Software Engineer's Firing Ruled Illegal in a Rare Win for a Tech Worker
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
On the other hand they've shown everyone they have backbone and that Atlassian ss petty and engages in illegal retaliation. So the company may be forced to be on its best behavior with this person in the future.
Many worker relations ombuds around the world has procedures for exactly this scenario.
Hell, I reckon the majority of 'illegal' firings does not result in rehiring the injured party.
If you have a better design lets see it please.
> The ruling found that the engineer, Denise Unterwurzacher, had a federally backed right to make such comments because she made them as part of a collective effort to aid or protect co-workers.
> The judge ordered the company to reinstate Ms. Unterwurzacher to her former job or an equivalent position, and to make her whole financially. It is one of the most significant outcomes in years in a case involving the labor rights of a tech worker.
Atlassian said it planned to appeal the ruling, however.
I think it'd be cheaper to keep her at this point. I'd tell your lawyer's egos to take a chill pill.
Of course, they won't stop firing employees who point out inconvenient truths, they'll just be more careful about the reasons they put in writing.
But these words belie the fact that stare decisis is largely a social construct for the judiciary. The right case and (very) persuasive argument could and does overcome precedent of any level in any court. It's just a matter of framing this case as "different" enough in a way that your reviewers (whether a higher court or a political concern) will agree with.
Employees can take up a huge amount of resources and then leave before costs are recovered.
I’m really not sure how we can conclude that the freedom is symmetrical.
The fact that this story made national news says everything about how rare it is for an employer to win a case like this. In most cases you just get fired for any reason with no notice or off-ramp. The employer is just always correct by default and you can easily be denied unemployment insurance because the company cooked up some official looking documents showing that you were fired with cause.
A corporation can spread risk by having 1,000 employees. I can’t have 1,000 jobs. It’s just not equal on both sides.
I mean, “incredible freedom is equal on both sides,” in the only developed country where there’s no mandatory paid parental leave and basic healthcare access depends on employment? Spare me.
Employment is an free arrangement between two entities, not a modern day serfdom where the employers are now responsible for their serfs housing, food, etc.
Small businesses definitely feel a squeeze that bigger companies don’t, but they’re not saints to be put on a pedestal, either.
In that regard, small businesses get a ton of carve-outs. For example, they don’t have to pay healthcare benefits to full time employees. They are exempt from a slew of regulations targeted at larger businesses.
I don’t really have the same reverence for small businesses that a lot of people do. They’re just companies. Some are good, some are bad. When you work for one, there’s still a power distance between you and the owner.
I find that many small business owners are taking things way too personally. Their business is their baby and therefore any employee that doesn’t have a grindset like them is taking advantage of them.
The small businesses I respect are the ones that move toward employee ownership. Employees who own the company care about the company and don’t try to screw it over. Problem solved.
Yeah, no corporate bias here whatsoever
Come on; there are such obvious imbalances of power here that "each side has incredible freedom" is blatantly misleading.
On the one hand, you have each individual software engineer (because heaven forbid we should ever join unions! Those are for people who aren't A+ 10x alpha coders and negotiators, amirite?), every one of whom needs a salary so they can afford food, clothing, shelter, etc.
On the other hand, you have a group of the most wealthy and powerful countries the world has ever seen, who openly work together, have the ear of the flagrantly-corrupt president, and could coast on their cash reserves for, in some cases, many years even if every single customer decided to boycott them all at once.
And you think that "each side has incredible freedom" is a meaningful statement here...?
Only if customers don’t care about your labor practices. For me this story screams “Don’t Use or Recommend Atlassian - in fact, strongly advise against it.”
To me this reads as: Atlassian says it doesn’t want customers.
Happy to oblige. Our $100 million startup moved off Atlassian recently, and we couldn’t be happier.
No reason stated is trickier if the employee shows a timeline/cause and effect then gets discovery in court. Also, firing for no reason would not be very believable in itself compared to a timeline.
This is why employers even get extra careful with documentation in some situations where they have cause but also potential legal issues.
I guess I’ve been vindicated. I’ll be accepting apologies.