Really need to have a clear definition of "stay afloat"
Stockholm syndrome, man...
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
552 points (98.8% liked)
Work Reform
9970 readers
8 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That really is understated and underfocused on. They're trying to save face and be hire-able, but the reality is that "stay afloat" means millions spent on vintage cars while people like that family struggle towards their future. Stay afloat my ass. It's the sneering face of evil greed that equates to "staying afloat".
Just trying to survive, man... Paycheck to paycheck (that's thrown into Uncle Scrooges money bin).
Destiny 2 is where I stopped giving a shit about anything Bungie does....
It was great in the beginning. But yeah I'm not sure why anyone trusts the leadership who pulled a bait and switch on their customers.
They lost me after Halo Reach.
That would be destiny 1 season pass for me. Why am i paying for what's on the disc twice...?
I'm not a console player, so I had to wait till the sequel to have that shit happen to me. All I knew was "People like this Destiny thing, maybe Destiny 2 will be awesome?"
With Destiny 2 they kept releasing expansion packs every five seconds and actively removing older content from the game making me not sure which expansion packs will actually do anything, and confusing the shit out of newer players who can't keep up with the lore because older story missions were removed.
I liked the base game, but... then we had like 3 expansion packs drop in 6 months, and in that time we had to migrate the accounts from Blizzard to Steam, and all the packs were about the price of a whole new game....
They dragged me in to the MMOFPS concept, and immediately kicked me out when I didn't want to whale. Or at least, that's what it felt like
Oof. That whole last paragraph describes my relationship with Rockstar and GTA online.
I've said it once and I'll say it again (even though I'm not a big fan of bungie's sketchy business practices and gameplay decisions). ALL GAME STUDIOS NEED TO FOLLOW BETHESDAS EXAMPLE AND UNIONIZE.
Pete is a piece of shit.
That employee needs to get over her simping mentality and sue for the gender discrimination Bungie is blatantly guilty of. I don't give a shit if they happened to be doing a mass layoff at the same time; you don't get rid of somebody right before their already-scheduled maternity leave!
I'm not sure you have a case if the percentage of women on maternity leave in the fired group is roughly the same as in the non-fired group.
If it isn't illegal to fire people taking maternity leave specifically, which I don't think it is in the US, you're out of luck. The only illegal thing is firing people because of maternity leave. Since there was a mass layoff, it can easily be argued that the maternity leave was not the reason.
The US needs better labor laws, and thus unions. An individual can't do anything against it.
In fact, there's an argument to be made that they must terminate her, because Terminating everybody but those with scheduled maternity leave has a disparate impact on employees who are not pregnant.
There are two possibilities. Either:
-
The decision to lay the person off was made before the maternity leave was scheduled, in which case I'd argue she has a case for detrimental reliance, or
-
The decision to lay the person off was made after the maternity leave was scheduled, in which case a prima facie assumption is fair to make that the taking of leave obviously colored the supervisor's evaluation and contributed to the layoff, and the burden is on the employer to prove otherwise.
Or option 3: manager made sure not to discriminate against non-maternity-leave people by not overly firing them compared to people on maternity leave.
If they only fired people not on maternity leave, they could sue about being discriminated against.
Speaking to a lawyer? That'll be $400 an hour.
Seriously? It happened to someone I used to work with (last November). Except they laid her off while she was on maternity leave.
My wife was at home for 3 months before the birth of our child and 2 years afterward. I always considered that not enough.
I can't imagine living in a country where you could be laid off before or even worse during your maternity leave.
honestly it is also hard for me to imagine living in the country i live in
Your former coworker should sue, too.
view more: next ›