough for them to rule I was insubordinate by not coming into the office for 8 hrs/day when it was policy to do so. Forget that I was paid salary and worked way more than 40hrs a week. And that I was doing way more than I was supposed to be based on my job title and I was barely being paid anything for what I was doing. They weren't saying I wasn't working enough. Just that I violated that one rule even one time was enough for unemployment to be denied. That's all it takes. I could have appealed higher, but that would have required a lawyer and would have cost more than the pittance I would have gotten from the unemployment anyway.
So, yes, refusing a direct instruction, even once, is even more severe than that and likely would be enough to have your unemployment denied in a "right to work" state.
. these are things that were told on glassdoors, indeed forums/reviews. before the companies came after job sites years ago, for exposing thier unethical business praticies.