Fired software engineer sues Wayfair for mistreatment over caregiving, age
bostonglobe.com
bostonglobe.com
If a company I worked for did that I would immediately start looking for a new job. I'm not a caregiver, I don't have kids, and it wouldn't affect me as a policy, but the idea that the company I work for could be so completely unfeeling and unreasonable, and would choose to ignore the reality of what's happening in people's lives, means it would instantly become a place I wouldn't want to work at any more.
The fact is most people, especially in tech jobs at large companies, put in way more time and effort than they're actually supposed to. For the company to think that's OK but then to cut wages or fire people as soon as that person isn't able to put in 100% for a short time due to a global pandemic is just a dick move. And the number one rule in life is really simple: don't be a dick.
And that's probably why you can say "Ah, my employer is being a dick, time for me to quit!"
People who are parents, caregivers, and breadwinners might not so easily be able to walk away from 80% of their current salary and risk having 0% for the foreseeable future while they look for uncertain future employment during a pandemic.
I didn't say I'd leave. I said I'd start looking for a new role. Leaving before you have a new job to go to is a terrible idea in this situation.
Why would they make such 'considerations' public to employees, so they can take a hint an find another job?
then how do we know this was wayfair. really confusing.
> In addition to working parents seeking legal counsel, employers have been trying to figure out their legal obligation to employees with school-age children during the pandemic. One employer was reportedly considering cutting caregivers’ salaries by 20 percent to compensate for an anticipated drop in productivity, according to a Boston employment lawyer.
I don't get how this was supposed to work. He's just putting his employer before the fact that he is going to be working less hours for same pay? Or I'm misinterpreting and it's supposed to mean something else? Why didn't he ask for paternity leave or didn't try to negotiate for a different schedule?
- he alleges his productivity didn't change - his availability changed due to the unpredictability of his children's needs, but "he always made up the time he spent helping his sons, he said"
- he believed this was OK: "especially considering messages from upper management noting that parents with school-aged children shouldn’t be penalized"
- he alleges his direct manager was unresponsive to his communication about the change in his personal circumstances -- one imagines that he was hoping she would work with him to figure out a path forward that worked for all parties
These are just claims in a lawsuit that are yet to be tested in court. It seems to me like it's quite possible three things are true: (1) Wayfair had the right to fire him, (2) Wayfair shouldn't have fired him, and (3) even if they should have fired him, they handled it poorly.
The obvious solution being for Mrs. DiBona to retire and apply herself full-time to raising the kids. That would totally free-up Richard DiBonas' time.
Seriously though, no business owes an employee extra privileges in relation to their domestic arrangements.
Apathetic capitalism.
We could expand this statement by saying no business owes a disabled employee extra access, or no business owes an employee maternity leave.
If this is true and he met important deadlines, it is difficult for the company to justify his removal. They lose a quality employee for basically no reason, especially given the decentralized (remote) nature of work these days.
Glad to be living in France, where you must have a good reason to fire people.
I brought this up to my manager ONCE, only by saying having children during this time is difficult, and thankfully was not fired.
I think our society is in trouble if we cannot support one another during ups and downs. Is this apathetic capitalism the standard in the US?
You have a very low bar expectations of getting fired.
The lowest bar I ever saw was a woman, but a new mother (baby was at home), get 'let go' after she came to me asking me how she could keep her job, because the managers were not giving her any work. I tried to give her some of my overflow, but was later scolded for doing so, and she was 'let go' that Friday. This is among many experiences I've had, including witnessing some nasty acts against my wife when she was 'let go'. The manager who fired my wife was at our wedding just a couple months before.
Apathetic capitalism reigns supreme.
Simply look around any tech center company and look around. It’s mostly younger crowd. The graybeards are few and far between and in mostly few senior roles.
Even transferring to middle management doesn’t help much. The same type of younger crowd are brought in to keep up the appearances. The olds are few and far between in director and up roles.
It’s simple reality that happens, there’s an age cutoff, and it’s not as old as people think. It’s definitely not the official retirement age.
Keeping up with latest tech stack helps. Moving up the seniority levels helps. Moving from company to company helps.
Entrepreneurship helps, you as owner can hire yourself, but you’ll most likely hire younger people for your company, which perpetuates the ageism cycle.
There seems to be a growing not-a-joke joke of waiting to age out of tech and start their next career as the thing they actually want to do.
> Even transferring to middle management doesn’t help much. The same type of younger crowd are brought in to keep up the appearances. The olds are few and far between in director and up roles.
I think you have to be more specific. I could totally believe that WRT to SV tech startups and other younger companies, but they often seemed focused on fashion and in some cases be places where only the young and stupid would be willing to work.
There are "tech-centered companies that" are different. For instance I work at a company that's basically evolved to be a tech company, and if anything, our development groups skew old.
Personally, I'm still worried more about outsourcing than ageism.
Not to say that specific instances of ageism don't exist or aren't a problem, but in the context of "planning for it in my career" I haven't seen evidence that would make malice more likely than other factors for tech's age distribution. Does that evidence exist?
Overall it's a pretty lousy line of work, but it beats being an Uber/Instacart serf... what a world.
So, since not every company is FAANG that can appeal to and are constantly looking for those brilliant brains, there are many companies in which experience will help you to improve your position and salary.
I think this is the key. I'm over 50, and never had any issues with ageism (or none that I'm aware of). I took a new position in Nov. and was lucky enough to be able to pick and choose, as there is a shortage of people that can do the work.
If you're more expensive then average, you have to have skills that pay better then average. If your competing against recent grads with much lower cost, you have to be able to show the value in paying you more.
I suspect as techies, we just assumed the "20% raise at each new position" would continue forever. Now we have to work harder to show why we're worth the additional cost.