[nopehnnope]

This is the unintended consequence of anti discrimination laws (and other laws, like those protecting unions, that defeat at-will employment). Easiest way to fire shitty employees is to document a bunch of technical rule violations. That will create a rock solid paper trail that will stand up in court. Otherwise, they will claim some kind of discrimination and it’s your word about their performance against theirs calling you a racist/sexist/whatever.

[sillystuff]

This is the result of managers who have no idea how to do the tasks of the employees they are "managing". E.g., non-technical manager managing technical employees who uses silly metrics like LOC because he/she has no idea how to evaluate the employee's performance.

Also, upper management somehow feel that their middle and lower managers can be trusted to act like adults while the people who do the actual work cannot be.

The proper solution is getting rid of management, and letting workers get their jobs done.

https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-managers

https://www.inventium.com.au/learned-fired-managers/

[nopehnnope]

It’s not about management, it’s about convincing a jury that knows absolutely nothing about your company and industry except what two lawyers argue to it.

[sophacles]

The surveillance software is installed by incompetent management.

[helloworld97]

That's some pretzel logic there. They can't arbitrarily implement/enforce rules without first disclosing them, and it looks bad in a court of peers if they start doing this haphazardly. I would actually say it's easier for them to get away with this in an at-will environment without these rules.

"Position was eliminated" works pretty well (in the US).

[Spooky23]

The goal is to keep it out of court or some other tribunal.

Without a contract, discrimination law is the sole course of action to fight an adverse employer situation.

Eliminating a position leaves a company open for problems, particularly if it isn’t true. Much easier to determine that you didn’t charge vacation time correctly or violated a series of minor/moderate rules.

[IMTDb]

> "Position was eliminated" works pretty well.

Unless you also happen to be recruiting for that same position, or if your local legislation asks that you prioritise relocating your current employees in other jobs over firing them if their position disappears.

[nopehnnope]

It’s great that you think that, but what I described is what the government does (because of civil service protections) and what every sane HR department with a high legal risk workforce does. Any US employment lawyer would advise that you follow this practice.

[helloworld97]

What world do you live in where anti-discrimination laws aren't already aren't already utilized by the employers you've referenced? It's really hard to get fired as a US Federal Government or Union employee (based on what I've seen from both in a Midwest state, for United Auto Workers) and the EEOC has had historically strong support for employees for the entities I've cited.

Private entities will do what they've always done and my original comment succinctly describes the default outcome. Nothing has changed.

[swatcoder]

That’s interesting. Do you have a reference for that?

With workplace control seeming to predate worker protection by a century, you wouldn’t expect that. But it’s always exciting when intuitions get subverted. I’d love to read more of how the historian who proposed this put together their argument. Do you have a link handy?

[swayvil]

Re : documenting transgressions.

Local food co-op. Very modern hippy. Nice place.

Every employee has a dossier on file. Every time a rule is broken it goes into the dossier.

If, for whatever reason, you are fired. The dossier is cited as legal justification.

I guess this is perfectly rational from a businessy perspective, and a common tactic. But still.

[s1artibartfast]

I knew a lawyer that did workers comp and that's how he ran his firm. He kept a private file on every employee since they started to cover his ass waiting for when he wanted one gone.

[unity1001]

You talk as if the corporations havent kept squeezing more labor out of their employees throughout 20th century. Regardless of any laws and regulations. They would keep doing it even if anti discrimination laws did not exist. They may be using that for an excuse now. They would use another excuse to make people work until death if there weren't any such laws.

[mtberatwork]

> and other laws, like those protecting unions, that defeat at-will employment

This is backwards. Union membership is at its all time low and at-will employment has mostly taken over. A union would be the best tool to curb "boss-ware".

[nopehnnope]

Union membership is down but anti-discrimination laws are as strong as ever. I was just saying that in companies that are unionized, there is a strong incentive for management to turn to rigid rules and documentation of minor transgressions.

[jacquesm]

This is complete nonsense. The easiest way to fire shitty employees is to fire them for being shitty, which you should have documented to begin with.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anti discrimination law.

[dleslie]

Ok, now prove that they are shitty so you can fire them.

[nopehnnope]

That “complete nonsense” is what US employment lawyers would advise you. But hey, some French guy on the internet knows more.

[jacquesm]

That 'French' guy owned a US company at some point.

[bobkazamakis]

owning a company sure takes a lot of ... file a document

[thfuran]

Attempting to circumvent anti discrimination laws by documenting and firing over technical violations only for the class you aren't allowed to discriminate against doesn't improve the legal situation vs simply discriminating more straightforwardly and firing without cause. Firing for cause rather than without can avoid severance payout though.

[nopehnnope]

In theory but most plaintiffs employment lawyers (working on contingency) aren’t going to invest that much time and money for a run of the mill anti discrimination lawsuit.